While many studies have analyzed EIS procedures, only a few have analyzed EISs as part of the development process. When viewed from this perspective, EISs are shown to have a skewing effect on territorial development; they address mainly infrastructure projects, and consequently delay them, but hardly touch any of the residential projects which the infrastructure is designed to serve. This discrepancy can have deleterious consequences due to residential encroachment on various infrastructure facilities, as well as due to the growing shortfall of transport and environmental infrastructure. When EISs are analyzed in terms of project area, areas where impacts and benefits are felt, and administrative control zones, it becomes apparent that the impacts and benefits analyzed may be affected by the spatial scope of administrative control and project areas. A case in point is the 'Kalanit' landfill in Israel. Here the benefit and impact areas analyzed in the EIS were affected by the jurisdiction of the committee that requested the EIS and to which it was submitted. This discrepancy between benefit, impact and administrative control areas is also at the source of the emerging interest in cross-boundary EIA.