Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia

References

• AdelleC, WeilandS. 2012. Policy assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 10.1080/14615517.2012.663256.
   Google Scholar
• AhammedAKMR, NixonBM. 2006. Environmental impact monitoring in the EIA process of South Australia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:426–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AnjaneyuluY, ManickamV. 2007. Environmental impact assessment methodologies. Hyderabad: BS Publications.
   Google Scholar
• BaileyJ. 1997. Environmental impact assessment and management: an under explored relationship. Environ Manage. 21:317–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BakerA, WoodCh. 1999. An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 19:387–404.
   Google Scholar
• BeanlandsGE, Duinker,PN. 1984. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 18:267–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ. 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 10.1080/14615517.2012.661974.
   Google Scholar
• BravanteMA, HoldenWH. 2009. Going through the motions: the environmental impact assessment of nonferrous metals mining projects in the Philippines. Pac Rev. 22:523–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrymanA. 2004. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• CampionBB, EsselG. 2013. Environmental impact assessment and sustainable development in Africa: a critical review. Environ Nat Resour Res. 10.5539/enrr.v3n2p37.
   Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, BondA, SadlerB. 2009. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 10.3152/146155109X454285.
   Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, GwilliamR, MorganR, CobbD, BondA. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 10.3152/147154604781765860.
   Google Scholar
• ChristensenP. 2006. Danish experiences on EIA of livestock projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:468–480.
   Google Scholar
• DenscombeM. 1998. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• EllingB. 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms?Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 10.3152/146155109X454294.
   Google Scholar
• EmmelinL. 2006. Effective environmental assessment tools – critical reflections on concepts and practice. Karlskrona (Sweden): Blekinge Institute of Technology. Research report no. 2006:03.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2007. Environmental integration handbook for EC development co-operation. Brussels: European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2012. Environment and development [Internet]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/development_en.htm.
   Google Scholar
• GilpinA. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: cutting edge for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 182.
   Google Scholar
• GoodwinM. 2004. Constructing and interpreting qualitative data. In: BondA. (ed) Writing your Master's Thesis: How to Plan, Draft, Develop and Publish your Thesis. Somerset: Studymates Ltd; p. 21–34.
   Google Scholar
• HackingT, GuthrieP. 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28:73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmer C. 2005. Is improving the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment in the UK dependent on the use of follow-up? Views of environmental consultants [Internet]. Available from: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/all/teaching/eiaams/pdf_dis sertations/2005/Harmer_Clare.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• HeinmaK, PõderT. 2010. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment system in Estonia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:272–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HickieD, WadeM. 1998. Development of guidelines for improving the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 18:267–287.
   Google Scholar
• IUCN, CLEAA, ECA. 2007. African experts workshop on effectiveness of environmental impact assessment systems [Internet]. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: United Nations Conference Centre, 2007 April 12–13. Available from: http://www.encapafrica.org/documents/cleaa/African_Experts_Workshop_on_Review_of_Effectiveness_of_EIA_Systems_April_2007_full_report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• JayS, JonesC, SlinnP, WoodC. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27:287–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Justice and Environment. 2009. Access to justice in Slovakia. In: Aarhus Toolkits: access to justice in environmental matters. Brno: Justice and Environment – European Association of Environmental Law Organisations; p. 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• KikerGA, BridgesTS, VargheseA, SeagerTP, LinkovjjI. 2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manage. 1:95–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KolhoffAJ, DriessenPPJ, RunhaarHAC. 2013. An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries – illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komen M. 2011. Review of environmental assessment & management [Internet]. Available from: http://www.custodianproject.co.za/index.php?option = com_k2&view = item&id = 8:strategy-for-environmental-assessment-management.
   Google Scholar
• KruopienėJ, Z˘idonieneS, DvarionienėJ. 2009. Current practice and shortcomings of EIA in Lithuania. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29:305–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KruopienėJ, ŽidonienėS, DvarionienėJ, MikalauskasA. 2008. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Lithuania. Environ Res Eng Manage. 2:28–33.
   Google Scholar
• LeeN, ColleyR, BondeJ, SimpsonJ. 1999. Reviewing the quality of environmental assessments and environmental appraisals. Occasional Paper No. 55. Manchester: EIA Centre, University of Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• MahinyAS, MomeniI, KarimiS. 2011. Towards improvement of environmental impact assessment methods – a case study in Golestan Province, Iran. World Appl Sci. 15:151–159.
   Google Scholar
• MararaM, OkelloN, KuhanwaZ, DouvenW, BeeversL, LeentvaarJ. 2011. The importance of context in delivering effective EIA: case studies from East Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31:286–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MarshallC, RossmanGB. 1999. Designing qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• MayT. 2001. Social research: issues, methods and process. 3th ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment. 2011. State of the environment of the Slovak Republic in 2012. Bratislava/Banská Bystrica: Ministry of Environment/Slovak Environmental Agency, (in Slovak).
   Google Scholar
• [MoE] Ministry of Environment. 2010. State of the Environment of the Slovak Republic in 2009. Bratislava/Banské Bystrica: Ministry of Environment/Slovak Environmental Agency, (in Slovak).
   Google Scholar
• [MoE] Ministry of Environment. 2012. State of the Environment of the Slovak Republic in 2011. Bratislava/Banská Bystrica: Ministry of Environment/Slovak Environmental Agency, (in Slovak).
   Google Scholar
• [MoE] Ministry of Environment. 2013. State of the Environment of the Slovak Republic in 2012. Bratislava/Banská Bystrica: Ministry of Environment/Slovak Environmental Agency, (in Slovak).
   Google Scholar
• MorganRK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, BakerJ, ArtsJ. 2003. EIA follow-up. Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21:43–56.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, MarshallR, ArtsJ. 2007. EIA Follow-up. International best practice principles [Internet]. Special Publication Series No. 6. Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available from: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/pdf/special-publications/SP6.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NadeemO, HameedR. 2006. A critical review of the adequacy of EIA reports-evidence from Pakistan. World Acad Sci Eng Technol. 23:64–70.
   Google Scholar
• NobleBF, MachariaSN. 2003. Towards a working framework for ‘best’-practice EA follow-up: lessons from Canadian case studies. Prairie Perspect. 7:209–226.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2011. OECD environmental performance reviews: Slovak Republic 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• PanigrahiJK, AmirapuS. 2012. An assessment of EIA system in India. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 35:23–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavličková K, Kozová M, Belc˘áková I, Drdos˘ J, Paudits˘ová E, Kalivodová E. 2009. Landscape ecology in environmental impact assessment. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, p. 107 (in Slovak).
   Google Scholar
• PinhoP, MaiaR, MonterrosoA. 2006. The quality of Portuguese environmental impact studies; the case of small hydropower projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27:189–205.
   Google Scholar
• PölönenI. 2006. Quality control and the substantive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:481–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PölönenI, HokkanenP, JalavaK. 2011. The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system – what works, what doesn't, and what could be improved?Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31:120–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PopeJ, BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, RetiefF. 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 41:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RetiefF. 2010. The evolution of environmental assessment debates: critical perspectives from South Africa. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 12:375–397.
   Google Scholar
• Ross W. 2002. The independent environmental watchdog: a Canadian experiment in EIA follow-up. Paper presented at: IAIA'02 Assessing the Impact of Impact Assessment: Impact Assessment for Informed Decision-making, IA follow-up workshop, 15–21 June, The Hague, The Netherlands [CD ROM].
   Google Scholar
• RunhaarH, van LaerhovenF, DriessenP, Jos ArtsJ. 2013. Environmental assessment in the Netherlands: effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 39:13–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SadlerB. 1996. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• SenécalP, GoldsmithB, ConoverS, SadlerB, BrownK. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice. Fargo, North Dakota: International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute of Environmental Assessment; p. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• SharmaBM. 2010. Public hearing in the EIA process of hydropower development. J Water Energy Environ. 7:81–84.
   Google Scholar
• SilvermanD. 2005. Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• SimpsonJ. 2001. Developing a review package to assess the quality of EA reports of local authority structure and local plans in the UK. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 21:83–95.
   Google Scholar
• Storey K. 2002. Socio-economic effects monitoring: towards a more ‘bio-physical’ approach. Paper presented at: IAIA'02 Assessing the Impact of Impact Assessment: Impact Assessment for Informed Decision-Making, IA Follow-Up Workshop; 2002 June 15-21; The Hague, The Netherlands, published on CD ROM, Assessing the Impact of Impact Assessment – All Conference Documents (IAIA and VVM).
   Google Scholar
• TaylorSJ, BogdanR. 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and resource. 3rd ed. Chicheste: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• ToroJ, RequenaI, ZamoranoM. 2010. Environmental impact assessment in Colombia: critical analysis and proposals for improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:247–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UnderwoodA. 1991. Beyond BACI: experimental designs for detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations. Aust J Mar Freshwater Res. 42:569–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNEP. 2002. EIA training resource manual. Training resource manual [Internet]. 2nd ed.. Available from: http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIAMan_2edition_toc.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Walker LJ, Johnston J. 1999. Guidelines for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well as impact interactions [Internet]. Available from: eia.enviroportal.sk/dokument.php?id = 49094.
   Google Scholar
• WilkinsH. 2003. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23:401–414.
   Google Scholar
• WoodC. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wood Ch, Barker A, Jones C, Hughes J. 1996. Evaluation of the performance of the eia process [Internet]. Manchester: EIA Centre, University of Manchester. Final report. Volume 1: main report. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/eiaperform.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2012. Guidance notes on tools for pollution management. In Getting to green: a sourcebook of pollution management policy tools for growth and competitiveness [Internet]. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ENVIRONMENT/Resources/Getting_to_Green_web.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• ZhangJ, KørnøvL, ChristensenP. 2013. Critical factors for EIA implementation: literature review and research options. J Environ Manage. 114:148–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zvijáková L, Zeleňàkovà M.2012Questionnaire Survey. Technical University of Košice, Faculty of Civil Engineering. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar