Meta-analysis of EIA public hearings in the state of Gujarat, India: its role versus the goal of environmental management

References

• AndréP, EnserinkB, ConnorD, CroalP. 2006. Public participation international best practice principles. Special Publication Series No. 4. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• BadrEA. 2009. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Egypt. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(3):193–203.
   Google Scholar
• ChávezBV, BernalAS. 2008. Planning hydroelectric power plants with the public: a case of organizational and social learning in Mexico. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 26(3):163–176.
   Google Scholar
• CuppenM, BroekhansB, EnserinkB. 2012. Public participation in EIA and attitude formation. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(2):63–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiduckA, SinclairJ, PratapD, HostetlerG. 2007. Achieving meaningful public participation in the environmental assessment of hydro development: case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 25(3):219–231.
   Google Scholar
• DuJ, YangF, XuL, HarashinaS, LiB. 2010. Characteristics of public participation in EA: the potential to improve sustainable environmental management in China. J Sustain Dev. 3(2):187–193.
   Google Scholar
• [Framework] Framework of the Dutch–Romanian Government to Government Programme. 2010. From public debate to public dialogue – a guideline on public consultation in SEA and EIA procedures in Romania. The Netherlands: Ameco Environmental Services & Ministry of Economic Affairs; p. 12–13; [Cited 2013 May 6]. Available from: http://api.commissiemer.nl/docs/mer/diversen/os_romanai_public_participation_in_eia_and_sea.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• [GPCB] Gujarat Pollution Control Board. 2013. Public hearing (schedule & MOM). Gandhinagar (India): Government of Gujarat; [cited 2013 May 6]. Available from: http://gpcb.gov.in.
   Google Scholar
• GrayI, Edward-JonesG. 2003. A review of environmental statements in the British forest sector. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21:303–312.
   Google Scholar
• HartleyN, WoodC. 2005. Public participation in environmental impact assessment – implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assess Rev. 25:319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [IAIA] International Association for Impact Assessment. 1999. Principles of EIA best practice. USA: IAIA.
   Google Scholar
• JalavaK, PasanenS, SaalastiM, KuitunenM. 2010. Quality of environmental impact assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinions of EIA professionals. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 28(1):15–27.
   Google Scholar
• KahangirweP. 2011. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice in Western Uganda. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 29(1):79–83.
   Google Scholar
• KengneCVN, EvounaSEM, BitondoD. 2013. Public hearings in environmental and social impact assessment for energy sector projects in Cameroon. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 31(1):64–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KolhoffAJ, RunhaarHAC, DriessenPPJ. 2009. The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(4):271–282.
   Google Scholar
• LawalAM, BouzarovskiS, ClarkJ. 2013. Public participation in EIA: the case of West African gas pipeline and tank farm projects in Nigeria. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 31(3):226–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MartinT. 2007. Muting the voice of the local in the age of the global: how communication practices compromised public participation in India's Allain Dunhangan environmental impact assessment. Environ Commun J Nat Cult. 1(2):171–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [MoEF] Ministry of Environment and Forests, 1994. EIA notification S.O.60E Dt. 27 January 1994. New Delhi: Government of India.
   Google Scholar
• [MoEF] Ministry of Environment and Forests. 2006. EIA notification S.O.1533 Dt. 14 September 2006. New Delhi: Government of India.
   Google Scholar
• MorganRK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MurphyR, WeinhardtF.2013. The importance of rank position. CEP discussion paper no. 1241. London (UK): London School of Economics.
   Google Scholar
• MwendaAN, BregtAK, LigtenberA, KibutuTN. 2012. Trends in consultation and public participation within environmental impact assessment in Kenya. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(2):130–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NiyazA, StoreyD. 2011. Environmental management in the absence of participation: a case study of the Maldives. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 29(1):69–77.
   Google Scholar
• NizamiAS, MolanderS, AsamZ, RafiqueR, KorresNE, KielyG, MurphyJD. 2011. Comparative analysis using EIA for developed and developing countries: case studies of hydroelectric power plants in Pakistan, Norway and Sweden. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 18(2):134–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OkelloN, BeeversL, DouvenW, LeentvaarJ. 2009. The doing and un-doing of public participation during environmental impact assessments in Kenya. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(3):217–226.
   Google Scholar
• PaliwalR. 2006. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:492–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PinhoP, McCallumS, CruzSS. 2010. A critical appraisal of EIA screening practice in EU member states. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 28(2):91–107.
   Google Scholar
• RajaramT, DasA. 2006. Need for participatory and sustainable principles in India's EIA system: lessons from the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 24(2):115–126.
   Google Scholar
• SandhamL, PretoriusH. 2008. A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28:229–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SilasA. 2013. Public participation in environmental impact assessment reports: the Nigerian experience. Paper presented at: IAIA13 Conference on Impact Assessment of the Next Generation, 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment; 13–16 May 2013; Calgary, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• SinclairAJ, DiduckAP. 2000. Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: a case study of hydro development in Kullu district, Himachal Pradesh, India. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 18(1):63–75.
   Google Scholar
• SinclairAJ, SchneiderG, MitchellL. 2012. Environmental impact assessment process substitution: experiences of public participants. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(2):85–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [UNITAR] United Nations Institute for Training and Research. 2013. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. Geneva (Switzerland): United Nations; [cited 2013 May 16]. Available from: http://www.unitar.org/egp/rio-principle-10-projects.
   Google Scholar
• [USGAO] United States General Accounting Office. 1996. Content analysis: a methodology for structuring and analyzing written material. Washington, DC: USGAO; [cited 2013 May 16]. Available from: http://www.gao.gov/assets/80/76281.pdf.
   Google Scholar