Quality of the guidelines for preparation and review of environmental impact assessment reports in Pakistan

References

• ADB. 2003. Environmental assessment guidelines. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmad B, Wood CM. 2002. A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22:213–234.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Azri NS, Al-Busaidi RO, Sulaiman H, Al-Azri AR. 2014. Comparative evaluation of EIA systems in the Gulf Cooperation Council States. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 32(2):136–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassi A, Howard R, Geneletti D, Ferrari S. 2012. UK and Italian EIA systems: a comparative study on management practice and performance in the construction industry. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 34:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brew D, Lee N. 1996. Reviewing the quality of donor agency environmental assessment guidelines. Proj Appraisal. 11(2):79–84.
   Google Scholar
• CEC 2003. (Impacts Assessment Unit, Oxford Brookes University). Five years report to the European Parliament and the Council on the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive.
   Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EPDP. 2017. The Punjab environmental protection (registration of environmental consultants) regulations, 2017. Lahore: Environment Protection Department, Government of the Punjab.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Nadeem O. 2014. Environmental impact assessment course curriculum for higher education institutions in Pakistan. Islamabad: IUCN Pakistan.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Yu X. 2018. Sustainability appraisal in neighbourhood planning in England. J Environ Planning Mgmt. doi:10.1080/09640568.2018.1454304
   Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2003. Biodiversity impact assessment of roads: an approach based on ecosystem rarity. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23:343–365.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2012. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. 4th ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• GoP. 1997. Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997. Islamabad: Ministry of Environment, Government of Pakistan.
   Google Scholar
• GoP. 1997a. Guidelines for the preparation and review of environmental reports. Islamabad: Ministry of Environment, Government of Pakistan.
   Google Scholar
• GoP. 1997b. Sectoral guidelines for environmental reports-major roads. Islamabad: Ministry of Environment, Government of Pakistan.
   Google Scholar
• GoPb-EPA, 2015. Office order for constitution of committee of experts for review of IEE/EIA reports of energy, oil and gas, housing sectors etc. Lahore: Government of Punjab, Environment Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• GoPb-EPA, 2016. Office order for constitution of committee of experts for review of IEE/EIA reports of transportation and urban development sectors. Lahore: Government of Punjab, Environment Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Haydar F, Pediaditi K. 2010. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Syria. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:363–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber NS. 2010. Mixed methods research: merging theory with practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• IEMA (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment). 2001. EIS review criteria Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, London
   Google Scholar
• Igondova E, Pavlickova K, Majzlan O. 2016. The ecological impact assessment of a proposed road development (the Slovak approach). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 59:43–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kågström M. 2016. Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’: how consultants guide quality in environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 60:169–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamijo T, Huang G. 2017. Focusing on the quality of EIS to solve the constraints on EIA systems in developing countries: a literature review. Tokyo: JICA Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Kamil I, Khan AM 2014. Usefulness of Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for quality EIA reports. Unpublished Final Year Project Report. Lahore: University of Engineering & Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Khawaja SA, Nabeela NJ. 2014. Review of IEE and EIA regulations 2000. Islamabad: IUCN Pakistan.
   Google Scholar
• Landim NT, Sánchez E. 2012. The contents and scope of environmental impact statements: how do they evolve over time?. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(4):217–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee N, Colley R. 1990. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements,” Occasional paper no. 24, EIA Centre. Manchester: University of Manchester 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Loro M, Arce RM, Ortega E, Martín B. 2014. Road-corridor planning in the EIA procedure in Spain. Review Case Studies Environ Impact Assess Rev. 44:11–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Momtaz S. 2002. Environmental impact assessment in Bangladesh: a critical review. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22:163–179.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Annandale D, Cappelluti J. 2001. Practitioner perspectives on what influences EIA quality. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 19(4):321–325.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Fischer TB. 2011. An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31:36–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2006. A critical review of the adequacy of EIA reports-evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences. 1(1):54–61.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2008. Evaluation of EIA system in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28:562–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NESPAK/LDA. 2017. EIA report for the construction of road from Expo Centre to Ring Road Lahore project.. Lahore: National Engineering Services Pakistan/Lahore Development Authority.
   Google Scholar
• Nizami AS, Molander S, Asam ZZ, Rafique R, Korres NE, Kiely G, Murphy JD. 2011. Comparative analysis using EIA for developed and developing countries: case studies of hydroelectric power plants in Pakistan. Norway Sweden Int J Sust Dev World. 18(2):134–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pak-EPA. 2000. Review of IEE and EIA regulations 2000. Islamabad: Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Paliwal R. 2006. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:492–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panigrahi JK, Amirapu S. 2012. An assessment of EIA system in India. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 35:23–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlyuk O, Noble BF, Blakley JAE, Jaeger JAG. 2017. Fragmentary provisions for uncertainty disclosure and consideration in EA legislation, regulations and guidelines and the need for improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 66:14–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phylip-Jones J, Tb F. 2013. EIA for wind farms in the United Kingdom and Germany. Environ Assess Policy Mgmt. 15(2):1340008.
   Google Scholar
• Rebelo C, Guerreiro J. 2017. Comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Angola, and the European Union. J. Prot. 8:603–636.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F. 2007. A quality and effectiveness review protocol for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in developing countries. J Environ Assess Policy Mgmt. 9(4):443–471.
   Google Scholar
• Saeed R, Sattar A, Iqbal Z, Imran M, Nadeem R. 2012. Environmental impact assessment (EIA): an overlooked instrument for sustainable development in Pakistan. Environ Monit Assess. 184:1909–1919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah A, Salimullah K, Shah MH, Razaullah K, Irfan UJ. 2010. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) of infrastructure development projects in developing countries. OIDA Int J Sust Dev. 1(4):47–54.
   Google Scholar
• Spooner B 1998. Review of the quality of EIA guidelines, their use and circumnavigation. Environmental Planning Issues, No. 19. International Institute for Environment and Development. [accessed 2018 Jan 10] http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/7813IIED.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Waldeck S, Morrison-Saunders A, Annandale D. 2003. Effectiveness of non-legal EIA guidance from the perspective of consultants in Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 21(3):251–256.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 1999. Comparative evaluation of environmental impact assessment systems. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Vol.2: environmental impact assessment in practice: impacts and limitations. Oxford: Blackwell Science; p. 10–34.
   Google Scholar