A complex network approach to environmental impact assessment

References

• Arts J, Runhaar H, Fischer T, Jha-Thakur U, Van LF, Driessen P, Onyango V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 14:1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Barabási A. 2012. Network science: luck or reason. Nature. 489:507–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chavez M, Hwang D. 2006. Complex networks: structure and dynamics. Phys Rep. 424:175–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bojórquez-Tapia L, García O. 1998. An approach for evaluating EIAs-deficiencies of EIA in Mexico. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 18:217–240.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A. 2015. What is the role of impact assessment in the long term? J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 17:1250025-(1–6).
   Google Scholar
• Borgatti S, Everett M, Freeman L. 2002. Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard (MA): Analytic Technologies.
   Google Scholar
• Canter L, Sadler B 1997. A tool kit for effective EIA practice: review of methods and perspectives on their application. IAIA. Norman, OK (USA).
   Google Scholar
• Cárdenas J. 2016. Network analysis: definition, origins, growth and future. Pensando Psicología. 12:5–10. Available https://revistas.ucc.edu.co/index.php/pe/article/view/1330/1469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ch ST, Zhao L. 2016. Machine learning in complex networks. New York (Dordrecht, London): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chivat I. 2016. Coping with uncertainty in environmental impact assessments. Open Criteria and Techniques. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 60:24–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conesa V. 2010. Methodological guide for environmental impact assessment. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly R. 2011. Canadian and international EIA frameworks as they apply to cumulative effects. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 31:453–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jongh P. 1988. Uncertainty in EIA. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assessment theory and practice. 1st ed. London: Routledge; p. 62–84.
   Google Scholar
• Dee N, Baker J, Drobny N, Duke K, Fahringer D, Whitman I. 1973. An environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Water Res. 9:523–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drayson K, Wood G, Thompson S. 2017. An evaluation of ecological impact assessment procedural effectiveness over time. Environ Sci Policy. 70:54–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franks M, Brereton D, Moran C. 2013. The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions. Resour Policy. 38:640–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz S, De Marchi B. 2000. Post-normal science, reflective complexity and sustainability. In: Leff E, Funtowicz S, editors. The environmental complexity. Spanish. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI; p. 54–85.
   Google Scholar
• Geetha K, Sekar P. 2016. Graph theory matrix approach - A review. Indian J Sci Technol. 9:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwik A. 2012. Introduction to environmental impact assessment, built environment, environment and sustainability. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gómez Orea D. 2013. Environmental impact assessment: a preventive instrument for environmental management. Madrid: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa.
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine. 2013. Environmental decisions in the face of uncertainty. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. 1993. ISO 3534–1 statistics-vocabulary and symbols, part 1. Probability and general statistical terms. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Fischer T. 2016. 25 years of the UK EIA system: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:19–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones R, Fischer T. 2016. EIA follow-up in the UK-A 2015 update. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 18:1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Kamal A, Burkell J. 2011. Uncertainty: when Information is Not Enough. Can J Inf Libr Sci. 4:384–396.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence D. 2007. Impact significance determination -back to basics. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 27:755–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leopold L, Clarke F, Hanshaw B, Balsley J. 1971. A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Washington DC: Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, circular 645.
   Google Scholar
• Leung W, Noble B, Gunn J, Jaeger J. 2015. A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:116–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung W, Noble JJAG, Gunn JAE. 2016. Disparate perceptions about uncertainty consideration and disclosure practices in environmental assessment and opportunities for improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 57:89–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H, Hu X-B, Yang S, Zhang K, Di Paolo E. 2011. Application of complex network theory and genetic algorithm in airline route networks. Transp Res Rec. 2214:50–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohani B, Evans J, Everitt R, Ludwig H, Carpenter R, Tu S. 1997. Environmental impact assessment for developing countries in Asia. Mandaluyong: Asian Development Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis JJ, Dziedzic M. 2018. Evaluating EIA systems´ effectiveness: A state of the art. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 68:29–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan R. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30:5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris P, Therivel R.2009.Methods of environmental impact assessment.3rd ed. Peter M, Rik T,editors. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Munguía-Rosas M, Montiel S. 2013. Ecology and social sciences: complex networks in human ecology humana. Ecol Austral. 23:135–142.
   Google Scholar
• Okpara U, Stringer L, Akhtar-Schuster M, Metternicht G, Dallimer M, Requier-Desjardins M. 2018. A social-ecological systems approach is necessary to achieve land degradation neutrality. Environ Sci Policy. 89:59–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan W, Li B, Ma Y, Liu J. 2011. Multi-granularity evolution analysis of software using complex network theory. J Syst Sci Complex. 24:1068–1082.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papo D, Buldu JM, Boccaletti S, Bullmore ET. 2014. Complex network theory and the brain. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 369:20130520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pastakia CMR, Jensen A. 1998. The rapid impact assessment matrix for EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 18:461–482.
   Google Scholar
• Pavlickova K, Vyskupova M. 2015. A method proposal for cumulative environmental impact assessment based on the landscape vulnerability evaluation. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:74–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perdicoúlis A. 2010. Systems thinking and decision making in urban and environmental planning. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Perdicoúlis A, Glasson J. 2006. Causal networks in EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:553–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrominerales Colombia Ltda. 2012. Perforación exploratoria de hidrocarburos “área de interés llanos 31. Expediente 4751. Disponible en. [accessed 2018 Oct 15]. http://vital.anla.gov.co
   Google Scholar
• Pezzulo G, Butz M, Castelfranchi C, Falcone R. 2008. The challenge of anticipation. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Ren Z, Zeng A, Zhang Y. 2018. Structure-oriented prediction in complex networks. Phys Rep. 750:1–51.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Hull (Quebec): Minister of Supply and Services Canada, CEAA, IAIA.
   Google Scholar
• Suyono RS, Tamin OZ, Wibowo SS, Heru Purboyo HP. 2016. Application of modified rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for multi actor-sustainability appraisal of public transport. Int J Appl Eng Res. 11:1960–1973.
   Google Scholar
• Tagliani P, Walter T. 2018. How to assess the significance of environmental impacts. WIT Trans Ecol Environ. 215:47–55.
   Google Scholar
• Teigland J 2000. Impact assessments as policy and learning instrument. Why effect predictions fail, and how relevance and reliability can be improved. [ dissertation]. Roskilde: Roskilde University.
   Google Scholar
• Tennoy A, Kværner J, Gjerstad KI. 2006. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 24:45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Therivel R, Wood G. ed. 2018. Methods of environmental and social impact assessment. 4th Ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Toro J, Requena I, Duarte O, Zamorano M. 2013. A qualitative method proposal to improve environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:9–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Consideration of cumulative impacts in EPA review of NEPA documents. Office of Federal Activities. Washington, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Wang N, Li D, Wang Q. 2012. Visibility graph analysis on quarterly macroeconomic series of China based on complex network theory. Phys A Stat Mech Its Appl. 391:6543–6555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins H. 2003. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23:401–414.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Ya-Juan D, Yun-Feng Y, Rong-Guo M. 2010. Highway network structure characteristics based on complex network theory. China J Highw Transp. 23:98–104.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Kørnøv L, Christensen P. 2018. The discretionary power of the environmental assessment practitioner. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72:25–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Yu H, Luo J, Cao ZW, Li Y. 2006. Complex networks theory for analyzing metabolic networks. Chinese Sci Bull. 51:1529–1537.
   Google Scholar