Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users

References

• Allen VG, Batello C, Berretta EJ, Hodgson J, Kothmann M, Li X, McIvor J, Milne J, Morris C, Peeters A, et al. 2011. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass Forage Sci. 66:2–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar HAC, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, Laerhoven FV, Driessen PPJ, ONYANGO V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 14:1250025.
   Google Scholar
• Baker DC, McLelland JN. 2003. Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia’s environmental assessment process for first nations’ participation in mining development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23:581–603.
   Google Scholar
• Banhalmi-Zakar Z, Gronow C, Wilkinson L, Jenkins B, Pope J, Squires G, Witt K, Williams G, Womersley J. 2018. Evolution or revolution: where next for impact assessment? Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 36:506–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blench R. 2001. ‘You can’t go home again’: pastoralism in the New Millennium. London: Overseas Development Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R. 2013. Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors. Sustainability assessment pluralism, practice and progress. Oxon (UK): Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; p. 117–131.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2015. Chapter 1: Introducing the roots, evolution and effectiveness of sustainability assessment. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A, editors. Handbook of sustainability assessment. Cheltenham: UK Edward Elgar;p. 3–19.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res. 6:97–113.
   Google Scholar
• Byambaa B, de Vries WT. 2019. The needs of nomadic-pastoral land users with respect to EIA theory, methods and effectiveness: what are they and does EIA address them? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 74:54–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cane I, Schleger A, Ali S, Kemp D, McIntyre N, McKenna P, Lechner A, Dalaibuyan B, Lahiri-Dutt K, Bulovic N. 2015. Responsible mining in Mongolia: enhancing positive engagement. Brisbane: Sustainable Minerals Institute.
   Google Scholar
• CAO. CAO assessment report, second complaint (Oyu Tolgoi-02) regarding the Oyu Tolgoi project (IFC #29007 and MIGA #7041). Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, International Finance Corporation/Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Gwilliam R, Morgan R, Cobb D, Bond A. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 22:295–310.
   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
• Doyle D, Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in Canada: frameworks, procedures and attributes of effectiveness. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Eggenberger M, Partidário MR. 2000. Development of a framework to assist the integration of environmental, social and economic issues in spatial planning. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 18:201–207.
   Google Scholar
• Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30:34–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink A. 2017. How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide 6ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Gosavi A. 2015. Analyzing responses from likert surveys and risk-adjusted ranking: a data analytics perspective. Procedia Comput Sci. 61:24–31.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna K, Noble BF. 2015. Using a Delphi study to identify effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 33:116–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson S. 2004. Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med Educ. 38:1217–1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosravi F, Jha-Thakur U, Fischer TB. 2019. Enhancing EIA systems in developing countries: A focus on capacity development in the case of Iran. Sci Total Environ. 670:425–432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung W, Noble B, Gunn J, Jaeger JAG. 2015. A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:116–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung W, Noble BF, Jaeger JAG, 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
• Likert R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 140:5–55.
   Google Scholar
• Lkhagvadorj D, Hauck M, Dulamsuren C, Tsogtbaatar J. 2013. Pastoral nomadism in the forest-steppe of the Mongolian Altai under a changing economy and a warming climate. J Arid Environ. 88:82–89.
   Web of Science ®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
• McGahey D, Davies J, Hagelberg N, Ouedraogo R. 2014. Pastoralism and the green economy – a natural nexus? Nairobi: IUCN and UNEP; p. x + 58.
   Google Scholar
• MET. 2017. Protection, use and rehabilitation of natural resources. In: Nyamdavaa G, Shiirevdamba T, Enkhbat A, editors. Environmental Report of Mongolia, 2015–2016. Ulaanbaatar: Ministry of Environment and Tourism; p. 54–174.
   Google Scholar
• MET. 2019. EIA database of Mongolia. Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30:5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris P, Therivel R. 2009. Methods of environmental impact assessment. 3rd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis e-Library: Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2000. Strengthening EIA through adaptive management: a systems perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 20:97–111.
   Google Scholar
• NSO. Gross domestic product (GDP) report, 2017. Ulaanbaatar: National Statistical Office of Mongolia; 2018. p. www.nso.mn.
   Google Scholar
• Nykvist B, Nilsson M. 2009. Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainable development? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committee system. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29:15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Faircheallaigh C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:19–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohjola MV, Tuomisto JT. 2011. Openness in participation, assessment, and policy making upon issues of environment and environmental health: a review of literature and recent project results. Environ Health. 10:58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope J, Bond A, Cameron C, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A. 2018. Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 70:34–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope J, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 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
• Reid RS, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA. 2014. Dynamics and resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 39:217–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozema JG, Bond AJ. 2015. Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:66–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance hull. Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency & International Association for Impact Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• SGH. 2012a. Law of Mongolia on environmental impact assessment. Ulaanbaatar:The State Great Hural (Parliament) of Mongolia.
   Google Scholar
• SGH. 2012b. Environmental protection law of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar:The State Great Hural (Parliament) of Mongolia.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan GM, Artino AR Jr. 2013. Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ. 5:541–542.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tenney A, Kværner J, Gjerstad KI. 2006. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 24:45–56.
   Google Scholar
• UN. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: UN Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wallington T, Bina O, Thissen W. 2007. Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27:569–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Kørnøv L, Christensen P. 2013. Critical factors for EIA implementation: literature review and research options. J Environ Manage. 114:148–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar