A qualitative content analysis of environmental impact assessment in Indonesia: a case study of nickel smelter processing

References

• 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 Project Appraisal. 32(2):136–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appiah DO, Osman B. 2014. Environmental impact assessment: insights from mining communities in Ghana. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 16(4):1450031-1–1450031-20.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Caldwell P, Morrison-Saunders A. 2001. Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 19(3):175–185.
   Google Scholar
• Badr EA. 2009. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Egypt. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(3):193–203.
   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(5):581–603.
   Google Scholar
• Bidstrup M. 2017. The ‘grey’ assessment practice of IA screening: prevalence, influence and applied rationale. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:233–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Stoeglehner G. 2013. Designing an effective sustainability assessment process. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors. Sustainability assessment pluralism, practice and progress. Oxon (UK): Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; p. 231–244.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Palerm J, Haigh P. 2004. Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 24(6):617–641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle J. 1998. Cultural influences on implementing environmental impact assessment: insights from Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 18:95–116.
   Google Scholar
• Broeder LD, Chung KY, Geelen L, Scholtes M, Schuit AJ, Wagemakers A. 2016. We are all experts! does stakeholder engagement in health impact scoping lead to consensus? A Dutch case study. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 34(4):294–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Christophilopoulos E, Cobb D. 2002. An evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 4(4):371–395.
   Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 43:65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clausen A, Hoa VH, Pedrono M. 2011. An evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Vietnam: the gap between theory and practice. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 31(2):136–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA, US): Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Dare ML, Schirmer J, Vanclay F. 2014. Community engagement and social license to operate. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(3):188–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2005. Introduction to environmental impact assessment third edition. New York (NY): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gore T, Fischer TB. 2014. Uncovering the factors that can support and impede post-disaster EIA practice in developing countries: the case of Aceh Province Indonesia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 44:67–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna P, Vanclay F, Langdon EJ, Arts J. 2016. The importance of cultural aspects in impact assessment and project development: reflections from a case study of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 34(4):306–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen E, Wood G. 2016. Understanding EIA scoping in practice: a pragmatist interpretation of effectiveness. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 58:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hapuarachchi AB. 2014. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in addressing development-induced disasters: a comparison of the EIA processes of Sri Lanka and New Zealand [dissertation]. Christchurch: Lincoln University.
   Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U. 2011. Environmental impact assessment follow-up in India: exploringregional variation. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 13(3):435–458.
   Google Scholar
• Jones JP, Fischer TB. 2013. EIA for wind farms in the United Kingdom and Germany. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 15(2):1340008-1–1340008-30.
   Google Scholar
• Jones R, Fischer TB. 2016. EIA follow-up in the UK -A 2015 update. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 18:1650006-1–1650006-22.
   Google Scholar
• Kabir SMZ, Momtaz S. 2013. 15th years of environmental impact assessment system in Bangladesh: current practice, challenges and future directions. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 15(4):1350018-1–1350018-30.
   Google Scholar
• Kengne CVN, Evouna SEM, Bitondo D. 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
• Koornneef J, Faaij A, Turkenburg W. 2008. The screening and scoping of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment of carbon capture and storage in the Netherlands. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28:392–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockie S. 2001. SIA in review: setting the agenda for impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 19(4):277–287.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis JJ, Dziedzic M. 2018. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: a state of the art. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 68:29–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyhne I. 2011. Between policy-making and planning SEA and strategic decision-making in the danish energy sector. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 13(03):319–341.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R, Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2005. International principles for best practice EIA follow up. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 23(3):175–181.
   Google Scholar
• Marzuki A. 2009. A review on public participation in environmental impact assessment in Malaysia. Theor Empir Res Urban Manag. 3(12):126–136.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment and Forestry [MoEF]. 2017. Laporan Tahunan 2017 [Annual report 2017]. Jakarta. [publisher unknown].Indonesian.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Fischer TB. 2006. What’s wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic’s perspective on sustain- ability assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 8(1):19–39.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Fischer TB. 2011. An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 31(1):36–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2006. A critical review of the adequacy of EIA reports-evidence from Pakistan. Int J of Hum Soc Sci. 1(1):54–61.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2008. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system in Pakistan. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 28(8):562–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadlifatin R, Razif M, Lin SC, Persada SF, Belgiawan PJ. 2015. An assessment model of Indonesian citizens’ intention to participate on environmental impact assessment: a behavioral perspective. Proceedings of the 5th sustainable future for human security (SustaiN 2014). Procedia Environ Sciences. 28:3–10.
   Google Scholar
• Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment [NCEA]. 2014. Systems approach to EIA effectiveness. [publisher unknown].
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen EH, Christensen P, Kørnøv L. 2004. EIA screening in Denmark: a new regulatory instrument ? J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 7(1):35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Nishikizawa S. 2015. Environmental impact assessment research in Japan: retrospective and prospective. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 17(1):1550013-1–1550013-9.
   Google Scholar
• Norgate T, Jahanshahi S. 2011. Assessing the energy and greenhouse gas footprints of nickel laterite processing. Miner Eng Spec Issue. 24(7):698–707.
   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 Asses Rev. 30(1):19–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persada SF, Lin SC, Nadlifatin R, Razif M 2015. A lean based analysis on the Indonesian citizens’ participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA): a potential improvement through web based system and SMS-gateway. The Third Information Systems International Conference. Open Access Journal of Information Systems (OAJIS); Surabaya. Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS).
   Google Scholar
• Persada SF, Razif M, Lin SC, Nadlifatin R. 2014. Toward paperless public announcement on environmental impact assessment (EIA) through SMS gateway in Indonesia. Procedia Environ Sciences. 20:271–279.
   Google Scholar
• Pinho P, Maia R, Monterrosoa A. 2007. The quality of Portuguese environmental impact studies: the case of small hydropower projects. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 27(3):189–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purnama D. 2003. Reform of the EIA process in Indonesia: improving the role of public involvement. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 23(4):415–439.
   Google Scholar
• Rega C, Baldizzone G. 2015. Public participation in strategic environmental assessment: a practitioners’ perspective. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 50:105–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozema JG, Bond AJ. 2015. Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 50:66–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruffeis D, Loiskandl W, Awulachew SB, Boelee E. 2010. Evaluation of the environmental policy and impact assessment process in Ethiopia. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 28(1):29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment: environmental assessment in a changing world. Canada: IAIA and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Smith E, Rosenblum P. 2011. Government and citizen oversight of mining. Enforcing the rules. New York (USA): Revenue Watch Institute. [publisher unknown].
   Google Scholar
• Suwanteep K, Murayama T, Nishikizawa S. 2017. The quality on public participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports in Thailand. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 19(02):1750008-1–1750008-21.
   Google Scholar
• Syafiq M. 2015. Improving the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment in Indonesia regarding the protection of the marine environment from industrial pollution. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 17(3):1550026-1–1550026-17.
   Google Scholar
• Toro J, Requena I, Zamorano M. 2010. Environmental impact assessment in Colombia: critical analysis and proposals for improvement. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 30(4):247–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker JL, Mitchell B, Wismer S. 2000. Impacts during project anticipation in Molas, Indonesia: implications for social impact assessment. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 20(5):513–535.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment in developing countries. Int Dev Plan Rev. 25(3):301–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar