An administrative justice perspective on improving EIA effectiveness

References

• Adler M. 2010. Understanding and analysing administrative justice. In: Adler M, editor. Administrative justice in context. Oxford: Hart; p. 129--‐160.
   Google Scholar
• Andre P, Enserink B, Connor D, Croal P. 2006. Public participation international best practice principles–special Publication Series 4. Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar H, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Onyango V. 2012. The Effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance – a comparison of the Netherlands and the UK. J Environ Assess Pol Manag. 14(4):1250025.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie RB. 1995. Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 15:109–114.
   Google Scholar
• Cape L, Retief F, Lochner P, Bond A, Fischer T. 2018. Exploring pluralism – different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 69:32–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2003. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. EIA Rev. 23(2):155–170.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2006. SEA and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 24(3):183–197.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Smith M, Sykes O. 2013. Can less sometimes be more? - Integrating land use and transport planning on merseyside (1965 – 2008). Urban, Plan Tran Res. 1(1):1–27.
   Google Scholar
• GTZ. 2002. Promotion of administrative justice act administrators guide, justice college and GTZ - German technical co-operation. Bonn (Germany): German Technical Cooperation Agency.
   Google Scholar
• IAIA and IEA. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice, international association for impact assessment & institute for environmental assessment UK. [accessed 2019 Jul 1]. http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/principlesEA_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jiricka A, Wachter TF, Leitner M, Margelik E, Czachs C, Formayer H, Fischer TB. 2018. Climate change adaptation and EIA in Austria and Germany – current consideration and potential future entry points. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 71:26–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy WV. 1988. Environmental impact assessment in North America, Western Europe: what has worked where, how and why? Int Environ Report. 11:257–262.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd. 2018. Administrative law and implementation of environmental law. In: King N, Strydom H, Retief F, editors. Environmental management in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta Press; p. 209–262.
   Google Scholar
• Kotzé LJ, Van Der Walt AJ. 2003. Just administrative action and the issue of unreasonable delay in the environmental impact assessment process: A South African Perspective. South African J Environ Law Policy. 10(1):39–66.
   Google Scholar
• Lee N, Colley R, Bonde J, Simpson J. 1999. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements and environmental appraisals. Manchester: EIA Centre, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Mashaw J. 1983. Bureaucratic Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan R. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Fischer TB. 2006. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? - A sceptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment. J Environ Assess Pol Manag. 8(1):19–39.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 2012. Walking the sustainable development talk – progressing the practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 36:34–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Sadler B. 2010. The art and science of impact assessment: results of a survey of IAIA members. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 28(1):pages 77–82.
   Google Scholar
• Petts J. 1999. Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment - vol.1 environmental impact assessment: process, methods and potential. Oxford: Blackwell Science; p. 145–177.
   Google Scholar
• Phylip-Jones J, Fischer TB. 2013. EIA for wind farms in the United Kingdom and Germany. J Environ Assess Pol Manag. 15(2):1340008.
   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
• Pound R. 1924. Growth of administrative justice. Wis L Rev. 2(6):321–339.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F. 2010. The evolution of environmental assessment debates – critical perspectives from South Africa. J Environ Assess Pol Manag. 12(4):1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for Environmental Assessment (EA) practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:52–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A, Geneletti D, Pope J. 2013. Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision making in EIA. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 31(1):13–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment - Final Report: environmental Assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa: International Association for Impact Assessment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Sandham L, Hoffman A, Retief F. 2008. Reflections on the quality of mining EIA reports in South-Africa. J South African Inst Mining Metal. 108:701–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajima R, Fischer TB. 2013. Should different impact assessment instruments be integrated? Evidence from English spatial planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 41:29–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therivel R. 2019. Effectiveness of English local plan SA/SEAs. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 37(3–4):266–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UKAJI. 2015. A research roadmap for administrative justice. United Kingdom Administrative Justice Institute - UKAJI. UK:University of Essex.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: A comparative review. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar