The perceived benefits of EIA for government: a regulator perspective

References

• Arts J, Runhaar HA, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, Laerhoven FV, Driessen PP, 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. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Man. 14(4):1–40.
   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. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00093-3.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R. 2013. Chapter 8: framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors. Sustainability assessment: pluralism, practice and progress. London: Taylor and Francis; p. 117–131.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(1):53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F, Gunn J. 2014. Impact assessment: eroding benefits through streamlining? Environ Impact Assess. 45:46–53. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A, Fundingsland M, Hauptfleisch M. 2020. Explaining the political nature of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): a neo-Gramscian perspective’. J Clean Prod. 244:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canelas L. 1989. First environmental impact assessment of a highway in Portugal: repercussions of the European economic community directive. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 9:391–397.
   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
• 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 Proj Apprais. 22(4):295–310. doi:10.3152/147154604781765860.
   Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environ Impact Assess. 43:65–72. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen P, Kørnøv L, Nielsen EH. 2005. EIA as regulation: does it work? J Environ Plann Man. 48(3):393–412. doi:10.1080/09640560500067491.
   Google Scholar
• Cranny CJ, Doherty ME. 1988. Importance ratings in job analysis: note on the misinterpretation of factor analyses. J Appl Psychol. 73(2):320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. 2014. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Devuyst D. 2000. Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at the local level: the introduction of sustainability assessment systems. Sustainable Dev. 8(2):67–78.
   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
• Fischer TB. 1999. Benefits from SEA application - a comparative review of North West England, Noord-Holland and EVR Brandenburg-Berlin. EIA Rev. 19(2):143–173.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, He X. 2009. Differences in perceptions of effective strategic environmental assessment application in the UK and China. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 11(4):471–485.
   Google Scholar
• Friese S. 2014. Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS. Sage. ti. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Garner JF, O’Riordan T. 1982. Environmental impact assessment in the context of economic recession. Geogr J. 148(3):343–355.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2013. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Oxan: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hacking T. 2018. The SDGs and the sustainability assessment of private sector projects: theoretical conceptualisation and comparison with current practice using the case study of the Asian development bank. Impact Assess Project. 37(1):2–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacking T, Guthrie PM. 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(2–3):73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook AL, Green MC, Krosnick JA. 2003. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opin Q. 67(1):79–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(4):287–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd M, Retief F, Alberts R. 2018. Integrated environmental impact assessment and management. In: King N, Strydom H, Retief F, editors. Environmental management in South Africa. 3rd ed. Cape Town: Juta Publishing; p. 1213–1357.
   Google Scholar
• Klaffl I, Haslinger N, Haslinger P 2006. UVP-Evaluation. Evaluation der Umweltverträglich-keitsprüfung in Österreich. Report REP-0036, Umweltbunde-samt, Vienna. http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/filead-min/site/publikationen/REP0036.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lastarnau C, Oyarzún J, Maturana H, Soto G, Señore M, Soto M, Rötting TS, Amezaga JM, Oyarzún R. 2011. Stakeholder participation within the public environmental system in Chile: major gaps between theory and practice. Environ Manag. 92(10):2470–2478.
   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. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall R. 2005. Environmental impact assessment follow-up and its benefits for industry.Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 23(3):191–196. doi:10.3152/147154605781765571.
   Google Scholar
• Martínez-Mesa J, González-Chica DA, Duquia RP, Bonamigo RR, Bastos JL. 2016. Sampling: how to select participants in my research study? Anais Brasileiros De Dermatologia. 91(3):326–330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan R. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2015. Demonstrating the benefits of impact assessment for proponents. Impact Assess Project. 33(2):108–115. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.981049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Gunn JA, Bond A, Retief F. 2014. Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assess Project. 32(1):2–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 2012. Walking the sustainability assessment talk — progressing the practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 36:34–41. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NFSD. 2008 July. A national framework for sustainable development in South Africa
   Google Scholar
• Nooteboom S. 2000. Environmental assessments of strategic decisions and project decisions: interactions and benefits. Impact Assess Project. 18(2):151–160.
   Google Scholar
• O’Riordan T. 1982. Environmental issues. Prog Geog. 6(3):409–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhuis F 2007. Costs and benefits of the EIA directive. [accessed 2020 Feb 26]. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ortolano L, Shepherd A. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assess. 13(1):3–30. doi:10.1080/07349165.1995.9726076.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson K. 2010. Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:169–176.
   Web of Science ®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
• Piper JM. 2000. Cumulative effects assessment on the middle humber: barriers overcome, benefits derived. J Environ Plann Man. 43(3):369–387. doi:10.1080/09640560050010400.
   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
• Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Huge J, Bond A. 2016. Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. EIA Rev. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Radnai A, Mondok Z. 2000. Environmental impact assessment implementation in Hungary. In: Bellinger E, George C, Lee N, Paduret A, editors. Environmental assessment in countries in transition. Budapest: CEU Press; p. 57–62.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F. 2010. The evolution of environmental assessment debates: critical perspectives from South Africa. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 12(4):375–397.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Chabalala B. 2009. The cost of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in South Africa. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 11:51–68. doi:10.1142/S1464333209003257
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Jones C, Jay S. 2007. The status and extent of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa – 1996–2003. South Afr Geog J. 89(1):44–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A, Geneletti D, Pope J. 2013. Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 31(1):13–23. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.768007.
   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. (Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa).
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña J. 2015. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, act 108 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe K, Gibson RB. 2001. Strategic environmental assessment as a means of pursuing sustainability: ten advantages and ten challenges. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 3(3):343–372. doi:10.1142/S1464333201000741.
   Google Scholar
• Wang H, Bai H, Jia L, He X. 2012. Measurement indicators and an evaluation approach for assessing strategic environmental assessment effectiveness. Ecol Indic. 23:413–420. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels JA, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A. 2015. Appraising the value of independent EIA follow-up verifiers. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:178–189. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.10.004
   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(4):401–414.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd ed. Harlow (UK): Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C, Jones JE. 1997. The effect of environmental assessment on UK local planning authority decisions. Urban Stud. 34:1237–1257. doi:10.1080/0042098975619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood G, Glasson J, Becker J. 2006. EIA scoping in England and Wales: practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(3):221–241. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar