Quality of environmental impact assessment systems and economic growth in countries participating in the belt and road initiatives

References

• Ahmad, B., & Wood, C. (2002). A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 213–234.
   Google Scholar
• AIIB. 2016. AIIB env and social framework.
   Google Scholar
• Annandale D. 2012. Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries. Impact Assess and Project Appraisal. 5517. doi:10.3152/147154601781766998.
   Google Scholar
• Annandale D, Montaño M, Fischer TB, Purcell C, Coles J, Aung T. forthcoming. Guidelines for SEA in developing countries – examples from Asia. Fischer TB, González A. editors. International handbook of strategic environmental assessment. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar; chapter 9
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong RA. 2019. Should Pearson’s correlation coefficient be avoided? Ophthalmic and Physiol Opt. 39(5):316–327. doi:10.1111/opo.12636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar HAC, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, Van Laerhoven F, 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. In J of Environ Assess Policy and Manage. Vol. 14(4):1250025. Issue. doi:10.1142/S1464333212500251.
   Google Scholar
• Ascensão F, Fahrig L, Clevenger AP, Corlett RT, Jaeger JAG, Laurance WF, Pereira HM. 2018. Environmental challenges for the belt and road initiative. Nat Sustainability. 1(5):206–209. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0059-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aung TS, Fischer TB, Shengji L. 2020. Evaluating environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the countries along the belt and road initiatives: system effectiveness and the compatibility with the Chinese EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 81(January):106361. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106361.
   Google Scholar
• Balsam Ahmad CW. 2002. A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22(3):213–234. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00004-5.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A. 2018. The never ending conundrum of the application of science in EIA. Impact Assess and Project Appraisal. 1–2. doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1552443
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Fundingsland M, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F, Hauptfleisch M. 2020. Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): A neo-Gramscian perspective. J Clean Prod. 244:118694. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118694
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brew D, Lee N. 1996. Reviewing the quality of donor agency environmental assessment guidelines. Project Appraisal. 11(2):79–84. doi:10.1080/02688867.1996.9727022.
   Google Scholar
• Brombal D, Moriggi A, Marcomini A. 2017. Evaluating public participation in Chinese EIA. an integrated public participation index and its application to the case of the new Beijing Airport. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:49–60. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cederman L, Pengl Y 2019. Global Conflict Trends and their Consequences *.
   Google Scholar
• Chen Q, Zhang Y, Ekroos A. 2007. Comparison of China ’ s environmental impact assessment (EIA) law with the European Union (EU) EIA directive. Environ Monit Assess (2007). 132(1–3):53–65. doi:10.1007/s10661-006-9502-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury T, Islam S. 2017. Environmental performance Index and GDP growth rate: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ Econ. 8(4):31–36. doi:10.21511/ee.08(4).2017.04.
   Google Scholar
• Cracolici MF, Cuffaro M, Nijkamp P. 2010. The measurement of economic, social and environmental performance of countries: A novel approach. Soc Indic Res. 95(2):339–356. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9464-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dkhili H. 2019. Environmental performance and economic growth in middle east and north Africa countries. J of Health and Pollut. 9(24):24. doi:10.5696/2156-9614-9.24.191208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Fadl K, El-Fadel M. 2004. Comparative assessment of EIA systems in MENA countries: Challenges and prospects. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 24(6):553–593. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esty DC, Porter ME. 2002. Ranking national environmental regulation and performance: A leading indicator of future competitiveness? The Global Compet Rep. 78–100. doi:10.1017/S1355770X05002275
   Google Scholar
• Fakher H, Abedi Z. 2017. Relationship between environmental quality and economic growth in developing countries (based on environmental performance index). Environl Energy and Econ Res. 1(3):299–310. doi:10.22097/eeer.2017.86464.1001.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Gazzola P. 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria-equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(4):396–409. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankel MB, R D 2015. Mekong Partnership for the Environment MEKONG EIA BRIEFING : Environmental Impact Assessment Comparative Analysis In Lower Mekong Countries.
   Google Scholar
• Gabbay S 2002. The environment in Israel. State of Isreal Ministry of the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Gałaś S, Gałaś A, Zeleňáková M, Zvijáková L, Fialová J, Kubíčková H. 2015. Environmental impact assessment in the visegrad group countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 55:11–20. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldsmith B, Conover S, Brown K 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Gomes Lima AL, Ernesto S-T, De Silva D, Afza J, Paul T, Enriquez S, Ferdausi S, Raj Ghimire D, A. R. M, H. R. B (2015). south asia review.pdf. 35th Annual Conference of the International Association of Impact Assessment, Florance, Italy, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Heaton C, Burns S. 2014. An evaluation of environmental impact assessment in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Impact Assess and Project Appraisal. 5517. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.908004.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes AC. 2019. Understanding and minimizing environmental impacts of the belt and road initiative. Conserv Biol April. 33(4):883–894. doi:10.1111/cobi.13317.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanov V. 2009. Establishment of the strategic environmental assessment (sea) system in the republic of Moldova. In: Bahadir A, editor. The role of ecological chemistry in pollution research and sustainable development. 1st ed. Springer, Netherlands; p. 263–267.
   Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Rajvanshi A. forthcoming. strategic environmental assessment in India: Trends and prospects. Fischer TB, González A. editors. International handbook of strategic environmental assessment. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar; chapter 25.
   Google Scholar
• Khadka RB, Shrestha US. 2011. Process and procedure of environmental impact assessment application in some countries of South Asia: A review study. J of Environ Sci and Technol. 4(3):215–233. doi:10.3923/jest.2011.215.233.
   Google Scholar
• Kolhoff AJ, Driessen PPJ, Runhaar HAC. 2013. An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries — illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolhoff AJ, R. HAC, D PPJ. 2009. The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding. Impact Assess and Project Appraisal . 27(4):271–282. doi:10.3152/146155109X479459.
   Google Scholar
• Kruopiene J, Židoniene S, Dvarioniene J. 2009. Current practice and shortcomings of EIA in Lithuania. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(5):305–309. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laevskaya E 2013. Review of legislation of the Republic of Moldova with regard to implementation of the UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Le TH, Chang Y, Park D. 2019. Economic development and environmental sustainability: evidence from Asia. Empir Econ. 57(4):1129–1156. doi:10.1007/s00181-018-1494-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lechner AM, Chan FKS, Campos-Arceiz A. 2018. Biodiversity conservation should be a core value of China’s belt and road initiative. Nat Ecol and Evol. 2(3):408–409. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0452-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu WS, Williams WP, Bark AW. 1996. Development of an environmental impact assessment evaluation model and its application: taiwan case study. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 16(2):115–133. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00107-7.
   Google Scholar
• Loayza F. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment in the world bank: Learning from the recent experience and challenges, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis JJ, Dziedzic M. 2018. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: A state of the art. Environ Impact Assess Rev. September 2017, 68:29–37. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotman S, Avramov S, Anna I (2013). Implementation of environmental impact assessments in Central and Eastern Europe. [accessed 2020 May 10]. http://www.ceeweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Implementation-of-Environmental-Impact-Assessments-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assess and Project Appraisal. 30(1):5–14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2017. Conceptualising best practice in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 66(February):78–85. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.009.
   Google Scholar
• National Environmental Commission. 2012. Environmental Assessment General Guidelines Bhutan. Issue May.
   Google Scholar
• Ortolano L, Jenkins B, Abracosa RP. 1987. Speculations on when and why EIA is effective. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 7(4):285–292. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(87)90002-3.
   Google Scholar
• Põder T, Lukki T. 2011. A critical review of checklist-based evaluation of environmental impact statements. Impact Assess and Project Appraisal. 29(1):27–36. doi:10.3152/146155111X12913679730511.
   Google Scholar
• PWCCN. 2015).海外工程项目 一站式解决方案.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:52–60. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samimi AJ, Erami NE, Mehnatfar Y. 2010. Environmental performance index and economic growth: Evidence from some developing countries. Aust Jl of Basic and Appl Sci. 4(8):3098–3102.
   Google Scholar
• Schober P, Schwarte LA. 2018. Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 126(5):1763–1768. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheng M 2018. Chinese outbound investment regulations for a new year. [accessed 2020 May 10]. https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/chinese-outbound-investment-regulations-for-a-new-year/
   Google Scholar
• Swangjang K. 2018. Comparative review of EIA in the association of southeast Asian Nations. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72(March):33–42. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.04.011.
   Google Scholar
• Tektüfekçi F, Kutay N. 2016. The relationship between EPI and GDP growth: An examination on developed and emerging Countries. Jl of Mod Accounting and Auditing. 12(5):268–276. doi:10.17265/1548-6583/2016.05.003.
   Google Scholar
• The Legislative Herald of Georgia. 2013. Law of Georgia on environmental impact permits. Issue 4400. [accessed 2020 May 10]. https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/20206/13/en/pdf
   Google Scholar
• The World Bank. 2002. Environmental impact assessment systems in Europe and central Asia countries Europe and central Asia environmentally and socially sustainable development department website: www.worldbank.org/eca/environment. Issue May. [accessed 2020 May 10]. www.worldbank.org/eca/environment
   Google Scholar
• Tracy EF, Shvarts E, Simonov E, Babenko M. 2017. China’s new Eurasian ambitions: the environmental risks of the silk road economic belt. Eurasian Geogrand Econ. 58(1):1938–2863. doi:10.1080/15387216.2017.1295876.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• USEPA. (1998). Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Review: Appendix A: Environmental Impact Assessment Checklist.
   Google Scholar
• Wendling, Z. A., Emerson, J. W., de Sherbinin, A., Esty, D. C. (2020). 2020 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. [accessed 2020 May 10]. https://epi.yale.edu/epi.yale.edu
   Google Scholar
• Wong AA, Jia S (2017). Belt & road: Opportunity & risk the prospects and perils of building China’s new silk road.  [accessed 2020 May 10]. https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2017/10/belt-road/baker_mckenzie_belt_road_report_2017.pdf?la=en
   Google Scholar
• Wood C (1995). Catalog search results | hathiTrust digital library. University of Michigan. [accessed 2020 May 10]. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Search/Home?type%5B%5D=oclc&lookfor%5B%5D=49525839&page=1&pagesize=20&ft=
   Google Scholar
• Yale University. (2018). Introduction | environmental performance Index. Environmental Performance Index. [accessed 2020 May 10]. https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/2018-epi-report/introduction
   Google Scholar
• Yang T. 2019. The emergence of the environmental impact assessment duty as a global legal norm and general principle of law. Hastings Law J. 70(2):525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar