Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment legislation in Pakistan

References

• Ahmad B, Wood C. 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
• Ahmed D, Khan A, Ali Z, Khan D, Ullah Afridi I. 2018. An evaluation of the current status of the EIA system in Pakistan focusing on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Int J Basic Appl Sci. 7(2):20. doi: 10.14419/ijbas.v7i2.7536.
   Google Scholar
• Alrikabi N, Alumery A. 2021. Comparative study for environmental impact assessment in environmental Iraqi and Saudi legislation. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 754(1):012018. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/754/1/012018.
   Google Scholar
• Annandale D. 2001. Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries. Impact Assess Proj A. 19(3):187–193. doi: 10.3152/147154601781766998.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar H, Fischer T, Jha-Thakur U, Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Onyango V. 2016. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. Progress in Environmental Assessment Policy, and Management Theory and Practice; United Kingdom (UK): Imperial College Press. p. 171–210.
   Google Scholar
• Ashraf J. 2023. Does political risk undermine environment and economic development in Pakistan? Empirical evidence from China–Pakistan economic corridor. Econ Chang Restruct. 56(1):581–608. doi: 10.1007/s10644-022-09434-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athayde S, Fonseca A, Araújo S, Gallardo A, Moretto E, Sánchez L. 2022. The far-reaching dangers of rolling back environmental licensing and impact assessment legislation in Brazil. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 94:106742. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aung T. 2017. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system and implementation in Myanmar: its significance in the oil and gas industry. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 66:24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.05.005.
   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. 81:106361. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson M. 2016. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open. 2:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatt R, Khanal S. 2010. Environmental impact assessment system and process: a study on policy and legal instruments in Nepal. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 4:586–594.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Fischer T, Fothergill J. 2017. Progressing quality control in environmental impact assessment beyond legislative compliance: an evaluation of the IEMA EIA quality mark certification scheme. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 63:160–171. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannaos C, Onni G. 2019. A methodological approach on the procedural effectiveness of EIA: the case of Sardinia. City Territ Archit. 6(1):1–17. doi: 10.1186/s40410-019-0100-5.
   Google Scholar
• Chanthy S, Grünbühel C. 2015. Critical challenges to consultants in pursuing quality of environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) in Cambodia. Impact Assess Proj A. 33(3):226–232. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2015.1049488.
   Web of Science ®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. 132(1–3):53–65. doi: 10.1007/s10661-006-9502-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke B. 2021. EIA effectiveness in Vietnam: key stakeholder perceptions. Heliyon. 7(2):e06157. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clausen A, Vu HH, Pedrono M. 2011. An evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Vietnam: the gap between theory and practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(2):136–143. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty M. 2015. By the gun or by the bribe: firm size, environmental governance, and corruption among mining companies in Guatemala. Norway: CHR Michelsen Institute. Issue Paper Number 17.
   Google Scholar
• Ehtasham L, Sherani S, Younas K, Izbel U, Khan A, Bahadur A, Akbar A. 2021. A review of the status of environmental impact assessment in Pakistan. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 18(2):314–318. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elvan O. 2018. Analysis of environmental impact assessment practices and legislation in Turkey. Environ Sci Policy. 84:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enríquez-de-Salamanca Á. 2021. Simplified environmental impact assessment processes: review and implementation proposals. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 90:106640. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca A, Gibson R. 2020. Testing an ex-ante framework for the evaluation of impact assessment laws: lessons from Canada and Brazil. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 81:106355. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia LC, Fonseca A. 2018. The use of administrative sanctions to prevent environmental damage in impact assessment follow-ups. J Environ Manage. 219:46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government of Pakistan. 1997. The Pakistan environmental protection act. http://mocc.gov.pk/moclc/userfiles1/file/MOC/ofActsOrdinancesRulesandRegulations/PakistanEnvironmentalProtectionact1997.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Pakistan. 2000. Pakistan environmental protection agency (review of IEE and EIA) regulations. https://mocc.gov.pk/SiteImage/Misc/files/Pakistan%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency%20(Review%20of%20IEE%20EIA)%20Regulations%202000.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Pakistan. 2018. Pakistan Economic Survey 2017-2018. https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_18/12-Population.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Punjab. 2012. The punjab environmental protection act. https://epd.punjab.gov.pk/system/files/PunjabEnvironmentalProtectionAct1997withallamendements_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Punjab. 2022. Punjab environmental protection agency (review of IEE EIA regulations 2022). https://epd.punjab.gov.pk/system/files/Document%20%285%29.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Punjab. 2023. Punjab board of investment and trade. [accessed 19 July 2023] http://www.pbit.gop.pk/why-punjab
   Google Scholar
• Government of Sindh. 2014. Sindh environmental protection act. http://www.sindhhighcourt.gov.pk/downloads/source_files/SindhEnvironmentalProtectionAct,2014-Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Sindh. 2021. Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental assessment) regulations. https://epa.sindh.gov.pk/sepa-act-2014rules
   Google Scholar
• Hameed R, Nadeem O. 2019. Quality of the guidelines for preparation and review of environmental impact assessment reports in Pakistan. Impact Assess Proj A. 37(2):139–149. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1529947.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hands S, Hudson M. 2016. Incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation into environmental impact assessment: a review of current practice within transport projects in England. Impact Assess Proj A. 34(4):330–345. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1228340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Fischer T, Xu H. 2017. The stakeholder analysis for SEA of Chinese foreign direct investment: the case of ‘one belt, one road’ initiative in Pakistan. Impact Assess Proj A. 35(2):158–171. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1251698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson T. 2020. Public participation in China’s EIA process and the regulation of environmental disputes. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 81:106359. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan M, Chaudhary M, Ahmad S, Saif S, Mehmood A. 2018. Challenges to EIA consultants whilst dealing with stakeholders in Punjab, Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 73:201–209. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan M, Chaudhry M. 2021. Role of and challenges to environmental impact assessment proponents in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 90:106606. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan M, Chaudhry M, Ahmad S, Saif S. 2020b. The role of and challenges facing non-governmental organizations in the environmental impact assessment process in Punjab, Pakistan. Impact Assess Proj A. 38(1):57–70. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1684096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan M, Chaudhry M, Ahmad S, Saif S, Mehmood A. 2020a. Performance of EIA authority and effectiveness of EIA system in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 81:106357. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosravi F, Jha-Thakur U, Fischer T. 2019. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Iran. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 74:63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolhoff AJ, Driessen PP, Runhaar HA. 2013. An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining the 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 A, Driessen P, Runhaar H. 2018. Overcoming low EIA performance - a diagnostic tool for the deliberate development of EIA system capacities in low and middle-income countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 68:98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolhoff AJ, Runhaar HA, Driessen PP. 2009. The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding. Impact Assess Proj A. 27(4):271–282. doi: 10.3152/146155109X479459.
   Google Scholar
• Kouser S, Subhan A. 2020. Uncovering Pakistan’s environmental risks and remedies under the China-Pakistan economic corridor. Environ Sci Pol Res. 27(5):4661–4663. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-07428-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladeur K, Prelle R. 2001. Environmental assessment and judicial approaches to procedural errors - a European and comparative law analysis. J Environ Law. 13(2):185–198. doi: 10.1093/jel/13.2.185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu W, Williams W, Bark A. 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
• Li J. 2008. Environmental impact assessments in developing countries: an opportunity for greater environmental security? United states: Foundation for environmental security and sustainability. Working Paper 4.
   Google Scholar
• Lovo S. 2018. Effect of environmental decentralization on polluting firms in India. Econ Dev Cult Chang. 67(1):55–94. doi: 10.1086/697558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund-Thomsen P. 2004. Towards a critical framework on corporate social and environmental responsibility in the south: the case of Pakistan. Development. 47(3):106–113. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.development.1100059.
   Google Scholar
• Macintosh A. 2010. Best practice environmental impact assessment: a model framework for Australia. Aust J Public Adm. 69(4):401–417. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00703.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuzawa Y, Koyano M, Toi A, Kubo H. 2019. Strength and weakness of Japanese EIA law. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual International Association for Impact Assessment Conference; Brisbane (Australia): IAIA.
   Google Scholar
• Momtaz S. 2002. Environmental impact assessment in Bangladesh: a critical review. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22(2):163–179. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00106-8.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan R. 2017. Conceptualizing best practice in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 66:78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mubanga R, Kwarteng K. 2020. A comparative evaluation of the environmental impact assessment legislation of South Africa and Zambia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 83:106401. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Fischer T. 2011. An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(1):36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2006. A critical review of the adequacy of EIA reports evidence from Pakistan. World Acad Sci Technol. 2(11):146–153.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2008. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(8):562–571. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2010. Exploring the potential and constraints to implementing the international best practice principles of EIA follow-up: the case of Pakistan. J Am Sci. 6:108–121.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R, Haydar S. 2014. Public consultation and participation in EIA in Pakistan and lessons learnt from international practices. Pak J Eng Appl Sci. 14:73–84.
   Google Scholar
• Nenasheva M, Bickford S, Lesser P, Koivurova T, Kankaanfpaa P. 2015. Legal tools of public participation in the environmental impact assessment process and their application in the countries of the barents Euro-Arctic Region. Peoples Econ Pol. 1:3.
   Google Scholar
• Noble H, Smith J. 2015. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 18(2):34–35. doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102054.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paliwal R. 2006. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(5):492–510. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2006.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlickova K, Vyskupova M. 2015. A method proposal for cumulative environmental impact assessment based on the landscape vulnerability evaluation. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pediaditi K, Banias G, Sartzetakis E, Lampridi M. 2018. Greece’s reformed EIA system: evaluating its implementation and potential. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 73:90–103. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.07.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto E, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2019. Distilling and applying criteria for best practice EIA follow-up. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 21(2):1950008. doi: 10.1142/S146433321950008X.
   Google Scholar
• Ran R. 2017. Understanding blame politics in China’s decentralized system of environmental governance: actors, strategies, and context. China Q. 231:634–661. doi: 10.1017/S0305741017000911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riffat R, Khan D. 2006. A review and evaluation of the environmental impact assessment process in Pakistan. J Appl Sci Environ Sanit. 1:17–29.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Luna D, Vela N, Alcalá F, Encina-Montoya F. 2021. The environmental impact assessment in Chile: Overview, improvements, and comparisons. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 86:106502. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose J, Johnson CW. 2020. Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. J Leis Res. 51(4):432–451. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saeed R, Sattar A, Iqbal Z, Imran M, Nadeem R. 2012. Environmental impact assessment (EIA): An overlooked instrument for sustainable development in Pakistan. Environ Monit Assess. 184(4):1909–1919. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2088-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saif S, Mehmood A, Chaudhry M, Akhtar S. 2015. Evaluating the adequacy and quality of environment impact assessment (EIA) reports in Punjab, Pakistan. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 17(3):1–23. doi: 10.1142/S1464333215500301.
   Google Scholar
• Shah N. 2013. Role of EIA practitioners in improving EIA reporting quality challenges and solutions: a case study of EIA system in Punjab Pakistan. IAIA13 Conference Proceedings; 13–16 May 2013; Calgary, Alberta, Canada; p. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair A, Peirson-Smith T, Boerchers M. 2017. Environmental assessments in the internet age: the role of e-governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation. Impact Assess Proj A. 35(2):148–157. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1251697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swangjang K. 2018. Comparative review of EIA in the association of Southeast Asian Nations. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72:33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.04.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang SY, Tang CP, Lo CWH. 2005. Public participation and environmental impact assessment in mainland China and Taiwan: political foundations of environmental management. J Dev Stud. 41(1):1–32. doi: 10.1080/00220380420000276554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teo H, Lechner A, Walton G, Chan F, Cheshmehzangi A, Tan-Mullins M, Chan H, Sternberg T, Campos-Arceiz A. 2019. Environmental impacts of infrastructure development under the belt and road initiative. Environments. 6(6):72. doi: 10.3390/environments6060072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tokarczyk-Dorociak K, Kazak J, Szewrański S, Haładyj A, Szkudlarek Ł, Chrobak G, Van Hoof J. 2019. On the usefulness of guidelines and instructions for environmental assessment–a qualitative study of the helpfulness perceived by Polish practitioners. Impact Assess Proj A. 37(2):150–164. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1519151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waheed A, Bernward Fischer T, Khan MI. 2021. Climate change policy coherence across policies, plans, and strategies in Pakistan—implications for the China–Pakistan economic corridor plan. Environ Manage. 67(5):793–810. doi: 10.1007/s00267-021-01449-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waheed A, Fischer TB, Kousar S, Khan MI. 2023. Disaster management and environmental policy integration in Pakistan–an evaluation with particular reference to the China–Pakistan economic corridor plan. Environ Sci Pol Res. 30(48):105700–105731. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-29310-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waseem H, Talpur M. 2021. Impact assessment of urban pull-factors to cause uncontrolled urbanization: evidence from Pakistan. Sukkur IBA J Comput Math Sci. 5(1):37–52. doi: 10.30537/sjcms.v5i1.589.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. United Kingdom: Longman Group Limited.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2019. Khyber pakhtunkhwa integrated tourism development project. Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/es/960841551256802132/text/Indigenous-Peoples-Planning-Framework.txt
   Google Scholar
• Yıldız T. 2021. How can the effects of EIA procedures and legislation foreseen for the mining operation activities to mining change positively in Turkey? Resour. Resour Policy. 72:102081. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeremariam T, Quinn N. 2007. An evaluation of environmental impact assessment in Eritrea. Impact Assess Proj. 25(1):53–63. doi: 10.3152/146155107X190604.
   Google Scholar
• Zuhair MH, Kurian PA. 2016. Socio-economic and political barriers to public participation in EIA: implications for sustainable development in the Maldives. Impact Assess Proj A. 34(2):129–142. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1176404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zvijáková L, Zeleňáková M, Purcz P. 2014. Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment in Slovakia. Impact Assess Proj A. 32(2):150–161. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.893124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar