A critical review of checklist-based evaluation of environmental impact statements

References

• André , P. , Enserink , B. , Connor , D. and Croal , P. 2006 . Public Participation. International Best Practice Principles. , Fargo , , USA : International Association for Impact Assessment. . Special Publication Series No. 4
   Google Scholar
• Barker , A. and Wood , C. 1999 . An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 19 ( 4 ) : 387 – 404 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beinat , E. 1997 . Value Functions for Environmental Management. , Volume 7 , Dordrecht : Kluwer. . Environment & Management
   Google Scholar
• Benson , J. F. 2003 . What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning . Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , 21 ( 4 ) : 261 – 280 .
   Google Scholar
• Bojórquez-Tapia , L. A. and García , O. 1998 . An approach for evaluating EIAS — deficiencies of EIA in Mexico . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 18 ( 3 ) : 217 – 240 .
   Google Scholar
• Canelas , L. , Almansa , P. , Merchan , M. and Cifuentes , P. 2005 . Quality of environmental impact statements in Portugal and Spain . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 25 ( 3 ) : 217 – 225 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canter , L. W. 1996 . Environmental Impact Assessment, , 2nd edition. , New York : McGraw-Hill, Inc .
   Google Scholar
• Carroll , B. B. and Turpin , T. 2002 . Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook. A Practical Guide for Planners, Developers and Communities. , London : Thomas Telford. .
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore , M. , Christophlopoulos , E. and Cobb , D. 2002 . An evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece . Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management , 4 ( 4 ) : 371 – 395 .
   Google Scholar
• CEC, Commission of the European Communities . 2001 . Guidance on EIA. EIS Review. , Office for Official Publications of the European Communities . Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-review-full-text.pdf,last accessed 7 August 2006
   Google Scholar
• CEC, Commission of the European Communities . 1994 . Environmental Impact Review Checklist. , Brussels : Directorate General for Environmental, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection. .
   Google Scholar
• Council Directive of 27 June . 1985 . on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/full-legal-text/85337.htm,last accessed 28 January 2011
   Google Scholar
• Doelle , M. and Sinclair , A. J. 2006 . Time for a new approach to public participation in EIA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 26 ( 2 ) : 185 – 205 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David Tyldesley , D. TA and Associates . 2005 . A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and othersinvolved in the Environmental Impact Assessment process in Scotland, , 2nd edition Available at http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/heritagemanagement/eia/ last accessed 26 July 2007
   Google Scholar
• Elkin , T. I. and Smith , P. G. 1988 . What is a good environmental impact statement? Reviewing screening reports from Canada's national parks . Journal of Environmental Management , 26 ( 1 ) : 71 – 89 .
   Google Scholar
• Fuller , K. 1999 . “ Quality and quality control in environmental impact assessment ” . In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment , Edited by: Petts , J. Vol. 2 , 55 – 74 . Oxford : Blackwell Science .
   Google Scholar
• Gray , I. and Edwards-Jones , G. 2003 . A review of environmental statements in the British forest sector . Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , 21 ( 4 ) : 303 – 312 .
   Google Scholar
• Hansson , S. O. 2005 . Decision Theory. A Brief Introduction. Available at http://www.infra.kth.se/~soh/decisiontheory.pdf,last accessed 25 October 2009
   Google Scholar
• Jones , C. 1999 . “ Screening, scoping and consideration of alternatives ” . In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. , Edited by: Petts , J. Vol. 1 , 201 – 228 . Oxford : Blackwell Science .
   Google Scholar
• Jou , J.-J. and Liaw , S.-L. 2006 . A study on establishment of EIA System in the Taiwan Region . Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management , 8 ( 4 ) : 479 – 494 .
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence , D. P. 1997 . Quality and effectiveness of environmental impact assessments: lessons and insights from ten assessments in Canada . Project Appraisal , 12 ( 4 ) : 219 – 232 .
   Google Scholar
• Lee , N. and Colley , R. 1991 . Reviewing the quality of environmental statements . Town Planning Review , 62 ( 2 ) : 239 – 248 .
   Google Scholar
• Lee , N. and Brown , D. 1992 . Quality control in environmental assessment . Project Appraisal , 71 ( 1 ) : 41 – 45 .
   Google Scholar
• Lee , N. and Dancey , R. 1993 . The quality of environmental impact statements in Ireland and the United Kingdom: a comparative analysis . Project Appraisal , 8 ( 1 ) : 31 – 36 .
   Google Scholar
• Lee , N. , Walsh , F. and Reeder , G. 1994 . Assessing the performance of the EIA process . Project Appraisal , 9 ( 3 ) : 161 – 172 .
   Google Scholar
• Lee , N. , Colley , R. , Bonde , J. and Simpson , J. 1999 . Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements and Environmental Appraisals. University of Manchester: Occasional Paper Number 55. Available at http://www.sed.man.ac.uk/planning/research/publications/wp/eia/documents/OP24PARTB.pdf,last accessed 23 March 2010
   Google Scholar
• McGrath , C. and Bond , A. 1997 . The quality of environmental impact statements: a review of those submitted in Cork, Eire from 1988–1993 . Project Appraisal , 12 ( 1 ) : 43 – 52 .
   Google Scholar
• Morgan , R. K. 2002 . Environmental Impact Assessment. A Methodological Perspective. , Dordrecht : Kluwer. .
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem , O. and Hameed , R. 2008 . Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system in Pakistan . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 28 ( 8 ) : 562 – 571 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palerm , J. and Aceves , C. 2004 . Environmental impact assessment in Mexico: an analysis from a ‘consolidating democracy’ perspective . Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , 22 ( 2 ) : 99 – 108 .
   Google Scholar
• Peterson , K. 2010 . Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 30 ( 3 ) : 169 – 176 .
   Google Scholar
• Petts , J. 1999 . “ Public participation and environmental impact assessment ” . In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment , Edited by: Petts , J. Vol. 1 , 145 – 177 . Oxford : Blackwell Science .
   Google Scholar
• Ross , W. A. 1987 . Evaluating environmental impact statements . Journal of Environmental Management , 25 : 137 – 147 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandham , L. A. and Pretorius , H. M. 2008 . A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 28 ( 4–5 ) : 229 – 240 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SEI . 2006 . VKG Oil AS poolt kavandatava uue ölitehase asukohavaliku keskkonnamöjude hindamine. Löpparuanne. Available at http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=235883/UTT_KMHlopparuanne.pdf,last accessed 22 October 2006 (in Estonian)
   Google Scholar
• Sippe , R. 1999 . “ Criteria and standards for assessing significant impact ” . In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment , Edited by: Petts , J. Vol. 1 , 74 – 92 . Oxford : Blackwell Science .
   Google Scholar
• Skinner , D. C. 2001 . Introduction to Decision Analysis. A Practitioner's Guide to Improving Decision Quality, , 2nd edition. , Gainesville : Probabilistic Publishing .
   Google Scholar
• Stewart , J. M P and Sinclair , J. 2007 . Meaningful public participation in environmental assessment: perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents, and government . Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management , 9 ( 2 ) : 161 – 183 .
   Google Scholar
• Steinemann , A. 2001 . Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 21 ( 1 ) : 3 – 21 .
   Google Scholar
• Stillwell , W. G. , Winterweldt , D. von and John , R. S. 1987 . Comparing hierarchical and nonhierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multiattribute value models . Management Science , 33 ( 4 ) : 442 – 450 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang , Shui-Yan , Tang , Ching-Ping and Wing-Hung Lo , Carlos . 2005 . Public participation and environmental impact assessment in mainland China and Taiwan: political foundations of environmental management . The Journal of Development Studies , 41 ( 1 ) : 1 – 32 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triantaphyllou , E. 2000 . Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. , Edited by: Parlos , P. M. volume 44 , Dordrecht : Kluwer . Applied Optimization
   Google Scholar
• UK DTLR . 2001 . Multi Criteria Analysis: A Manual, Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions, UK. Available at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm,last accessed 27 March 2007
   Google Scholar
• Value Tree Analysis . 2002 . Helsinki University of Technology Available at http://www.mcda.hut.fi/value_tree/theory,last accessed 24 March 2008
   Google Scholar
• Winkler , R. L. 2003 . An Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision, , 2nd edition. , Gainesville : Probabilistic Publishing .
   Google Scholar
• Wood , G. 2008 . Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’? . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 28 ( 1 ) : 22 – 38 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar