Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 169-176

  Peterson, Kaja ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

EIS quality; EIS review package; Group assessment; Individual assessment

Indexed keywords

COMPETENT AUTHORITIES; CURRENT PRACTICES; EIS REVIEW PACKAGE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; ESTONIA; GROUP ASSESSMENT; GROUP MEMBERS; MEMBER STATE; QUALITY ASSESSMENT; TECHNICAL EXPERTISE;

DECISION MAKING; ELECTROCHEMICAL CORROSION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT; EUROPEAN UNION; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 76749115160     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Canelas L., Almansa P., Merchan M., and Cifuentes P. Quality of environmental impact statements in Portugal and Spain. Environ Impact Asses Rev 25 (2005) 217-225
2. Crabbe A., and Leroy P. The handbook of environmental policy evaluation (2008), Earthscan
3. European Commission. Evaluation of the performance of the EIA process. In: Wood C., Barker A., Jones C., and Hughes J. (Eds). Final Report (1996), European Commission
4. European Commission. Guidance on EIA. EIS review (2001) June 2001
5. European Commission. Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2001) November 2001
6. European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC). How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive (2003), European Commission 133
7. Glasson J., Therivel R., and Chadwick A. introduction to environmental impact assessment. Principles and procedures, process, practice and prospects (1994), UCL Press
8. Glasson J., Therivel R., Weston J., Wilson E., and Frost R. EIA - Learning from experience: Changes in the quality of environmental impact statements for UK planning projects. J Environ Plan Manag 40 4 (1997) 451-464
9. Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT.
10. Lee N., and Colley R. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements. Town Plan Rev 62 2 (1992) 239-248
11. Lee, N., Colley, R., Bonde, J., Simpson, J., Reviewing the quality of environmental statements and environmental appraisals. Occ. Paper No 55. EIA Centre, Dept of Plan. and Landscape, University of Manchester, 1999.
12. McGrath C., and Bond A. The quality of environmental impact statements: a review of those submitted in Cork, Eire 1988-1993. Proj Appraisal 12 1 (1997) 43-52
13. Peterson K., Kuldna P., Poltimäe H., and Uustal M. Quality of EIS [in Estonian]. In: Peterson K. (Ed). Overview of the practice of EIA in Estonia [in Estonian] (2006), SEI Public 254-267 SEI Tallinn, No 9
14. Sandham L.A., and Pretorius H.M. A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa. Environ. Impact Assess Rev 28 4-5 (2008) 229-240
15. Wilkins H. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact Asses Rev 23 (2003) 410-414