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

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 27-36

  Põder, Tõnis ^a   Lukki, Tiit ^a  

^a TALLINN UNIVERSITY   (Estonia)

Author keywords

Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Environmental impact statement (EIS); Quality evaluation; Review checklist; Review package

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY;

EID: 79952859934     PISSN: 14615517     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/146155111X12913679730511     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. André, P, B Enserink, D Connor and P Croal 2006. Public Participation. International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 4. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment.
2. Barker, A and C Wood 1999. An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19(4), 387-404.
3. Beinat, E 1997. Value Functions for Environmental Management. Environment & Management, Volume 7. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Benson, J F 2003. What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(4), 261-280.
5. Bojórquez-Tapia, L A and O García 1998. An approach for evaluating EIAS - deficiencies of EIA in Mexico. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(3), 217-240.
6. Canelas, L, P Almansa, M Merchan and P Cifuentes 2005. Quality of environmental impact statements in Portugal and Spain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(3), 217-225.
7. Canter, L W 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
8. Carroll, B B and T Turpin 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook. A Practical Guide for Planners, Developers and Communities. London: Thomas Telford.
9. Cashmore, M, E Christophlopoulos and D Cobb 2002. An evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 4(4), 371-395.
10. CEC, Commission of the European Communities 2001. Guidance on EIA. EIS Review. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at , last accessed 7 August 2006.
11. CEC, Commission of the European Communities 1994. Environmental Impact Review Checklist. Brussels: Directorate General for Environmental, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.
12. 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 , last accessed 28 January 2011.
13. Doelle, M and A J Sinclair 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.
14. DTA, David Tyldesley and Associates 2005. A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment process in Scotland, 2nd edition. Available at last accessed 26 July 2007.
15. Elkin, T I and P G Smith 1988. What is a good environmental impact statement? Reviewing screening reports from Canada's national parks. Journal of Environmental Management, 26(1), 71-89.
16. Fuller, K 1999. Quality and quality control in environmental impact assessment. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol. 2, ed. J Petts, pp. 55-74. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
17. Gray, I and G Edwards-Jones 2003. A review of environmental statements in the British forest sector. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(4), 303-312.
18. Hansson, S O 2005. Decision Theory. A Brief Introduction. Available at , last accessed 25 October 2009.
19. Jones, C 1999. Screening, scoping and consideration of alternatives. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Vol. 1, ed. J Petts, pp. 201-228. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
20. Jou, J-J and S-L Liaw 2006. A study on establishment of EIA System in the Taiwan Region. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(4), 479-494.
21. 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.
22. Lee, N and R Colley 1991. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements. Town Planning Review, 62(2), 239-248.
23. Lee, N and D Brown 1992. Quality control in environmental assessment. Project Appraisal, 71(1), 41-45.
24. Lee, N and R Dancey 1993. The quality of environmental impact statements in Ireland and the United Kingdom: a comparative analysis. Project Appraisal, 8(1), 31-36.
25. Lee N, F Walsh and G Reeder 1994. Assessing the performance of the EIA process. Project Appraisal, 9(3), 161-172.
26. Lee, N, R Colley, J Bonde and J Simpson 1999. Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements and Environmental Appraisals. University of Manchester: Occasional Paper Number 55. Available at , last accessed 23 March 2010.
27. McGrath, C and A Bond 1997. The quality of environmental impact statements: a review of those submitted in Cork, Eire from 1988-1993. Project Appraisal, 12(1), 43-52.
28. Morgan, R K 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment. A Methodological Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
29. Nadeem, O and R Hameed 2008. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(8), 562-571.
30. Palerm, J and C Aceves 2004. Environmental impact assessment in Mexico: an analysis from a 'consolidating democracy' perspective. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(2), 99-108.
31. Peterson, K 2010. Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(3), 169-176.
32. Petts, J 1999. Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol. 1, ed. J Petts, pp. 145-177. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
33. Ross, W A 1987. Evaluating environmental impact statements. Journal of Environmental Management, 25, 137-147.
34. Sandham, L A and H M Pretorius 2008. A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(4-5), 229-240.
35. SEI, 2006. VKG Oil AS poolt kavandatava uue õlitehase asukohavaliku keskkonnamõjude hindamine. Lõpparuanne. Available at , last accessed 22 October 2006 (in Estonian).
36. Sippe, R 1999. Criteria and standards for assessing significant impact. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Vol. 1, ed. J Petts, pp. 74-92. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
37. Skinner, D C 2001. Introduction to Decision Analysis. A Practitioner's Guide to Improving Decision Quality, 2nd edition. Gainesville: Probabilistic Publishing.
38. Stewart, J M P and J Sinclair 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.
39. Steinemann, A 2001. Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21(1), 3-21.
40. Stillwell, W G, D von Winterweldt and R S John 1987. Comparing hierarchical and nonhierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multiattribute value models. Management Science, 33(4), 442-450.
41. Tang, Shui-Yan, Ching-Ping Tang and Carlos Wing-Hung Lo 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.
42. Triantaphyllou, E 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Applied Optimization, volume 44, ed. P M Parlos. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
43. UK DTLR 2001. Multi Criteria Analysis: A Manual, Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions, UK. Available at , last accessed 27 March 2007.
44. Value Tree Analysis 2002. Helsinki University of Technology. Available at , last accessed 24 March 2008.
45. Winkler, R L 2003. An Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision, 2nd edition. Gainesville: Probabilistic Publishing.
46. 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.