Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 5-14

  Morgan, Richard K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

decision making; effectiveness; EIA; environmental law; methods; NEPA; participation; theory

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; METHODOLOGY; THEORY;

EID: 84861580491     PISSN: 14615517     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.661557     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Ashby, E. 1976. "Background to environmental impact assessment". In Environmental Impact Assessment, Edited by: O'Riordan, T. and Hey, R. 3-15. Farnborough, UK: Saxon House.
2. Bartlett, R.V. and Kurian, P.A. 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy-making. Policy and Politics, 27(4): 415-433.
3. Bond, A.J. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2011. Re-evaluating sustainability assessment: aligning the vision and the practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(1): 1-7.
4. Bond, A., Palerm, J. and Haigh, P. 2004. Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6): 617-641.
5. Bravante, M.A. and Holden, W.H. 2009. Going through the motions: the environmental impact assessment of non-ferrous metals mining projects in the Philippines. The Pacific Review, 22(4): 523-547.
6. Caldwell, L.J. 1978. "The environmental impact statement: a misused tool". In EIA-emerging issues in planning, Edited by: Jain, R.K. and Hutchings, B.L. 11-25. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7. Caldwell, L.J. 1988. Environmental impact analysis (EIA): origins, evolution, and future directions. Review of Policy Research, 8(1): 75-83.
8. Cashmore, M. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4): 295-310.
9. Cashmore, M. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(6): 371-379.
10. Cloquell-Ballester, V.A. 2007. Systematic comparative and sensitivity analyses of additive and outranking techniques for supporting impact significance assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(1): 62-83.
11. Commission of the European Communities, 2009. On the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive. COM (2009)378, final.
12. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2007. Collaboration in NEPA. A handbook for NEPA practitioners, Washington, DC: CEQ.
13. Daneke, G.A., Garcia, M.W. and Priscoli, J.D., eds. 1983. Public involvement and social impact assessment, Social Impact Assessment Series No. 9 Boulder, USA: Westview Press.
14. Department for Communities and Local Government. 2011. Draft National Planning Policy Framework London
15. Diduck, A. 2007. Achieving meaningful public participation in the environmental assessment of hydro development: case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(3): 219-231.
16. Duinker, P.N. and Greig, L.A. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management, 37(2): 153-161.
17. Duinker, P.N. and Greig, L.A. 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(3): 206-219.
18. Elling, B. 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms?. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2): 121-131.
19. Enserink, B. 2000. A quick scan for infrastructure planning: screening alternatives through interactive stakeholder analysis. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(1): 15-22.
20. Flyvbjerg, B., 2000. Ideal theory, real rationality: Habermas versus Foucault and Nietzsche [online]. Paper for the Political Studies Association's 50th Annual Conference, The Challenges for Democracy in the 21st Century, London School of Economics and Political Science, 10-13 April 2000. Available from: http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/IdealTheory.pdf [Accessed 13 October 2011].
21. Gunn, J. and Noble, B. 2011. Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(2): 154-160.
22. Hartley, N. and Wood, C. 2005. Public participation in environmental impact assessment-implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4): 319-340.
23. Holden, E. 1998. Planning theory: democracy or sustainable development?-both (but don't bother about the bread, please). Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 15(4): 227-247.
24. Hostovsky, C. 2006. The paradox of the rational comprehensive model of planning-tales from waste management planning in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(4): 382-395.
25. Huttunen, A. 1999. The effectiveness of public participation in the environmental impact assessment process-a case study of the projected Sierilää hydropower station at Oikarainen, northern Finland. Acta Borealia, 16(2): 27-41.
26. IEMA (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment), 2011. The state of environmental impact assessment practice in the UK [online]. Lincoln, UK: IEMA. Available from: http://www.iema.net/eiareport [Accessed 3 October 2011].
27. Ijas, A., Kuitunen, M.T. and Jalava, K. 2010. Developing the RIAM method (rapid impact assessment matrix) in the context of impact significance assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2): 82-89.
28. Kruopiene, J., Zidoniene, S. and Dvarioniene, J. 2009. Current practice and shortcomings of EIA in Lithuania. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(5): 305-309.
29. Lawrence, D.P. 1997. The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17(2): 79-107.
30. Lawrence, D.P. 2000. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(6): 607-625.
31. Lawrence, D.P. 2007a. Impact significance determination-designing an approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(8): 730-754.
32. Lawrence, D.P. 2007b. Impact significance determination-pushing the boundaries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(8): 770-788.
33. Leknes, E. 2001. The roles of EIA in the decision-making process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21(4): 309-334.
34. Levett, R., 2011. The golden thread has feet of clay. Town & Country Planning, 80 (10), 428-431
35. Lostarnau, C. 2011. Stakeholder participation within the public environmental system in Chile: major gaps between theory and practice. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10): 2470-2478.
36. Mandelik, Y. 2005. Issues and dilemmas in ecological scoping: scientific, procedural and economic perspectives. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(1): 55-63.
37. Marara, M. 2011. The importance of context in delivering effective EIA: case studies from East Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3): 286-296.
38. Marshall, R., Arts, J. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2005. International principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3): 175-181.
39. Martin, T. 2007. Muting the voice of the local in the age of the global: how communication practices compromised public participation in India's Allain Dunhangan environmental impact assessment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1(2): 171-193.
40. Morgan, R.K. 1998. Environmental impact assessment: a methodological perspective, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
41. Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J. 2004. Assessing impact: handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up, London: Earthscan.
42. Mustow, S.E., Burgess, R.F. and Walker, N. 2005. Practical methodology for determining the significance of impacts on the water environment. Water and Environment Journal, 19(2): 100-108.
43. National Academy of Sciences. 2011. Improving health in the United States: the role of health impact assessment, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
44. O'Faircheallaigh, C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1): 19-27.
45. O'Riordan, T. and Sewell, W.R. D. 1981. "From project appraisal to policy review". In Project appraisal and policy review, Edited by: O'Riordan, T. and Sewell, W.R. D. 1-28. Chichester: Wiley.
46. Ortolano, L. and Shepherd, A. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assessment, 13(1): 3-30.
47. Petts, J. 2003. Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA: learning from waste policies, plans and projects. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(3): 269-293.
48. Pinho, P., McCallum, S. and Santos Cruz, S. 2010. A critical appraisal of EIA screening practice in EU Member States. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(2): 91-107.
49. Pohjola, M.V. and Tuomisto, J.T. 2011. Openness in participation, assessment, and policy making upon issues of environment and environmental health: a review of literature and recent project results. Environmental Health, 10(1): 58-70.
50. Pope, J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6): 595-616.
51. Rajaram, T. and Das, A. 2011. Screening for EIA in India: enhancing effectiveness through ecological carrying capacity approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(1): 140-148.
52. Retief, F. 2010. The evolution of environmental assessment debates: critical perspectives from South Africa. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 12(4): 375-397.
53. Richardson, T. 2005. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4): 341-365.
54. Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance, Final report, International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
55. Sadler, B. 2011. "Taking stock of SEA". In Handbook of strategic environmental assessment, Edited by: Sadler, B. 1-18. London: Earthscan.
56. Snell, T. and Cowell, R. 2006. Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing precaution and efficiency?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4): 359-376.
57. Taylor, C.N., Bryan, C.H. and Goodrich, C.G. 2004. Social assessment: theory, process and techniques, 3rd ed., Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press.
58. Weston, J. 2010. EIA theories-all Chinese whispers and no critical theory. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 12(4): 357-374.
59. Weston, J. 2011. Screening for environmental impact assessment projects in England: what screening?. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(2): 90-98.
60. Wiklund, H. 2005. In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: a Habermasian review of environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(4): 281-292.
61. Wiklund, H. 2011. Why high participatory ideals fail in practice: a bottom-up approach to public non-participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(2): 159-178.
62. Wilkins, H. 2003. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(4): 401-414.
63. Wood, C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review, 2nd ed., Harlow: Prentice Hall.
64. Wood, G. and Becker, J. 2005. Discretionary judgement in local planning authority decision making: screening development proposals for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(3): 349-371.