Since the inception of EIA, there have been a worldwide adoption of the idea. However, its practice varies from country to country. This is a review of the practice of EIA, focusing on the similarities and differences that exist globally.

1. A REVIEW OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(EIA) PRACTICE
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE PRACTICE OF EIA
ASIGBAASE MICHAEL
(March, 2012)
1

2. Introduction
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been variously defined since its inception
(Yanhua et al., 2011; Samarakoon and Rowan, 2008; Snell and Cowell, 2006; Bruhn-Tysk
and Eklund, 2002; Perez-Maqueo, 2001; Duinker and Greig, 2007; Lee and George, 2000). It
is therefore difficult to comprehensively define EIA, however, it can be described as a
systematic process for identifying, examining, analyzing, evaluating, and predicting the
impacts of planned activities or policies; involving consultation with affected stakeholders,
and using the results of the analysis and consultations in planning, authorising and
implementation of the activity (Toro et al., 2012; Kwiatkowski and Ooi, 2003; Yanhua et al.,
2011; Cashmore, 2004). In simple terms, EIA is just an information gathering exercise
carried out by the proponent or other recognized bodies which enables decision-making
bodies understand the potential environmental effects of a proposed project before deciding
whether or not it should go ahead. EIA is thus an anticipatory (futuring), participatory
environmental management tool and as such, it is based on principles such as transparency,
public involvement and accountability (CENN, 2004; RTPI, 2001). Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) is essential for sustainable development; it ensures a balance
economically, socially, and institutionally with the environment.
EIA development started with the adoption of the NEPA (National Environmental Protection
Act) in the USA in 1969 (El-Fadl and El-Fadel, 2004), and facilitated by the Stockholm
Conference in 1972, the Brundtland Report, and the Rio Conference, the idea has been
adopted and practiced by over 100 countries (Wood, 2003b; Jay et al., 2007), including
developed, developing and transitional economies. EIA is a useful tool for facilitating intra-
generational and intergenerational equity (Yanhua et al., 2011) hence promoting sustainable
development and ecosystems protection. It is therefore not surprising that it has been adopted
world-wide within four decades (Jay et al., 2007). However, though the basic components of
EIA (Figure 1) are relatively the same world-wide, the procedures and practice varies from
one nation to the other (Glasson et al., 2000). This write up therefore seeks to critically
review the global practice of EIA, focusing on similarities and differences. The essay
examined how the legal and institutional framework, and the screening and scoping
components of EIA vary globally, using information from 40 countries (Table 1). The
selected aspects of EIA for review in this essay were based on the fact that they form the back
bone and most essential parts of EIA (Heinma and Põder, 2010; Weston, 2000a).
Proposed EIA Public Decision
Screening Scoping Conduction
Project Involvement
Figure 1: Basic EIA Process and components
2

3. Table 1: Selected countries for essay write up
Continent Selected Countries (depended on available data)
Africa Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and
Tunisia
Asia China, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, India, Indonesia, Maldives, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Thailand, Lebanon, Syria, Korea and Vietnam
Australia Australia and Fiji
Europe Bulgaria, Denmark, UK, Finland, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania,
Sweden, Turkey, Norway and France
North America US and Canada, and Alberta (province)
South America Brazil and Colombia
Legal and Institutional Framework or Procedures
As pointed out earlier, the practice of EIA differs from one country to another; EIA has been
adopted in the context of the institutional framework and political system of each country.
Several studies including, Wood (2003a) and Okello et al (2008), suggests that legislation(s)
is/are essential for EIA to be effective. Evidently, the adoption, implementation, and practice
of EIA depend on the institutional framework and political context of the decision-making
process in each country (Leknes, 2001). The provision for EIA may be made through
legislation, administrative order or policy directive (Ahmad and Wood, 2002). Some
countries have EIA legislations requiring approval of projects before their commencement
but other countries rely on regulations, guidance or ad hoc procedures (Glasson et al., 2000).
For example, countries such as USA (Steinemann, 2001 ), Finland (Pölönen et al., 2011),
Ghana (Appiah-Opoku, 2001), India (Rajaram and Das, 2011), Korea (Song and Glasson,
2010), Colombia (Toro et al., 2010), Pakistan (Nadeem and Hameed, 2008), South Africa
(Sandham and Pretorius, 2008), Ireland (Geraghty, 1996), Scotland (Natural Heritage
Management, 2009), and Syria (Haydar and Pediaditi, 2010) have comprehensive or enabling
legislations requiring that certain projects must carry out EIA and be approved before the
commencement of such undertakings whilst Azerbaija (CENN, 2004) and Fiji (Turnbull,
2003) has no comprehensive EIA legislations but relies on unclear regulations and guidelines
from an EIA handbook. Also, in China, there was no comprehensive EIA legislation until
2003, though EIA had been practiced in the country for about three decades (Lui et al., 2011).
Despite this bold step by China, many assessments, including Lui et al. (2011) and Wang et
al. (2003), suggest that the new system is still weak, allowing little public participation
(though better than earlier systems), and deficient in the consideration of alternatives.
However, the research conducted by Wang et al. (2003) was shallow because their
methodology did not allow for fair representation of China’s major towns. The paper
concentrated in two major Town centres which do not provide any form of representative
picture of the practice of EIA under the new system across China as a nation.
Another form of disparity is that some countries have complex systems within which EIA is
performed whilst other countries have relatively simpler legal procedures for carrying out
EIA. In China, for example, EIA operates within a complex legal framework (Lui et al.,
2011) whiles in Ghana, the system is much simpler (Appiah-Opoku, 2001). Also, in other
countries where the legislative and administrative system are well defined and established
3

4. such as UK (Salvador et al, 2000) and Canada (www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca), public participation
and project alternatives are treated as essential and provision is made to ensure effectiveness.
It can therefore be inferred that the legislative and administrative system of a country together
with its socio-economic growth determines how EIA is practiced. Despite the differences in
terms of legislation, most countries have well defined procedures by which EIA is executed,
and the process involves all the components shown in Figure 1. It is also worth noting that
Nigeria has three different independent EIA systems, all backed by laws, and therefore differs
significantly from other countries in their approach to EIA (Ogunba, 2004). The disadvantage
of such systems is that duplication of functions is not uncommon and the effectiveness of all
systems is questionable.
Screening
In all countries under review, the EIA process begins when a proponent applies to the
appropriate authority for permission (e.g. China), approval (e.g. Ghana), Clearance (e.g.
Bangladesh) or licence(s) (e.g. Colombia) to undertake a planned activity. In some countries,
such as Ghana and Bangladesh, only one agency or body has the power to approve projects
whiles in other countries such as Colombia, China, Canada, Syria, Denmark, India and Brazil
more than one agency or body can approve projects (Christensen, 2006; Paliwal, 2006). For
example, either the Government Administration (MEHLD), Regional Independent
Corporations, Sustainable Development Corporations, or Urban Community Corporations in
Colombia can issue the licence to developers to undertake projects (Toro et al., 2010)
whereas in Ghana, only the EPA has the authority to approve projects (Appiah-Opoku, 2001).
It is worth mentioning that unlike the other nations, Canada has a different system; the
process depends on ‘triggers’. The federal authority undertakes EIA whenever a project
meets at least one of the ‘triggers’. For example, a project will initiate the EIA process if it is
proposed by the federal authority (www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca).
Once the appropriate authority receives the application, the next stage in the EIA process is
screening. Screening is the process of determining whether a proposed undertaking requires
an EIA or not based on the expected impact of the proposed project on the environment and
its relative significance (Pölönen et al., 2011). Depending on the circumstances of the
proposed project, the existing environment, and the likely environmental effects, screenings
might vary significantly in time taken, length and depth of analysis, (Joa˜o, 2002; www.ceaa-
acee.gc.ca). In all nations, the screening stage produces one of four main outcomes; (i) no
need for EIA, (ii) need for a full and comprehensive EIA, (iii) need for a limited EIA or (iv)
need for further studies to determine the level of EIA required (Salvador et al., 2000; Clausen
et al., 2011). Three main approaches are employed during screening to determine whether or
not a proposed project requires EIA; legal (or policy), inclusion or exclusion list, or a criteria
for case-by-case (Figure 2). Every country uses at least one of these methods, though they
may differ significantly in the way they are applied based on applicable EIA law(s) or
regulations. Most countries use the list approach (Christensen and Kørnøv, 2011; Glasson et
al., 2000; Marara et al., 2011; El-Sayed et al., 2011). For instance, in Aberta, the inclusion
list defines projects that require a comprehensive EIA base on size and type, for example, the
construction, operation or reclamation of a quarry producing more than 45 000 tonnes per
year requires a full EIA (Alberta Regulation 62/2008).
4

5. Figure 2: General screening approaches (Source: http://eia.unu.edu/course/?page_id=136)
The use of project lists offers two main merits; it provides a standardized framework for
screening and simplifies the screening process as well. However, despite these merits, it is
critical to note that use of project lists must be done with caution because it has its own
weaknesses. For example, a proposed surface coal mine project producing more than 45 000
tonnes per year will require an EIA in Alberta (Alberta Regulation 62/2008). In this case,
EIA can be avoided by reducing the proposed production level to a level just below the
threshold (e.g. 44 400 tonnes per year). It is therefore essential to have a discretionary
(secondary) list or other screening procedures to which such projects will be subject. Also,
project lists requires regular updates that will incorporate experiences from pass EIAs and to
meet new demands. The flowchart of Alberta’s EIA process is shown in Figure 3.
In Azerbaija, however, the screening is much different from Alberta because there are no
distinctive procedures by which projects are screened (CENN, 2004). Screening is based on
experience from past EIAs and sometimes recognized international bodies screening lists
(e.g. World Bank). This kind of screening is likely to be of poor quality because threshold
values are quite subjective, and the screening process is likely not to be comprehensive. As
such, usually, only the oil companies requires EIA but small scale activities, regardless of
their potential environment impact, do not go through the EIA process (CENN, 2004). It can
therefore be inferred that the procedure for screening in Azerbaija is not rigorous enough to
make EIA effective. Much like Azerbaija, is the Fijian state, where screening rest solely on
the discretionary power of the Town and Country Planning’s Director (Turnbull, 2003). Such
screening approaches are very subjective with high probability of producing poor results.
5

6. Figure 3: Alberta EIA process (Source: Alberta’s Environmental Assessment Process, 2010)
Unlike Azerbaija, Bangladesh has defined screening procedures. All industrial projects are
grouped into; Green, Amber A, Amber B and Red, and requires Environmental Clearance
before their commencement, though not all projects requires EIA (Figure 4). The
categorization is based on the environmental significance and location of the proposed
industry. Projects location is critical because though they may be below the threshold size,
they may be located in or near to environmentally sensitive sites. Projects funded by
development partners such as the World Bank or Asian Development Bank follow different
screening procedures developed by them (Momtaz, 2002). There are three categorizations; A
(significant impact) - full EIA required; B (some impact) – partial EIA required; and C (no
impact) – no EIA required. This is quite true in most development countries to which such
bodies are development partners.
6

7. Figure 4: Process of obtaining environmental clearance in Bangladesh (Source: Momtaz,
2002)
7

8. Projects in China are categorized into A, B, and C and the screening procedure is much
similar to that of Bangladesh, though it may differ significantly in content, size and time. The
administration of EIA screening is however much complex because of the political
framework within which it operates. For example, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) of
all projects involving nuclear facilities or high confidentiality, cross-boundaries or worth
more than RMB 20 million approved by the State Council are approved by the State
Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). All other projects are approved by the
Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs) on agreed terms (Lui et al., 2011). The definition
of what is significant is dependent on the nature and quantity of the ‘pollutant discharge’ as
well as the ‘sensitivity’ of the area. Therefore projects are classified into Category A, B or C
based on their features, output and environmental parameters. It is critical to note that the
screening process is biased towards construction projects with potential to cause pollution.
Also, monetary values are used to set thresholds unlike Bangladesh and Alberta where project
size and type are used.
Screening in Pakistan (Figure 5 presents EIA flowchart) is much simpler but similar to that of
China because thresholds for determining whether a project requires EIA or IEE depends on
its cost and capacity (Nadeem and Hameed, 2008). For example, a 50 million rupees (0.806
million US$) or more highway project requires an EIA but if the cost is less than 50 million
rupees, an IEE is required; a 50MW (MG) or less hydro power project does not require an
EIA whereas capacities greater than 50MW must undergo EIA (GoP, 2000). Projects that
require EIA form the Schedule II list and those that require IEE constitute Schedule I list.
These Schedules are regularly updated to incorporate new experiences and to meet current
demands. The downside of this procedure is that size and location has not been well
considered. Large or small scale housing schemes’ located in sensitive areas is likely to have
significant adverse impact on the environment yet it may not require EIA. Like China,
provincial EPAs approve EIAs within their jurisdictions whiles the state EPA (Pakistan EPA)
is responsible for state projects or trans-provincial projects. However, IEEs for public sector
projects are approved by the Planning and Development Department(s) (Federal or
provincial) with the exception of military projects and trans-country impact projects (Nadeem
and Hameed, 2008). Ghana’s EPA decides what constitutes a significant environmental
impact in consultation with a committee drawn from various government sectors, and experts.
Once a project will have significant adverse impacts on the environment, the Proponent is
asked to consult with the affectees and interested parties and prepare a scoping report
(Appiah-Opoku, 2001).
8

9. Figure 5: Pakistan’s EIA process (Source: Nadeem and Hameed, 2008)
Scoping
Screening establishes the basis for scoping, which identifies the main issues that need to be
covered in an EIA yet ensuring that indirect, secondary and cumulative effects are not down
played (Rajaram and Das, 2011). Scoping should therefore be timely, comprehensive and
9

10. focused, flexible but systematic, and involve public participation (Glynn, 2004). Globally,
scoping is done using one of three major approaches; proponent prepares scope solely,
proponent prepares scope in consultation with competent authority with or without public
input or competent authority prepares the scope for the proponent (Wood et al., 2006;
Mulvihill, 2003; Zubair, 2001). In cases where the competent authority prepares the scope for
the proponent, it can be very burdensome, especially in developed countries where proposed
projects may range from hundreds to thousands in a short period. If scoping is also left solely
to the proponent, the general public and affectees are likely to be left out in most cases.
Therefore, it is better to use the second approach, where the proponent prepares the scope in
consultation with the competent authority, the public and affectees. In Alberta, once a project
requires an EIA, the Proponent prepares and provides the public and Alberta Environment
with copies of Proposed Terms of Reference (PTOF). The Assessment Director based on the
EPEA guidelines and public input, issues the Final Terms of Reference (scope) and the
Proponent conducts the assessment. A quite different approach is used in Azerbaija, the scope
is agreed upon at a meeting held by the Environmental Authority for the Developer involving
affectees, experts and the Developer. Where consensus cannot be reached, the Environmental
Authority decides the scope and the Developer conduct the assessment. There are no explicit
guidelines for scoping in Azerbaija. In Pakistan, the EPA plays just a suggestive role in
scoping; the Developer has the sole responsibility of developing the Terms of Reference,
after which the assessment is conducted. This is because scoping is not mandatory in Pakistan
(Nadeem and Hameed, 2008), though it is in most countries. The approach in China also
differs significantly from the already discussed procedures. Upon the Developer’s request, a
licensed agency prepares the EIA action-outline for them. The Developer then hires a
licensed agency to conduct the EIA once the action-outline is approved by EPB. In
determining the significance of a project, China uses the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA)
approach, in addition to level of potential pollution. Though significant differences exist in
the way scoping is done in various countries, the content of the EIA report are basically the
same differing very little. Comparing the countries under discussion, the content includes;
 project description,
 project location and environmental setting information,
 project options and alternatives
 baseline information (environmental, social and cultural),
 potential negative and positive impact (environmental, social, health, economic and
cultural),
 mitigation plans, and
 environmental management proposal for monitoring and decommissioning (Paliwal,
2006; El-Fadel et al., 2000; Kruopienė et al., 2009; Saengsupavanich, 2011).
A Summary of the other stages
The report is reviewed by; a multi-disciplinary team of experts co-ordinated by Alberta
Environment in Alberta (Alberta’s Environmental Assessment Process Updated, 2010);
Environmental Review Expert Group (EREG) chaired by the Environmental authority in
10

11. Azerbaijan (CENN, 2004); EPB, in consultation with other relevant authorities in China (Lui
et al., 2011); and EPA, in consultation with a committee of experts in Ghana (Appiah-Opoku,
2001). The purpose of the review is basically the same in all countries under discussion; to
identify any project-related risks or uncertainties and determine if the information provided
meets the Terms of Reference (TOR) (Lui et al., 2011; Kruopienė et al., 2010). In Ghana, the
report is graded; A (excellent), B (good), C (satisfactory), D (attempted), E (poor) and F
(very poor), and depending on the nature of the project and potential impacts, grades D, E,
and F are might be asked to provide the appropriate additional information (Appiah-Opoku,
2001). Once the reviewed report is satisfactory; in Alberta, the Director formally refers the
report to the Board or the Minister to become part of the Public Interest Decision process
(Alberta’s Environmental Assessment Process Updated, 2010); in the other countries under
review, a decision is given and the project may commence on ground while other
requirements are being processed. Globally, most countries (e.g. Lithuania, Figure 6) have
provision for public participation and appeal in case of dissatisfaction on proponent’s part
(O'Faircheallaigh, 2010; Elling, 2004; Li et al., 2012; Furia and Wallace-Jones, 2000;
Soneryd, 2004; Almer and Koontz, 2004); however, it is poorly practiced in most developing
countries. Finally, all countries have provisions for monitoring but it is usually done poorly or
not all, even in some developed nations (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2007; Zubair et al., 2011).
Figure 6: Lithuania EIA process (involves much public participation) (Source: Kruopienė et
al, 2009)
11

12. Conclusion
EIA is practiced world-wide but differing greatly in procedures and practices. Most countries
have well defined procedures for carrying out EIA though in practice it may be poorly done.
Well defined procedures for EIA but poor practices are not uncommon in most developing
countries. Categorization of projects is based on factors such as type, magnitude, capacity,
costs, duration, location, and impact significance. In all countries, the EIA process begins
when a proponent applies to the appropriate authority for permission to undertake an activity
or project. Screening determines whether a project requires EIA or not. The most common
screening procedure involves the use of lists with thresholds set by project cost, location,
size, type or capacity. Some countries have discretionary lists which enlist projects not
covered (in term of threshold) in the inclusion and exclusion lists. Decision on EIA
requirements for such projects is dependent on location and level of significance of impact.
Most countries’ scoping involves the proponent, affectees, experts and the public. However,
in China, the action-outline (which provides the scope) is given by a licensed agency and
approved by the state’s environmental authority. Scoping is not mandatory in Pakistan hence
the proponent decides what to include; the state’s environmental authority only plays a
suggestive role in this stage. Globally, the impact assessment is mostly conducted by the
Proponent in developed countries but in developing countries, a licensed agency or the state’s
environmental authority does the assessment. The cost of the assessment, however, is borne
by the proponent in all countries. Public participation in the EIA process is not uncommon in
developed countries but much limited in developing countries. Though there are great
variations in EIA procedures and practice, the contents of EIA report are much similar with
little variations.
12

13. References
Ahmad, B. and Wood, C. (2002): A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt,
Turkey and Tunisia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 213 – 234.
Alberta Regulation 62/2008; Environmental protection and enhancement act, environmental
assessment (Mandatory and exempted activities) regulation. Alberta Queen’s Printer: Alberta
Province.
Alberta’s Environmental Assessment Process (2010): Alberta Environment, Environmental
Assessment Program, Edmonton, Alberta, 5pp.
Almer, H.L. and Koontz, T.M. (2004): Public hearings for EIAs in post-communist Bulgaria;
do they work? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24; 473 – 493.
Appiah-Opoku, S (2001): Environmental impact assessment in developing countries; the
case of Ghana. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 59 – 71.
Bruhn-Tysk S and Eklund M, (2002): Environmental impact assessment—a tool for
sustainable development? A case study of biofuelled energy plants in Sweden. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 22, 129–144.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; http://www.ceaa-
acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B053F859-1, Accessed on 11/02/2012
Cashmore, M. (2004): The role of science in environmental impact assessment; process and
procedure versus purpose in the development theory. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 24, 403 – 426.
Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN) (2004): Assessment of effectiveness of
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in Azerbaijan. Baku, Azerbaijan CENN,
55pp.
Christensen, P (2006): Danish experiences on EIA of livestock projects. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 26, 468 – 480.
Christensen, P and Kørnøv, L (2011): EIA screening and nature in Denmark. Journal of
Environmental Management, 92, 1097 – 1103.
Clausen, A., Vu, H.H. and Pedrono, M. (2011): An evaluation of the environmental impact
assessment system in Vietnam; the gap between theory and practice. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 31, 136 – 143.
Duinker, P.N. and Greig, L.A. (2007): Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment;
improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 206 –
219.
El-Fadel, M. Zeinati, M. and Jamali, D (2000): Framework for environmental impact
assessment in Lebanon. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 570 – 604.
13

14. El-Fadl, K. and El-Fadel, M. (2004): Comparative assessment of EIA systems in MENA
countries; challenges and prospects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 553 –
593.
Elling, B. (2004): Modernity and communicative reflection in environmental assessment. In:
Hilding-Rydevik, T and TheodorsdottirAH (eds.); Planning for sustainable development – the
practice and potentials of environmental assessment. Nordregio R20044:2. Stockholm:
Nordregio; p. 53 – 67.
El-Sayed, A. B., Zahran, A.A. and Casmore, M. (2011): Benchmarking performance;
environmental impact statements in Egypt. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31,
279 – 285.
Environmental impact assessment course module: http://eia.unu.edu/course/?page_id=136,
accessed on 04/02/2012
Furia, L.D. and Wallace-Jones, J. (2000): The effectiveness of provisions and quality of
practices concerning public participation in EIA in Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 20, 457 – 479.
Geraghty P.J. (1996): Assessment practice in Ireland following the adoption of the European
directive. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 189 – 211.
Glasson J and Salvador N.N.B. (2000): EIA in Brazil; a procedures–practice gap. A
comparative study with reference to the European Union, and especially the UK.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 191–225.
Glynn, T (2004): Environmental impact assessment (EIA); a guide for Reviewers. MSc.
Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 26pp.
Government of Pakistan (GoP), (2000): Pakistan environmental protection agency (review of
IEE and EIA) regulations. Islamabad: Pak-EPA.
Haydar, F. and Pediaditi, K. (2010): evaluation of the environmental impact assessment
systems in Syria. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 3, 363 – 370.
Heinma, K and Põder, T (2010): Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment systems
in Estonia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 272 – 277.
Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P. and Wood, C. (2007): Environmental impact assessment;
retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2, 287 – 300.
Joa˜o, E. (2002): How scale affects environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 22, 289 – 310.
Kruopienė, J., Židonienė, S. and Dvarionienė, J. (2009): Current practice and shortcomings of
EIA in Lithuania. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 305 – 309.
14

15. Kwiatkowski, R.E. and Ooi, M. (2003): Integrated environmental impact assessment; a
Cannadian example. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 434 – 438.
Lee and George, (eds.) (200b): Environmental assessment in developing and transitional
countries. Chichester: Wiley.
Leknes, E. (2001): The role of EIA in the decision-making process. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 21, 309 – 334.
Li, T.H.Y., Ng, S.T. and Skitmore, M. (2012): Public participation in infrastructure and
construction projects in China; from an EIA-based to a whole-cycle process. Habitat
International, 36, 47 – 56.
Lui, Q., Zhu, T. and Sun. Z (2011): Exploration and prospects; the systemization process of
environmental impact assessment in China. Energy Procedia, 11, 3679 – 3687.
Marara, M., Okello, N., Kuhanwa, Z., Douven, W., Beevers, L. and Leentvaar, J. (2011): The
importance of context in delivering effective EIA; case studies from East Africa.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 286 – 296.
Momtaz, S. (2002): Environmental Impact Assessment in Bangladesh: a critical review.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 163 – 179.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Marshall, R. And Arts, J. (2007); EIA follow-up; international best
practice principles. International Association for Impact Assessment Special publication
series 6.
Mulvihill, P.R. (2003): Expanding the scoping community. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 23, 39 – 49.
Nadeem, O. and Hameed, R. (2008): Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system
in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 562 – 571.
Natural Heritage Management, (2009): A handbook on environmental impact assessment;
guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees, and others involved in the Environmental
Impact Assessment process in Scotland. 3rd Edition. Natural Heritage Management,
Edinburgh, 239pp.
O'Faircheallaigh, C. (2010): Public participation and environmental impact assessment;
purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 30, 19 – 27.
Ogunba, O.A. (2004): EIA systems in Nigeria; evolution, current practice and shortcomings.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 643 – 660.
Okello, N., Douven, D., Leentvaar, J. and Beevers, J (2008): Breaking Kenyan barriers to
public involvement in environment impact assessment. The Art and Science of Impact
15

16. Assessment 28th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact assessment,
4-10 May 2008, Perth convention Exhibition Centre, Perth, Australia.
Paliwal, R. (2006): EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 492 – 510.
Perez-Maqueo, O., Equihua, M., Hernandez, A. and Benitez, G. (2001): Visual programming
languages as a tool to identify and communicate the effects of a development project
evaluated by means of an environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 21, 291 – 306.
Pölönen, I., Hokkanen, P. and Jalava, K. (2011): The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system
– what works, what doesn’t, and what could be improved? Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 31, 120 – 128.
Rajaram, T. and Das, A. (2011): Screening for EIA in India; enhancing effectiveness through
ecological carrying capacity approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 140 –
148.
Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) (2001): Planning practice standard; environmental
impact assessment. The Royal Town Planning Institute, London, 34pp.
Saengsupavanich, C. (2011): A current environmental impact assessment of a port in
Thailand; marine physical aspects. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54, 101 – 109.
Salvador, N.N.B., Glasson, J. and Piper, J.M. (2000): Cleaner production and environmental
impact assessment; a UK perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 127 – 132.
Samarakoon, M. and Rowan, J.S. (2008): A critical review of environmental impact
assessments in Sri Lanka with particular reference to Ecological Impact Assessment.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 441 – 460.
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, 229 – 240.
Snell, T. and Cowell, R. (2006): Scoping in environmental assessment; balancing precaution
and efficiency? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 359 – 376
Soneryd, L. (2004): Public involvement in the planning process; EIA and lessons from the
Orebro airport extension, Sweden. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 59 – 68.
Song, Y.-I. and Glasson, J. (2010): A new paradigm for environmental assessment (EA) in
Korea. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 90 – 99.
Steinemann, A. (2001): Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 3 – 21.
16

17. Toro J, Requena I and Zamorano M (2010): Environmental impact assessment in Colombia:
Critical analysis and proposals for change. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30,
247 – 261.
Toro, J., Duarte, O., Requena, I. and Zamorano, M. (2012): Determining vulnerability
importance in environmental impact assessment, the case of Colombia. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 32, 107 – 117.
Turnbull, J (2003): Environmental impact assessment in the Fijian state sector.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 73 – 89.
Wang, Y., Morgan, R.K. and Casmore, M. (2003): Environmental Impact Assessment of
Projects in the People’s Republic of China: new law, old problems. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 23, 543 – 579.
Weston, J. (2000a): EIA, decision making theory and screening and scoping in UK practice.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43, 183 – 203.
Wood, C. (2003a): Environmental impact assessment in developing countries; an overview.
Paper presented at the conference on the new directive in impact assessment for development,
Manchester.
Wood, C. (2003b): Environmental impact assessment; a comparative review. 2nd Edition.
London; Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Wood, G., Glasson, J. and Becker, J. (2006): EIA scoping in England and Wales; practitioner
approaches, perspectives and constraints. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 221
– 241.
Yanhua, Z., Song, H., Hongyan, L. and Beibei, N. (2011): Global environmental assessment
research trends (1973 – 2009). Procedia Environmental Sciences, 11, 1499 – 1507.
Zubair, L. (2001): Challenges for environmental impact assessment in Sri Lanka.
Environmental Impact Assessment, Review 21, 469 – 478.
Zubair, S., Bowen, D. and Elwin, J. (2011): Not quite paradise; inadequacies of
environmental impact assessment in Maldives. Tourism Management, 32, 225 – 234.
17