View related articles•

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/iournals/tiap20
The state of the art of environmental impact assessment (EIA)
F.P. Retief, A.J. Bond, R.C. Alberts, C. Roos & D.P. Cilliers
To cite this article: F.P. Retief, A.J. Bond, R.C. Alberts, C. Roos & D.P. Cilliers (21 Jan 2026): The state of the art of environmental impact assessment (EIA), Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2026.2612894
To link to this article: https://d0i.0rg/l0.1080/14615517.2026.2612894
Published online: 21 Jan 2026.
Submit your article to this journal 0
Iill! Article views: 1
• View Crossmark data •
CrossMark
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journallnformation?journalCode=tiap20

IAIA
International Association
for Impact Assessment

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL https://d0i.0rg/l0.1080/14615517.2026.2612894

ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 November 2025
Accepted 30 December 2025
KEYWORDS
Environmental impact assessment; theory; practice; participation; quality; effectiveness

The state of the art of environmental impact assessment (EIA)
F.P. Retief a, A.J. Bond ab, R.C. Alberts a, C. Roos a and D.P. Cilliers a
Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa; bSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK
ABSTRACT
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) continues to evolve in response to new environmental, social, and regulatory challenges. The aim of this paper is to provide a current perspective on the state of the art of EIA in terms of practice and effectiveness. This is achieved through a literature review and SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). Results show that EIA practice is globally established, with over 190 countries maintaining some form of EIA legislation, supported by growing numbers of professional networks and best practice guidelines. On effectiveness, while strengths include legal frameworks and institutional maturity, weaknesses, such as poor follow-up, limited stakeholder engagement, and political interference persist. Opportunities lie in leveraging technology, enhancing communication, and strengthening participatory approaches. However, streamlining pressures, political and development agendas, and substitution by other instruments remain significant threats.

CONTACT F.P. Retief 0 Francois.Retief@nwu.ac.za © Reseach Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa

© 2026 IAIA

1.		Setting the scene
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been a cornerstone of environmental governance for over five decades, but the context in which it operates is evolving rapidly. Persistent global challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and social justice concerns, are reshaping the expectations of assessment systems (Retief et al. 2016; UN Environment 2018; Morrison-Saunders et al. 2020; Fischer et al. 2023). At the same time, methodological innovations, artificial intelligence tools, and shifts in regulatory frameworks continue to influence practice worldwide (Bond et al. 2024). Periodic updates of the 'state of the art' are therefore needed to evaluate the extent to which EIA is effective in achieving its objectives, to highlight advances in policy and practice, and to continually reflect on in its theoretical grounding. While the context in which EIA is practiced continues to change, the basic understanding of EIA process elements (i.e. screening, scoping, assessment, decision-making, public participation, follow-up), and fundamental best practice principles (IAIA and ΙΕΑ, 1999) has remained essentially unchanged. EIA has always been understood as a decision aiding policy implementation instrument that functions as both a 'science' and an 'art,' after Kennedy (1988, 257):
•		"EIA as 'science' has to do with the methodologies and techniques for identifying, predicting, and evaluating the environmental impacts associated with particular development actions.
•		EIA as an 'art' or procedure for decision-making has to do with those mechanisms for ensuring an environmental analysis of such actions and influencing the decision-making process."
The aim of this paper is to provide a current perspective on the state of the art of EIA, updating the previous perspective from Morgan (2012). The scope of the paper is limited to project-level EIA (unlike Morgan, who also included strategic-level instruments), as other assessment instruments are addressed in separate papers within this 'State of the Art' special edition. Building on previous state oftheart research, we use the same conceptual framework (Figure 1) and a SWOT (Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Strengths) analysis approach (see Morgan 2012). Figure 1 suggests that debates around EIA and state of the art can be grouped along three interrelated themes. The first concerns the identity and theoretical grounding of EIA, framed by the fundamental question: What is EIA? Discussions here focus on the need for EIA, its purpose, and underlying theories. The second theme, which has historically dominated the literature, centres on EIA practice: How to do EIA? This includes macro-level issues such as best practice guidelines and system design, as well as micro-level considerations like process quality, reporting standards, and methodological rigour. The third theme deals with effectiveness and

Figure 1. Conceptual framework - EIA 'state of the art' (adapted from Retief 2010; Morgan 2012).

asks: What is EIA achieving? Importantly, these three themes are interconnected and evolve iteratively.
The SWOT analysis synthesised updated understandings of EIA theory, practice, and effectiveness. Strengths and weaknesses stem from the internal design and application of EIA, while opportunities and threats arise from external factors, such as technological, political, social, and economic change. The next section outlines the methodology, whereafter the state of the art of EIA theory, practice, and effectiveness is discussed. The paper concludes with a SWOT analysis highlighting key future directions for EIA.
2.		Methodology
To update the state of the art of EIA, a structured literature review using Scopus and Google Scholar was undertaken. After retrieving the initial body of the literature, irrelevant, duplicate, and pre-2012 publications were screened out (for practice and effectiveness considerations). For EIA theory, this review synthesised past and present perspectives to provide an overview of the concepts underpinning EIA development. The review was organised around the three themes identified in the conceptual framework (Figure 1). For each theme, the following tailored search strings were developed as a basis for the review. The results were systematically screened and analysed based on relevance, quality, and applicability:
•		EIA Theory: The search string was 'environmental impact assessment' AND 'theory'. This deductive approach identified publications exploring how theoretical concepts from different disciplines have been integrated into or have informed the development of EIA.
•		EIA Practice: This search started with identifying best practice principles on the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) website, supplemented by the search string 'environmental impact assessment' AND 'best practice principles'. Importantly, the review excluded country-specific best practice principles to focus on universally applicable global principles, aiming to provide a global perspective.
•		
Figure 2. Examples of the EIA theoretical interface (foundational and emerging).

EIA Effectiveness: The search string 'environmental impact assessment' AND 'effectiveness' AND '[country name]' captured research evaluating EIA effectiveness across different countries and regions. We searched for all member states of the United Nations. Terminological variations across the EIA systems may have affected the search results, with regions using different terms for ‘EIA‘ or 'effectiveness' potentially under-represented.
Search terms were not refined to local contexts (e.g. Canada's use of 'impact assessment' rather than EIA). Although potentially limiting, this was a pragmatic choice to keep the dataset manageable. The following sections synthesise the findings from the literature for each theme. Section 6 then presents a SWOT analysis developed through coding and thematic analysis of the papers identified across all three themes.
3.		State of the art of EIA theory - theme 1
Theory building around EIA has continued to progress since Morgan (2012). EIA theory is not unified but inherently multidisciplinary, incorporating normative assumptions about what EIA should achieve (e.g. sustainability and environmental justice). We identify four foundational disciplines that have shaped EIA theory since before 2012 and continue to do so today - see Figure 2.
•		Ecological science: EIA emerged in response to contemporary environmental challenges, mainly in the United States during the 1960s. Early ecological thinking, notably by Holling (1978), remains foundational. Early and ongoing theoretical thinking draws on systems thinking (Ehrlich 2022), resilience theory (Bond et al. 2015), and adaptive management (Holling, 1978).
•		Political science: Embedding EIA within legal frameworks required a theoretical foundation rooted in political science, with an emphasis on governance dynamics and decision-making processes. Several key theoretical models have since served as foundations for theoretical EIA thinking, the most seminal being Bartlet and Kurian (1999), Owens et al. (2004), and Bond et al. (2018, 2020).
•		Ethics: The 1960s environmental movement, underpinned by ecocentrism, stewardship, and intergenerational justice, paralleled the emergence of EIA. Caldwell (1998) argued that environmental politics is about values rather than interests, i.e. more moral and religious than transactional. EIA inherently involves ethical and value judgments about what should be protected and which impacts are considered significant (Bond et al. 2021).
•		Law: As EIA is embedded in legal systems (UN Environment 2018), theories of administrative justice, regulatory compliance, and governance are foundational (Retief et al. 2020; Alberts et al. 2022).
There are, however, many other scientific disciplines that underpin the direction of EIA development, but these are not considered foundational:
•		Decision-making sciences: As EIA is a decision support tool, insights from decision-making sciences are valuable. Theories of rationality, bounded rationality, and policy-making processes have been explored in the context of environmental assessment (Kornov and Thissen 2000; Nilsson and Dalkmann 2001; Nitz and Brown 2001).
•		Planning theory: Since EIA often forms part of planning systems, research has explored many areas of planning theory relevant to EIA, such as public participation, normative decision-making, tiering, and project planning (Lawrence 2000; Richardson 2005).
•		Psychology: Contributes to EIA theory primarily through insights into decision-making, behaviour, and communication. See, for example, Retief et al. (2013) dealing with trade-offs in EIA and Retief et al. (2023) dealing with significance determination.
•		Management Sciences: Contribute concepts such as tiering, strategic thinking, leadership, and understanding decision-making, project, and product cycles. Deeper theoretical understanding of these concepts has also informed the relationship between EIA and other forms of impact assessment (such as SEA) and different environmental governance instruments (see, for example, Lee and Walsh 1992, Wood and Dejeddour, 1992).
•		Information Technology (IT) Science: Supports complex decision-making and data integration through Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Artificial Intelligence (Al), and Machine Learning. Combined with Communication Theory, these technologies raise new theoretical questions around transparency, legitimacy, accountability, bias, data management, stakeholder communication, and public participation in EIA (Fothergill and Murphy 2021).
4.		State of the art of global EIA practice - theme 2
Over 190 countries have some form of EIA legislation or policy in place (UN Environment 2018), a number stable since Morgan's (2012) review. In practice, some countries maintain robust, mandatory systems, while
others operate under weaker or less formalised frameworks.
The state of EIA practice is further reflected in the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) global network of practitioners and affiliates. IAIA has over 1800 individual members from more than 120 countries, with annual conferences typically attracting over 1000 participants from around 90 countries. Its 23 regional and national affiliates are independent entities that share lAIA's mission of improving impact assessment capacity, either regionally or thematically - see Figure 3.
Although the basic legislative design of EIA systems globally is generally comparable, key differences remain, shaped by national context:
•		Screening mechanisms·. Screening determines the number and scope of ElAs conducted and is a pivotal regulatory element. Consequently, it often becomes the focus of legal reform (aimed at expanding or streamlining EIA practices), and litigation.
•		Public participation requirements: Legal requirements for public participation vary significantly across countries, reflecting differences in human rights frameworks, policy drivers, and democratic traditions.
•		Certification: Many countries regulate EIA practitioners through professional registration bodies to enhance credibility and quality of practice. While these frameworks promote professionalism, they can also foster protectionism, potentially limiting inclusivity and innovation.

Figure 3. IAIA country affiliate members.

Best practice principle	Citation	
For use of Artificial Intelligence (Al) in Impact Assessment (IA)
Impact Assessment of Extraterrestrial Activities
Environmental/Social Impact Assessment Compliance and Enforcement
Public Participation in Impact Assessment Follow-up
Impact Assessment Follow-up
Resilience Assessment
Health Impact Assessment
Teaching Impact Assessment
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment
Climate Change in Impact Assessment
Respecting Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Knowledge
Publishing EIA-Related Primary Biodiversity Data
Public Participation
Social Impact Assessment
SEA Performance Criteria
Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice	Bingham et al. (2025)
Mustow et al. (2024)
Wasserman et al. (2023)
Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2023)
Arts and Morrison-Saunders (2022)
Robertson et al. (2021)
Winkler et al. (2021)
IAIA (2018)
Brownlie and Treweek (2018)
Byer et al. (2018)
Croal et al. (2012)
Cadman et al. (2011)
André et al. (2006)
Vanclay (2003)
IAIA (2002)
IAIA and ΙΕΑ (1999)	

Table 1. Summary of IAIA best practice principles supporting EIA.

For EIA to achieve its goals, it must move beyond legal compliance towards best practice. Accordingly, a range of international best practice principles and guidelines have been developed by IAIA (Table 1).

The IAIA’s collection of Best Practice Principles spans a wide range, reflecting evolving challenges and priorities directly and indirectly related to project-level EIA. Collectively, these publications serve as a framework for practitioners, trainers, and policymakers to enhance the quality and effectiveness of broader impact assessment globally. It is worth noting that the 'Basic' and 'Operating' IAIA 'Principles of EIA Best Practice' have remained unchanged for over two decades (IAIA and ΙΕΑ, 1999). This might suggest that they are fundamentally sound, reflecting core values and procedural elements that remain applicable across diverse contexts. Their longevity could also indicate that they have achieved a high level of consensus among practitioners, policymakers, and academics globally. However, considering the range of best practice principles listed in Table 1, there is clearly ongoing reflection on what constitutes best practice within different areas of the broader impact assessment context.
5.		State of the art of global EIA effectiveness - theme 3
At the time of Morgan's (2012) review, the limited scope of global EIA effectiveness research made regional analysis unfeasible. This has since changed and, in this section, we review the literature on EIA effectiveness across six world regions. Within these regions, the published literature remains incomplete. Figure 4 illustrates the countries for which academic effectiveness literature was found in the literature review (and was available in English). Research methods to determine effectiveness varied across the entire literature, including literature reviews, legislative evaluations, document analyses, surveys, case studies, and stakeholder interviews. The synthesis below takes the results at face value based on all publications having undergone peer review.
5.1.		Africa
Africa's EIA effectiveness is shaped by a diverse and complex governance landscape (see Sandham et al. 2022). While systems show promise through evolving legal structures and learning potential, they continue to face challenges requiring strategic reform and inclusive practice to enhance effectiveness and legitimacy.

Figure 4. Global effectiveness research - 2012 to 2025.

Legal and institutional frameworks have matured over the past decade, with environmental agencies and government authorities providing governance frameworks and guidance to support practice (Kolhoff et al. 2013; Yigzaw 2020; Nakwaya-Jacobus et al. 2023). Capacity-building initiatives have advanced professional development, technical expertise, and public awareness. Moreover, EIA is recognised as a learning tool with the potential to enhance decision-making by integrating environmental and social considerations and improving the efficiency of project implementation (Morrison-Saunders and Retief 2012). However, procedural dominance over substantive environmental outcomes remains evident in Zimbabwe and South Africa (Gwimbi and Nhamo 2016; Alberts et al. 2023), where reports are often of poor quality, and weakly incorporated into final decisions. Monitoring and follow-up mechanisms are weak or absent in several countries, including Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Ghana, leading to poor implementation of mitigation measures (Aryee et al. 2024). Broader institutional, resource, and financial constraints, complex legislation, and limited expertise characterise EIA systems (Sandham et al. 2022). The effectiveness of public participation is also questioned, with engagement often weak or poorly adapted to local contexts, complicating stakeholder involvement (Aucamp et al. 2024).
The drive for economic development in the region underpins efforts to streamline the EIA and subsequently erode transparency and participation, as seen in South Africa and Ghana (Alberts et al. 2023). Implementation gaps persist, with a disconnect between EIA design and practice, and weak enforcement mechanisms further diminish effectiveness. Public trust is at risk due to weak follow-up and dissatisfaction with compensation and relocation, which can lead to increased conflict. Finally, capacity and resource shortages across Namibia, Ghana, and Ethiopia continue to restrict credible assessments and institutional coordination (Yigzaw 2020; Nakwaya- Jacobus et al. 2023; Aryee et al. 2024).
5.2.		Asia
Asia exhibits well-established legal foundations for EIA but faces persistent challenges with participation, strategic integration, and implementation. The literature review revealed that effectiveness research covers over 20 countries, most prominently China, Japan, India, Malaysia, and Thailand. Practice in Thailand was characterised by clear, well-regulated procedures, and institutional frameworks (Chanchitpricha and Bond 2020), while both Thailand and China have defined activity lists and a good stakeholder understanding of the process (Suwanteep et al. 2016; Chang et al. 2018). Public participation is formally recognised in several jurisdictions, and the use of quantitative data and standardised documentation enhances the credibility and consistency of assessments (Byambaa and De Vries 2020). There is also growing acceptance and legitimacy of EIA processes, with structured consultation and operational experience contributing to their institutionalisation (Zhao et al. 2023).
However, there is evidence of superficial consideration of residual impacts and alternatives (Rahman 2014), and poor report quality (Dangi et al. 2015). Weak ecological assessments, combined with late implementation and limited stakeholder involvement, are common issues (Naser 2015). Public participation remains weak across several Asians contexts, including Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, and Indonesia, due to weak engagement methods, insufficient involvement of local authorities, and poor communication (Syafiq 2015; Kamijo and Huang 2016; Clarke and Vu 2021; Qolakkadioglu 2021; Park et al. 2025). Consultant capacity (Khan et al. 2020), and scientific rigour (Hegde et al. 2022) are often limited, leading to insufficient analysis of alternatives (Rathi 2022).
Strategic alignment of projects and transboundary impact assessments are emerging areas of focus that could strengthen regional cooperation and environmental governance (Chang et al. 2018). However, marginalised decision-making roles, poor policy integration, and fragile legitimacy continue to undermine effectiveness (Naser 2015). Public trust remains tenuous, with perceptions of tokenism and procedural manipulation. Political interference and weak political will are anticipated to further weaken enforcement and reform efforts in countries, such as Pakistan and Indonesia (Khan et al. 2020; Kurniawan et al. 2020).
5.3.		Europe
The review identified the EIA effectiveness literature for 18 countries, with many strengths stemming from the European Union (EU) EIA Directive, which provides a consistent framework across member states (Probstl- Haider 2022). Legal compliance is found to drive EIA practice though many authorities exceed minimum requirements (Arts et al. 2012; Lyhne et al. 2017; Runhaar et al. 2019). EIA has been found to lead to tangible project modifications, for example, wind farm adjustments in the UK and Germany (Phylip-Jones and Fischer 2013), demonstrating real effects of application. Additionally, EIA enhances awareness and transparency, with developers in Austria and Scotland reporting increased understanding and openness (Smart et al. 2014; Próbstl-Haider 2022). Capacity building is typically supported regionally through guidance, training, and knowledge-sharing networks (e.g. Arts et al. 2012; Wende et al. 2012).
However, EIA quality and scope vary. Countries, such as the UK and Slovakia, struggle with poor monitoring and fragmented legislation (Zvijàkovà et al. 2014; Jha-Thakur and Fischer 2016), while reports in Austria are often overly technical and lengthy (Probstl-Haider 2022). Procedural inefficiencies persist in Greece and Italy, where ElAs are often delayed or treated as mere formalities (Banias et al. 2017; Cannaos and Onni 2019). Public participation remains inconsistent, with weak engagement in Slovakia, Italy, Romania, and the UK (Smart et al. 2014; Rozema and Bond 2015; Gavrilidis et al. 2022). Moreover, in Denmark, ElAs often result in only minor changes and are viewed as bureaucratic rather than transformative. Concerns about bias and legitimacy also arise, with perceptions of consultant influence and formalism undermining trust (Lyhne et al. 2017).
Tiering, particularly between Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and EIA, offers the potential for more coherent and effective assessments, as attempted in Ireland and Germany (Byer et al. 2009; Gonzalez and Therivel 2022). Furthermore, EIA is increasingly regarded as a platform for governance innovation and adaptive learning, notably in the Netherlands and Denmark. Technological advancements, including IT, GIS, and expert systems, are being adopted to improve efficiency and communication (Jha-Thakur and Fischer 2016), while better communication is seen as a key to building trust in Scotland and Denmark (Lyhne et al. 2017).
However, continual political and economic pressures to fast-track projects and reduce costs remain pervasive, reinforcing perceptions of EIA as a barrier to development, notably in Austria, Slovakia, and Romania (Arts et al. 2012; Wende et al. 2012). Implementation gaps persist in Montenegro due to weak institutions and enforcement (Coenen et al. 2022). Throughout the region, legitimacy risks arise from public suspicion of bias and inaccessible, overly technical reports. Ongoing fragmentation between EIA, SEA, and planning systems in countries like Slovakia, Italy, Spain, and Portugal creates further inconsistencies (Soria-Lara et al. 2020), while project scoping loopholes threaten assessment integrity in Germany and Austria (Hansen and Wood 2016; Pròbstl- Haider 2022).
5.4.		Oceania region
Literature for the Oceania region covers only Australia and New Zealand, with no studies found for the Pacific Island nations. EIA in both countries features strong civil society engagement and research foundations, reflecting a broader commitment to participatory environmental governance. However, governance and transparency challenges remain (Hapuarachchi et al. 2016). For example, in several regions, public involvement has been curtailed, and some decisions, such as single-minister approvals in South Australia, lack transparency, and consistency (Clarke and Menadue 2016). These governance issues are compounded by bureaucratic incentives to fast-track projects, driven by resource constraints, time pressures, and developer lobbying (Macintosh and Waugh 2014).
Promising opportunities include strengthening transparency, accountability, and monitoring, and broadening public participation to rebuild trust and consistency. Institutional learning is another key opportunity, with models like rapid scientific response and bibliometric analysis offering pathways for adaptive evolution of EIA systems (Caro-Gonzalez et al. 2023; Collings et al. 2024). Motivated regulators and practitioners have shown that systemic weaknesses can be overcome, particularly in areas like mine closure planning (Getty and Morrison- Saunders 2019).
5.5.		North and Central America
Despite the US being the birthplace of EIA, published effectiveness research has been surprisingly sparse in recent years. Our post-2012 literature search also revealed no sources for Central America and few for Canada (likely because the term Impact Assessment' is used in the Canadian system instead of EIA, resulting in some studies not being captured).
The Canadian system maintains a strong legal and institutional framework emphasising accountability, evidence-based assessments, and strong integration of EIA results with decision-making (Hanna and Noble 2015). In regions like Québec and the Yukon Territory, structured knowledge management processes promote cumulative learning and organisational efficiency. The Yukon's institutional processes formally recognise Indigenous rights and participation, marking a progressive shift toward inclusive governance (Darling et al. 2023). This is mirrored in Québec (Sanchez and André 2013).
However, EIA processes often remain overly procedural, prioritising compliance over substantive environmental or socio-cultural outcomes. Monitoring and follow-up mechanisms are underutilised, with limited data access outside regulatory bodies, constraining adaptive learning and cumulative knowledge generation (Muir 2018). Feedback loops can be weak, and lessons from past assessments are inconsistently applied. Institutional rigidity, rooted in colonial-era frameworks, still limits genuine Indigenous engagement (Sanchez and André 2013). Additionally, resource constraints and high staff turnover within agencies and Indigenous communities constrain participation and long-term institutional learning.
Limited transparency and perceived tokenism further erode trust among Indigenous communities in some cases, threatening the legitimacy of EIA (Muir 2018; Darling et al. 2023). Capacity and resource shortages remain a threat to meaningful engagement and follow-through, particularly in Indigenous communities and public-private partnerships.
5.6.		South America
Most EIA effectiveness studies in South America focus on Brazil, with additional research from Argentina, Chile, and Colombia. Regional strengths include well- established policy and legal frameworks (Hochstetler 2018; Loomis et al. 2022). Brazil stands out with a conceptually advanced EIA system featuring comprehensive regulations and formal public participation requirements.
Weak follow-up and monitoring are key issues (Gallardo et al. 2015; Da Silva Dias et al. 2017; Cares et al. 2023; Castelblanco et al. 2023). For example, mitigation commitments are often unverified, with

Weaknesses
•		Overly technocratic and procedural
•		Weak communication
•		'Green washing'/legitimizing unsustainable development
•		Subjectivity
•		Too expensive
•		Too time consuming
•		Lack of competency
•		Unrealistic and poorly defined expectations
Threats
•		Development pressures
•		Overcomplicated EIA
•		Political interference/buy-in
•		Substitution of EIA by other policy instruments
•		Law reform and streamlining
•		Artificial Intelligence

Table 2. Combined SWOT analysis—state of the art of EIA.
Strengths
•		Globally accepted as a decision support tool
•		Contribute to sustainable development goals
•		Widespread capacity and established industry
•		Well-established policy and legal framework
•		Rich body of practice and research
•		Increasing professionalization of practice
•		Robust procedural design
•		Well established training and research
•		Protection of environmental rights/justice
•		Gives a voice to civil society in decision making
Opportunities
•		Changing technology (e.g. Artificial Intelligence) strengthening EIA
•		Streamlining
•		Empowerment through improved communication
•		Community-led EIA
•		Strengthening life cycle' thinking in EIA

limited oversight leading to superficial implementation. Competency gaps persist, especially in Brazil and Colombia, where assessments frequently lack depth in impact identification, cumulative effects, and alternative appraisals (Duarte et al. 2017; Veronez and Montano 2024). Many EIA reports are perceived to be overly procedural and technocratic, often generic, or 'copy-paste,' producing weak evaluations (Castelblanco et al. 2023). Public participation, though widely required, is often ineffective due to weak communication and limited stakeholder influence. Additionally, EIA processes are frequently slow and bureaucratic, exacerbated by understaffed and underfunded agencies. Delays, coupled with high costs, reinforce perceptions—especially among developers— that EIA is expensive and inefficient (Duarte et al. 2017; Hochstetler 2018; Loomis et al. 2021).
Technical guidelines and standardised methodologies present opportunities to enhance consistency and quality across assessments (Fonseca et al. 2020). However, law reforms aimed at streamlining EIA, through reduced consultation and exemptions, threaten process integrity (Duarte et al. 2017; Fonseca et al. 2020). Neoliberal development agendas, which prioritise speed and cost-reduction, further pressure EIA systems to compromise thoroughness (Hochstetler 2018). Political interference, especially in strategic sectors, often leads to fast-tracking and shortened review timeframes, diminishing oversight and objectivity (Da Silva Dias et al. 2017). Collectively, these issues erode public trust and credibility, as weak follow-up and superficial analyses increase the risk of conflict and legal challenges (Veronez and Montano 2024).
6.		Conclusion: combined SWOT analysis
The state of the art of EIA suggests an evolving field continuously grappling with complex environmental, social, and governance challenges. The conceptual framework provided in Figure 1 emphasises that theoretical foundations, practical implementation, and effectiveness are interwoven. Table 2 synthesises insights from theory, practice, and effectiveness across different regions. Based on the literature review, it was categorised into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The results indicate that certain strengths (e.g. increasing professionalisation) can simultaneously manifest as weaknesses (e.g. competency gaps), while some opportunities (e.g. streamlining) may also pose threats if not carefully implemented (e.g. in the context of law reform).
The strengths and weaknesses largely mirror those identified by Morgan (2012), such as strong policy and legal frameworks, a rich body of practice and research, and robust procedural designs supported by well- established training and research while also continuing to be perceived as overly technocratic, too expensive and time-consuming with unrealistic and poorly defined expectations. As a mature decision-support tool, ElA's effectiveness has therefore changed little in certain core areas, despite broader geographic coverage and a decade of additional experience. This persistence reflects the institutional stability and entrenched limitations of EIA systems worldwide.
Regarding opportunities and threats, in some jurisdictions EIA is still considered a barrier to development, resulting in continued calls for streamlining. Although an apparent threat, an opportunity emerges to improve how EIA is understood and applied. Notwithstanding, streamlining remains a significant threat, bolstered by political interference, substitution by other policies, and the growing influence of artificial intelligence (Al). Al may likewise present an opportunity, depending on its application and regulation within EIA systems. Some threats are perceived from the increasing introduction of alternative policy instruments and the government's focus on sustainability metrics that underpin decision making, at the expense of EIA (e.g. Dusik and Bond, 2022). Additional opportunities exceed those identified by Morgan (2012) and reflect emerging concerns. For instance, improving life cycle impacts in EIA to mitigate significant effects. A 2024 UK court case confirmed that indirect emissions, such as future emissions from hydrocarbon extraction, must be included in EIA assessments (R ν Surrey County Council, 2024). Perceived opportunities to improve weak communication in EIA were identified, which could improve the apparent value of EIA in the future. Lastly, opportunities to better reflect the concerns of affected communities in the design and conduct of ElAs were identified.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
F.P. Retief http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7164-9593
A.J. Bond http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3809-5805
R.C. Alberts http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6840-4405
C. Roos http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6290-6129
D.P. Cilliers http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9777-0463
References
Alberts RC et al. 2022. EIA decision-making and administrative justice: the substance of just decisions. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 40(4):296-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14615517.2022.2066445
Alberts RC, Retief FP, Roos C, Cilliers DP. 2023. Three decades of EIA streamlining: lessons from South Africa. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 41(3):205-211. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14615517.2023.2173852
André Ρ, Enserink Β, Connor D, Croal P. 2006. Public participation international best practice principles'. Special publication series no. 4. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp-content /uploads/2025/02/BEST-PRACTICE-Public-Participation. pdf
Arts J et al. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 14(4):1250025.	https://doi.org/10.1142/ S1464333212500251
Arts J and Morrison-Saunders A. 2022. Impact assessment follow-up: international best practice principles. Special publication series no. 6. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/BEST-PRACTICE-IA-Follow-up. pdf
Aryee FA, Arthur A, Asianoah RK. 2024. The effectiveness of Ghana's environmental impact assessment regulations to achieve green growth. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 42 (6):544-552.	https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2024. 2436711
Aucamp I, Retief FP, Sandham LA. 2024. Best practice public participation in Africa. In: Sinclair J, Burdett T, editors. Public participation in impact assessment. Edward Elgar; pp 313-327.
Banias G et al. 2017. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment framework effectiveness. Chem Eng Trans. 58:805-810. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1758135
Bartlet R, Kurian P. 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making. Policy Polit. 27(4):415-433.	https://doi.org/10.1332/ 030557399782218371
Bingham C, Bond A et al. 2025. Principles for use of Al in IA. Special publication series no. 16. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https:// iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/SP16_AI-in-IA.pdf
Bond A et al. 2020. Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): a neo-Gramscian perspective. J Cleaner Production. 244:118694. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118694
Bond A et al. 2024. Using an artificial intelligence chatbot to critically review the scientific literature on the use of artificial intelligence in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 42(2):189-199. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2024.2320591
Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Gunn J, Pope J, Retief F. 2015. Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. J Environ Manag. 151:97-104. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvrnan. 2014.12.030
Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief FP. 2021. Taking an environmental ethics perspective to understand what we should expect from EIA in terms of biodiversity protection. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 86:106508. https://d0i.0rg/l0.1016/j.eiar.2020.106508
Bond A, Pope J, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A. 2018. On legitimacy in impact assessment:	an epistemologically-based conceptualisation. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 69:16-23. https://doi.Org/i0.i0i6/j. eiar.2017.11.006
Brownlie S, Treweek J. 2018. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment. Special publication series no. 3. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/ 02/BEST-PRACTICE-Biodiversity-Ecosystem-Services.pdf
Byambaa Β, De Vries WT. 2020. Evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38(1):39-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14615517.2019.1643629
Byer Ρ et al. 2018. Climate Change in impact assessment: international best practice principles, Special Publication Series 8. Vol 8. International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/ 02/BEST-PRACTICE-Climate-Change.pdf
Byer PH, Lalani MJ, Yeomans JS. 2009. Addressing and communicating climate change and its uncertainties in project environmental impact assessments. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 11(1):29—50. https://doi.org/10.1l42/ S1464333209003245
Cadman M et al. 2011 Aug. Publishing ElA-related primary biodiversity data: gBIF-IAIA best practice guide, laia Spec Publ Ser No 7. 6. https://iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2025/02/BEST-PRACTICE-Publishing-Biodiversity-Data.pdf
Caldwell L. 1998. The national environmental policy act: an agenda for the future. Greenwood Press.
Cannaos C, Onni G. 2019. A methodological approach on the procedural effectiveness of EIA: the case of Sardinia. City Territ Archit. 6(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410- 019-0100-5
Cares RA, Franco AMA, Bond A. 2023. Investigating the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy approach in environmental impact assessment in relation to biodiversity impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 102(1):107214. https://d0i.0rg/l0.1016/j.eiar.2023.107214
Caro-Gonzalez AL, Nita A, Toro J, Zamorano M. 2023. From procedural to transformative: a review of the evolution of effectiveness in EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 103 (1):107256. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107256
Castelblanco G, Guevara J, Rojas D, Correa J, Verhoest Κ. 2023. Environmental impact assessment effectiveness in public-private partnerships: study on the Colombian toll road program. J Manage Eng. 39(2):05023002. https://doi. org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5015
Chanchitpricha C, Bond AJ. 2020. Evolution or revolution? Reflecting on IA effectiveness in Thailand. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38(2):156-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14615517.2019.1664821
Chang I-S, Wang W, Wu J, Sun Y, Hu R. 2018. Environmental impact assessment follow-up for projects in China: institution and practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 73(1):7-19. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eiar.20l 8.06.005
Clarke BD, Vu CC. 2021. EIA effectiveness in Vietnam: key stakeholder perceptions. Heliyon. 7(2):e06157. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06157
Clarke B, Menadue T. 2016. Fit for purpose? Establishing the robustness of EIA screening systems for land-use planning using a case study from South Australia. J Environ Plann Manag. 59(3):538-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568. 2015.1024307
Coenen J, Newig J, Meyfroidt P. 2022. Environmental governance of a Belt and Road project in Montenegro-national agency and external influences. Land Use Policy. 119:106136. https://doi.0rg/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022. 106136
^olakkadioglu D. 2021. An evaluation of EIA system performance in Turkey in the context of procedural effectiveness. JPPEL. 13(3):185-202. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JPPEL-05-2021-0032
Collings S, Van Putten I, Melbourne-Thomas J, Hobday AJ. 2024. A framework for guiding rapid scientific response to extreme environmental events. Ocean Coastal Manag. 247 (l):106912. https://doi.0rg/l0.l016/j.ocecoaman.2023. 106912
Croal P, Tetreault C, members of the IAIA IP Section. 2012. Respecting indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge. Special publication series no. 9. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https:// iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/BEST-PRACTICE- Indigenous-Peoples-Traditional-Knowledge.pdf
Dangi MB, Fernandez D, Bom UB, Belbase S, Kaphle R. 2015. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment report preparation and public participation in landfill projects in Nepal. Habitat Int. 46(1):72-81. https://doi.0rg/lO.IOI6/j. habitatint.2014.10.021
Darling S, Harvey Β, Hickey GM. 2023. From 'stakeholders' to rights holders: how approaches to impact assessment affect indigenous participation in the Yukon Territory, Canada. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 99(1):107025. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107025
Da Silva Dias AM, Fonseca A, Paglia AP. 2017. Biodiversity monitoring in the environmental impact assessment of mining projects: a (persistent) waste of time and money? Perspectives Ecol Conserv. 15(3):206-208. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pecon.2017.06.001
Duarte CG, Dibo APA, Siqueira-Gay J, Sanchez LE. 2017. Practitioners' perceptions of the Brazilian environmental impact assessment system: results from a survey. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 35(4):293-309. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14615517.2017.1322813
Dusik J, Bond A. 2022. Environmental assessments and sustainable finance frameworks: will the EU taxonomy change the mindset over the contribution of EIA to sustainable development? Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 40 (2):90-98.	https://doi.org/10.1080/l4615517.2022. 2027609
Ehrlich A. 2022. Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 40(2):129-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021. 1996901
Fischer ΤΒ et al. 2023. Simplification of environmental and other impact assessments - results from an international online survey. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 41 (3):181-189.	https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023. 2198839
Fonseca A, De Brito LLA, Gibson RB. 2020. Methodological pluralism in environmental impact prediction and significance evaluation: a case for standardization? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 80(l):106320. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eiar.2019.106320
Fothergill J, Murphy J. 2021. The state of digital impact assessment practice: a global review of the uptake of digital technologies and approaches within impact assessment practice. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA).
Gallardo ALCF, Cavalhieri CP, Campos SJAM, Bitar OY. 2015. Improving effectiveness of mitigation measures in EIA follow-up: the case of a highway construction in Brazil. Manag Environ Qual An Int J. 26(4):518-537. https://doi. org/10.1108/MEQ-04-2014-0052
Gavrilidis AA, Nita A, Rozylowicz L. 2022. Past local industrial disasters and involvement of NGOs stimulate public participation in transboundary environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manag. 324(1):116271. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116271
Getty R, Morrison-Saunders A. 2019. Does the integration of environmental impact assessment and mine closure planning deliver effective mine closure plans in Western Australia? In. Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, p 817-832.
Gonzalez A, Therivel R. 2022. Raising the game in environmental assessment: insights from tiering practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 92(1):106695. https://doi.Org/i0.i0i6/j. eiar.2021.106695
Gwimbi P, Nhamo G. 2016. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment follow-up as a tool for environmental management: lessons and insights from platinum mines along the Great Dyke of Zimbabwe. Environ Earth Sci. 75 (7):561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5219-4
Hanna K, Noble BF. 2015. Using a Delphi study to identify effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 33(2):116-125. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.992672
Hansen E, Wood G. 2016. Understanding EIA scoping in practice: a pragmatist interpretation of effectiveness. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 58(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eiar.2016.01.003
Hapuarachchi AB, Hughey K, Rennie H. 2016. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in addressing development-induced disasters: a comparison of the EIA processes of Sri Lanka and New Zealand. Nat Hazards. 81 (1):423-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2089-8
Hegde M, Patel Κ, Diduck AP. 2022. Environmental clearance conditions in impact assessment in India: moving beyond greenwash. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 40 (3):214-227. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1080/14615517.2022. 2025689
Hochstetler K. 2018. Environmental impact assessment: evidence-based policymaking in Brazil. Contemp Soc Sci. 13(1):100-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2017. 1393556.
Holling CS. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
IAIA. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment performance criteria, laia special publication series no. 1. Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment.
IAIA. 2018. Best practice: teaching in impact assessment. IAIA. IAIA and ΙΕΑ - International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute for Environmental Assessment UK. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice, availablewww.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/ principlesEA_1.pdf
Jha-Thakur U, Fischer TB. 2016. 25 years of the UK EIA system: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61(1):19-26. https://doi.0rg/IO.IOI6/j. eiar.2016.06.005
Kamijo Τ, Huang G. 2016. Improving the quality of environmental impacts assessment reports: effectiveness of alternatives analysis and public involvement in JICA supported projects. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 34(2):143-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1176402
Kennedy W. 1988. Environmental impact assessment in North America, Western Europe: what has worked where, how and why? Int Environ Report. 11:257-262.
Khan M, Chaudhry MN, Ahmad SR, Saif S, Mehmood A. 2020. Performance of EIA authority and effectiveness of EIA system in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 81 (1):106357. https://doi.Org/10.l016/j.eiar.20l9.106357
Kolhoff AJ, Driessen PPJ, Runhaar HAC. 2013. An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries—illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:1-15. https://doi.Org/i0.i0i6/j.eiar.20i2.04.004
Kornov L, Thissen W. 2000. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 18 (3):191-200.	https://doi.org/10.3152/147154600781 767402
Kurniawan AR, Murayama T, Nishikizawa S. 2020. A qualitative content analysis of environmental impact assessment in Indonesia: a case study of nickel smelter processing. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38(3):194-204. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1672452
Lawrence D. 2000. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 20 (6):607-625. https://doi.org/!0.1016/50195-9255(00) 00036-6
Lee Ν, Walsh F. 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: an overview. Project Appraisal. 7(3):126-136. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02688867.1992.9726853
Loomis JJ, Bond A, Dziedzic M. 2022. Transformative effectiveness: how EIA can transform stakeholders' frames of reference. Environ Sciamp Policy. 136(1):2O7-215. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.06.007
Loomis JJ, De Oliveira CMR, Dziedzic M. 2021. Environmental federalism in EIA policy: a comparative case study of Parana, Brazil and California, US. Environ Sciamp Policy. 122(l):75-82. https://doi.0rg/l0.l0l6/j.envsci.2021.03.0l5
Lyhne I, Van Laerhoven F, Cashmore M, Runhaar H. 2017. Theorising EIA effectiveness: a contribution based on the Danish system. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62(l):240-249. https://doi.org/!0.1016/j.eiar.2015.12.002
Macintosh A, Waugh L. 2014. Compensatory mitigation and screening rules in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 49(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eiar.2014.06.002
Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30 (1):5-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557
Morrison-Saunders A et al. 2020. Gearing up impact assessment as a vehicle for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38 (2):113-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019. 1677089
Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J. 2023. Public participation in impact assessment follow-up. Special publication series no. 12. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ BEST-PRACTICE-Public-participation-in-IA-Follow-up.pdf
Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 2012. Walking the sustainability assessment talk—progressing the practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 36(1):34-41. https://doi.Org/i0.i0i6/j.eiar.20i2.04. 001
Muir BR. 2018. Effectiveness of the EIA for the Site C hydroelectric dam reconsidered: nature of indigenous cultures, rights, and engagement. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 20(4):1850014-1850041.	https://doi.org/10.1142/ Si46433321850014X
Mustow S et al. 2024. International best practice principles for impact assessment of extraterrestrial activities. Special publication series no. 15. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/BEST-PRACTICE-Extraterrestrial- activities.pdf
Nakwaya-Jacobus DN, Hipondoka M, Angombe S, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ. 2023. Substantive, normative and transactive effectiveness of EIA: perception of key actors in Namibia. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 41(4):280-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2214446
Naser HA. 2015. The role of environmental impact assessment in protecting coastal and marine environments in rapidly developing islands: the case of Bahrain, Arabian Gulf. Ocean Coastal Manag. 104(1):159-169. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.009
Nilsson M, Dalkmann H. 2001. Decision making and strategic environmental assessment. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 3 (3):305-327. https://doi.0rg/IO.l 142/51464333201000728
Nitz Τ, Brown A. 2001. Sea must learn how policy making works. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 3(3):329-342. https://doi. org/10.1142/5146433320100073X
Owens S, Rayner T, Bina 0. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ Plan A. 36(11):1943-1959. https://doi.org/10.1068/a36281
Park J-Y, Park J-H, Choi H-J. 2025. Evaluating the effectiveness of EIA review for onshore wind power projects in South Korea using multi-criteria analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 112(1):107781. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024. 107781
Phylip-Jones J, Fischer TB. 2013. EIA for wind farms in the United Kingdom and Germany. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 15 (2):1340008. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333213400085
Probstl-Haider U. 2022. EIA effectiveness in sensitive alpine areas: a comparison of winter tourism infrastructure development in Germany and Austria. Sustainability. 14 (15):9775. https://doi.org/l0.3390/su14l59775.
Rahman R. 2014. Environmental critique on water sectoral environmental impact assessment of Bangladesh. Am J Environ Sci. 10(3):236—243. https://doi.org/10.3844/ ajessp.2014.236.243
Rathi AKA. 2022. Is "consideration of alternatives" in project level environmental impact assessment studies in developing countries an eyewash: an Indian case-study. J Environ Plann Manag. 65(3):418-440. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09640568.2021.1886058
Retief F. 2010. The evolution of environmental assessment debates: critical perspectives from South Africa. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. I 2(4):375-397. https://doi.org/10.ll42/ S146433321000370X
Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:52-60. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.002
Retief F, Fischer ΤΒ, Alberts R, Roos C, Cilliers D. 2020. An administrative justice perspective on improving EIA effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38 (2):151-155.	https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019. 1680042
Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A, Geneletti D, Pope J. 2013. Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 31(1):13-23. https://doi.org/l0.l080/l46l5517. 2013.768007
Retief FP et al. 2023. Gaining a deeper understanding of the psychology underpinning significance judgements in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 41(4):250-262. https://doi.org/10.l080/ 14615517.2023.2181248
Richardson T. 2005. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25(4):341-365. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/j.eiar.2004.09.006
Robertson L et al. 2021. Resilience assessment international best practice principles. Special publication series no. 11. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/ 02/BEST-PRACTICE-Resilience.pdf
R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County Council and others (Respondents) (2024)
Rozema JG, Bond AJ. 2015. Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50(1):66-73. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.001
Runhaar Η, Gommers A, Verhaegen Κ, Cooman Κ, Corens P. 2019. The effectiveness of environmental assessment in Flanders: an analysis of practitioner perspectives. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 76(1):113-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eiar.2019.02.006
Sanchez LE, André P. 2013. Knowledge management in environmental impact assessment agencies: a study in Québec, Canada. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 15(3):1350015-1350032. https://doi.Org/10.1142/S1464333213500154
Sandham LA, Retief FP, Alberts RC. 2022. EIA best practice in Africa. In: Fonseca A, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Edward Elgar.p 320-336.
Smart DE, Stojanovic ΤΑ, Warren CR. 2014. Is EIA part of the wind power planning problem? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 49(1):13-23. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.05. 004
Soria-Lara JA et al. 2020. Revealing EIA process-related barriers in transport projects: the cases of Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 83(1):106402. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106402
Suwanteep Κ, Murayama Τ, Nishikizawa S. 2016. Environmental impact assessment system in Thailand and its comparison with those in China and Japan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 58(1):12-24. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.02.001
Syafiq M. 2015. Improving the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment in Indonesia regarding the protection of the marine environment from industrial pollution. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 17(3):1550026. https://doi. org/10.1142/S146433321550026Χ
UN Environment. 2018. Assessing environmental impacts- a global review of legislation. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
Vanclay F. 2003. Social impact assessment international best practice principles. Special publication series no. 2. https:// iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/BEST-PRACTICE-SIA -Principles.pdf
Veronez FA, Montano M. 2024. Comprehensive framework for analysis of EIA effectiveness: evidence from Espirito Santo state, Brazil. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 108 (1):107578. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107578
Wasserman C et al. 2023. Environmental/social impact assessment compliance and enforcement. Special publication series no. 13. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2025/02/BEST-PRACTICE-Compliance-and-Enforcement.pdf
Wende W, Scholles F, Hartlik J. 2012. Twenty-five years of EIA in Germany: our child has grown up. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 14(4):1250023.	https://doi.org/10.1142/ S1464333212500238
Winkler MS et al. 2021. Health impact assessment international best practice principles. Special publication series no. 5. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/ 02/BEST-PRACTICE-HIA.pdf
Wood C, Dejeddour M. 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: eA of policies, plans and programmes. Impact Assess Bull. 10(1):3-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165. 1992.9725728
Yigzaw GS. 2020. Ethiopia: history of the implementation of environmental impact assessment proclamation no. 299/ 2002. EPL. 50(1-2):81-87. https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL- 200199
Zhao Y et al. 2023. How does the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process affect environmental performance? Unveiling EIA effectiveness in China: a practical application within the thermal power industry. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 10l(1):107120. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eiar.2023.107120
Zvijàkovà L, Zelehàkovà M, Purcz P. 2014. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(2):150-l61. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.893124