IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v81y2016i1d10.1007_s11069-015-2089-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in addressing development-induced disasters: a comparison of the EIA processes of Sri Lanka and New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Arosh Buddika Hapuarachchi

    (Lincoln University)

  • Ken Hughey

    (Lincoln University)

  • Hamish Rennie

    (Lincoln University)

Abstract

Disasters are no longer viewed as natural events, but as the results of ill-planned development and poor governance. It has been generally accepted that instruments such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reduce disaster risks of development projects. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the EIA process in addressing disaster risks in development projects in Sri Lanka and New Zealand, two countries with quite different quality of governance. We find that governance quality does not result in substantive improvements, and neither of the two EIA processes is found to be effective in addressing disaster risk. This is due to inadequate policy integration of disaster risk into the environmental legislation that governs the EIA process. The results suggest that more specificity is needed in legislative provisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Arosh Buddika Hapuarachchi & Ken Hughey & Hamish Rennie, 2016. "Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in addressing development-induced disasters: a comparison of the EIA processes of Sri Lanka and New Zealand," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 423-445, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:81:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-015-2089-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-2089-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-015-2089-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-015-2089-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Shepherd & Christi Bowler, 1997. "Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 725-738.
    2. Maizels, Alfred & Nissanke, Machiko K., 1984. "Motivations for aid to developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 12(9), pages 879-900, September.
    3. Graham Wood & Julia Becker, 2005. "Discretionary Judgement in Local Planning Authority Decision Making: Screening Development Proposals for Environmental Impact Assessment," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 349-371.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josiane Gakou-Kakeu & Monica Gregorio & Jouni Paavola & Denis Jean Sonwa, 2024. "To what extent is REDD + integrated into land-use sectors driving deforestation? Insights from Cameroon," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27855-27883, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arosh Hapuarachchi & Ken Hughey & Hamish Rennie, 2016. "Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in addressing development-induced disasters: a comparison of the EIA processes of Sri Lanka and New Zealand," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 423-445, March.
    2. Kosack, Stephen, 2003. "Effective Aid: How Democracy Allows Development Aid to Improve the Quality of Life," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Boone, Peter, 1996. "Politics and the effectiveness of foreign aid," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 289-329, February.
    4. Reinsberg,Bernhard Wilfried & Michaelowa,Katharina & Knack,Stephen, 2015. "Which donors, which funds ? the choice of multilateral funds by bilateral donors at the World Bank," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7441, The World Bank.
    5. Balázs Szent-Iványi, 2015. "Are Democratising Countries Rewarded with Higher Levels of Foreign Aid?," Acta Oeconomica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 65(4), pages 593-615, December.
    6. Liya Palagashvili & Claudia R. Williamson, 2021. "Grading foreign aid agencies: Best practices across traditional and emerging donors," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 654-676, May.
    7. Haider A. Khan, 2004. "General Conclusions: From Crisis to a Global Political Economy of Freedom," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Global Markets and Financial Crises in Asia, chapter 9, pages 193-211, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Robert K. Fleck & Christopher Kilby, 2006. "World Bank Independence: A Model and Statistical Analysis of US Influence," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 224-240, May.
    9. HEPP, Ralf, 2010. "CONSEQUENCES OF DEBT RELIEF INITIATIVES IN THE 1990s," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 10(1).
    10. Dollar, David & Levin, Victoria, 2006. "The Increasing Selectivity of Foreign Aid, 1984-2003," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2034-2046, December.
    11. Breßlein, Martin & Schmaljohann, Maya, 2013. "Surrender your market! Do the G5 countries use World Bank Trade Conditionality to promote Trade?," Working Papers 0550, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    12. Calle, Isabel & Mora Paniagua, Carol, 2021. "El Acuerdo de Escazú y la Agenda 2030 como eje fundamental de la reactivación económica nacional en el caso peruano," Coediciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 47578.
    13. Roland Kangni KPODAR & Maëlan LE GOFF, 2012. "Do Remittances Reduce Aid Dependency?," Working Papers P34, FERDI.
    14. Stephen Knowles, 2007. "Social capital, egalitarianism and foreign aid allocations," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 299-314.
    15. Ira N. Gang & Haider Ali Khan, 1999. "Foreign aid and fiscal behavior in a bounded rationality model: Different policy regimes," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 121-134.
    16. Iliana Olivié & Aitor Pérez, 2016. "Why don’t donor countries coordinate their aid? A case study of European donors in Morocco," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 16(1), pages 52-64, January.
    17. Alberto Alesina & Beatrice Weder, 2002. "Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign Aid?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1126-1137, September.
    18. Cappelli, Silvia, 2021. "El principio in dubio pro natura y su relación con el Acuerdo de Escazú y la Agenda 2030," Coediciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 47581.
    19. repec:wvu:wpaper:06-14 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Mark McGillivray, 2003. "Efficacité de l'aide et sélectivité : vers un concept élargi," Revue d’économie du développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 11(4), pages 43-62.
    21. Broussard, Shorna R. & Whitaker, Bianca D., 2009. "The Magna Charta of Environmental Legislation: A historical look at 30Â years of NEPA-Forest Service Litigation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 148-154, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:81:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-015-2089-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.