Strategic Environmental Assessment and spatial planning in Italy: sustainability, integration and democracy

References

• Aalborg Commitments. 2004. www.aalborgplus10.dk/default.aspx?m=2&i=307
   Google Scholar
• Arts, J., P. Tomlinson, and H. Voogd. 2010. “Planning in Tiers: Tiering as a Way of Linking EIA and SEA.” In Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, edited by B. Sadler, R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T. B. Fischer, M. Partidario, and R. Verheem, 415–436. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Barth, R., and A. Fuder. 2003. IMPEL Project: Implementing Article 10 of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC-Final Report. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/impel_final_report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, R. V., and P. A. Kurian. 1999. “The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit Models of Policy Making.” Policy and Politics 27 (4): 415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bina, O. 2007. “A critical Review of the Dominant Lines of Argumentation on the Need for Strategic Environmental Assessment.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (7): 585–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonifazi, A., C. Rega, and P. Gazzola. 2011. “Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Democratisation of Spatial Planning.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13 (1): 9–37.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore, M. 2007. “The Contribution of Environmental Assessment to Sustainable Development: Toward a Richer Conceptual Understanding.” In Impact Assessment and Sustainable Development - European Practice and Experience, edited by C. George and C. H. Kirkpatrick, 106–130. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Coaffee, J., and P. Healey. 2003. “My Voice: My Place: Tracking Transformations in Urban Governance.” Urban Studies 40 (10): 1979–1999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European Governance: A White Paper. COM (2001) 428.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. 2002a. Towards a Reinforced Culture of Consultation and Dialogue - General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission. COM (2002) 704.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. 2002b. On the Collection and Use of Expertise by the Commission: Principles and Guidelines - Improving the Knowledge Base for Better Policies. COM (2002) 713.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Report on the Application and Effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC). COM (2009) 469.
   Google Scholar
• CEU (Council of the European Union). 2006. The Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy. DOC 10917/06.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, S., and T. Richardson. 2005. “Value-Driven SEA: Time for an Environmental Justice Perspective?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (4): 391–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• COWI. 2009. Study Concerning the Report on the Application and Effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) - Final report to the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 2005. The Politics of the Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duinker, P. N., and L. A. Greig. 2007. “Scenario Analysis in Environmental Impact Assessment: Improving Explorations of the Future.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (3): 206–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earth Charter Initiative. 2000. Earth Charter. www.earthcharterinaction.org
   Google Scholar
• Eggenberger, M., and M. R. Partidàrio. 2000. “Development of a Framework to Assist the Integration of Environmental, Social and Economic Issues in Spatial Planning.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18 (3): 201–207.
   Google Scholar
• ENPLAN Project, Interreg IIIB-MEDOC. 2004. Linee guida per la valutazione ambientale di piani e programmi. www.interreg-enplan.org
   Google Scholar
• Faith-Ell, C., and J. Arts. 2011. “Making an Impact through Partnerships.” Paper presented at the Special Conference on Strategic Environmental Assessment of the International Association for Impact Assessment 21–23 September 2011, Prague (Czech Republic).
   Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. J. 1995. Making Environmental Policy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, T. B. 2003. “Strategic Environmental Assessment in Post-Modern Times.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 (2): 155–170.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, T. B. 2010. “Reviewing the Quality of Strategic Environmental Assessment Reports for English Spatial Plan Core Strategies.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 (1): 62–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, T. B., and P. Gazzola. 2006. “SEA Effectiveness Criteria-Equally Valid in All Countries? The Case of Italy.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (4): 396–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fundingsland Tetlow, M., and M. Hanusch. 2012. “Strategic Environmental Assessment: The State of the Art.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (1): 15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gazzola, P., U. Jha-Thakur, S. Kidd, D. Peel, and T. Fischer. 2011. “Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness: Towards an Understanding of Internal Context Conditions in Organisational Learning.” Planning Theory & Practice 122: 183–204. doi:10.1080/14649357.2011.581008
   Google Scholar
• Gauthier, M., L. Simard, and J. P. Waaub. 2011. “Public Participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): Critical Review and the Quebec (Canada) Approach.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (1): 48–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelli, F. 2001. “Planning Systems in Italy within the Context of New Processes of ‘Regionalization’.” International Planning Studies 6 (2): 183–197.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C. 2003. “War and Peace … and Evaluation.” In Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy, Vol. 2, edited by O. Karlsson. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University. http://forskning.edu.uu.se/upi/SITE_Docs/Doc186.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2001. Guidelines and Checklist for Constructivist Evaluation. www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
   Google Scholar
• Hanberger, A. 2006. “Evaluation of and for Democracy.” Evaluation 12 (1): 17–37.
   Google Scholar
• Hardi, P., and T. J. Zdan, eds. 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. Winnipeg: The International Institute for Sustainable Development.
   Google Scholar
• Hilding-Rydevik, T., and H. Bjarnadóttir. 2007. “Context Awareness and Sensitivity in SEA Implementation.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (7): 666–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House, E. R., and K. R. Howe. 2000. Deliberative Democratic Evaluation Checklist. www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
   Google Scholar
• IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment). 2002. SEA Performance Criteria. IAIA Special publication series 1. http://www.iaia.org/publications-resources/downloadable-publications.aspx
   Google Scholar
• IEMA (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment). 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report Review Criteria. Lincoln: Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, T., and B. Illsley. 2006. “Strategic Environmental Assessment as a Tool of Environmental Governance: Scotland's Extension of the European Union SEA Directive.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49 (3): 361–383.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2004. “Science and Citizenship: A New Synergy.” Science and Public Policy 31 (2): 90–94.
   Google Scholar
• Khakee, A. 1998. “Evaluation and Planning: Inseparable Concepts.” Town Planning Review 69 (4): 359–374.
   Google Scholar
• Khakee, A., and A. Barbanente. 2003. “Negotiative Land-Use and Deliberative Environmental Planning in Italy and Sweden.” International Planning Studies 8 (3): 181–200.
   Google Scholar
• Lafferty, W. M., and E. Hovden. 2003. “Environmental Policy Integration: Towards an Analytical Framework.” Environmental Politics 12 (3): 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, D. P. 2000. “Planning Theories and Environmental Impact Assessment.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (6): 607–625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, N., and C. Kirkpatrick. 2006. “Evidence-Based Policy-Making in Europe: An Evaluation of European Commission Integrated Impact Assessments.” Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 24 (1): 23–33.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, N., R. Colley, J. Bonde, and J. Simpson. 1999. Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements and Environmental Appraisals. University of Manchester, Department of Planning and Landscape, EIA Centre, Occasional Paper 55. www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/planning/research/publications/wp/eia
   Google Scholar
• Liberatore, A., and S. Funtowicz. 2003. “‘Democratising’ Expertise, ‘Expertising’ Democracy: What Does this Mean, and Why Bother?” Science and Public Policy 30 (3): 146–150.
   Google Scholar
• McLaren, L. M., and Baird, V. A. 2006. “Of Time and Causality: A Simple Test of the Requirement of Social Capital in Making Democracy Work in Italy.” Political Studies 54 (4): 889–897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLauchlan, A., and E. João. 2011. “The Utopian Goal of Attempting to Deliver Environmental Justice Using SEA.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13 (1): 129–158.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2007. Applying Strategic Environmental Assessment-Good Practice Guidance for Development Co-operation. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and DOE Northern Ireland. 2005. A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. London: ODPM.
   Google Scholar
• Partidàrio, M. R. 2000. “Elements of an SEA Framework - Improving the Added-Value of SEA.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (6): 647–663.
   Google Scholar
• Partidàrio, M. R. 2007. Strategic Environmental Assessment Good Practices: Methodological Guidance. Lisbon: Portuguese Environment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Partidário, M. R., and J. Arts. 2005. “Exploring the Concept of Strategic Environmental Assessment Follow-Up.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23 (3): 246–257.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. 2002. Utilization-Focused Evaluation Checklist. www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
   Google Scholar
• Pompilio, M. 2007. “Gruppo di lavoro VAS e Governo del territorio: aggiornamento sulle attività svolte nel corso del 2007.” Valutazione Ambientale 12: 99.
   Google Scholar
• Pompilio, M., and P. Giordano. 2009. “Osservatorio VAS”. Valutazione Ambientale 15: 15–25.
   Google Scholar
• Posas, P. J. 2011. “Exploring Climate Change Criteria for Strategic Environmental Assessments.” Progress in Planning 75 (3): 109–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runhaar, H., and P. P. J. Driessen. 2007. “What Makes Strategic Environmental Assessment Successful Environmental Assessment? The Role of Context in the Contribution of SEA to Decision-Making.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25 (1): 2–14.
   Google Scholar
• SEDD (Scottish Executive Development Department). 2003. Environmental Assessment of Development Plans ‒ Interim Planning Advice. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Development Department.
   Google Scholar
• Sheate, W. R., H. G. Byron, and S. P. Smith. 2004. “Implementing the SEA Directive: Sectoral Challenges and Opportunities for the UK and EU.” European Environment 14: 73–93.
   Google Scholar
• Slootweg, R., and M. Jones. 2011. “Resilience Thinking Improves SEA: A Discussion Paper.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29 (4): 263–276.
   Google Scholar
• Stame, N. 2006. “Governance, Democracy and Evaluation.” Evaluation 12 (1): 7–16.
   Google Scholar
• Stufflebeam, D. L., L. Goodyear, J. Marquart, and E. Johnson. 2005. Guiding Principles Checklist for Evaluating Evaluations. www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
   Google Scholar
• TJCSEV (The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation). 1994. The Program Evaluation Standards. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Thérivel, R. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Thérivel, R. 2009. “Appropriate Assessment of Plans in England.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (4): 261–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thérivel, R., G. Christian, C. Craig, R. Grinham, D. Mackins, J. Smith, T. Sneller, R. Turner, D. Walker, and M. Yamane. 2009. “Sustainability-Focused Impact Assessment: English Experiences.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27 (2): 155–168.
   Google Scholar
• Treib, O., H. Bähr, and G. Falkner. 2007. “Modes of Governance: Towards a Conceptual Clarification.” Journal of European Public Policy 14 (1): 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Tzoumis, K. 2007. “Comparing the Quality of Draft Environmental Impact Statements by Agencies in the United States Since 1998 to 2004.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 26–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Buuren, A., and S. Nooteboom. 2009. “Evaluating Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Netherlands: Content, Process and Procedure as Indissoluble Criteria for Effectiveness.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27 (2): 145–154.
   Google Scholar
• Van Buuren, A., and S. Nooteboom. 2010. “The Success of SEA in the Dutch Planning Practice: How Formal Assessments Can Contribute to Collaborative Governance.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 (2): 127–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Doren, D., P. P. J. Driessen, B. Schijf, and H. A. C. Runhaar. 2013. “Evaluating the Substantive Effectiveness of SEA: Towards a Better Understanding.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38 (4): 120–130.
   Google Scholar
• WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• World Resources Institute. 2008. Voice and Choice: Opening the Door to Environmental Democracy. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar