The precautionary principle and management of uncertainties in EIAs – analysis of waste incineration cases in Finland

REFERENCES

• Bell S, McGillivray D. 2006. Environmental law. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Calman K, Smith D. 2001. Works in theory but not in practice? The role of the precautionary principle in public health policy. Public Admin. 79(1):185–204.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Bond A, Cobb D. 2008. The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. J Environ Manage. 88(4):1233–1248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cewep. 2007. Available from: http://www.cewep.com/home/news/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Comest. 2005. The precautionary principle. World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• Commission. 2003. Report from the commission to the European parliament and the council on the application and effectiveness of the EIA directive. Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/report_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Commission. 2010. Environmental impact assessment of projects – rulings of the court of justice. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_case_law.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• De Jongh P. 1988. Uncertainty in EIA. In: Wathern Peter, editor. Environmental impact assessment. Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De Sadeleer N. 2002. Environmental principles. From political slogans to legal rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• der Sluijs JP, Risbey JS, Kloprogge P, Ravetz JR, Funtowicz SO, Corral Quintana S, Guimaraes Pereira A, De Marchi B, Petersen AC, Janssen PHM, et al. 2003. RIVMP/MNP guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication: detailed guidance. Report nr. NWS-E-2003-163. Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan R. 2008. Problematic practice in integrated impact assessment: the role of consultants and predictive computer models in burying uncertainty. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 26(1):53–66.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan R. 2013. Opening new institutional spaces for grappling with uncertainty: a constructivist perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:151–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eräsaari R. 1997. Mitä riskin käsitteellä organisoidaan? Riskikirja., p. 67–89, Yhteiskuntatieteiden, valtio-opin ja filosofian julkaisuja 9. University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2001. European commission's guidance on EIA: EIS review. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2007. EU waste policy. The Story Behind the Strategy. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/strategy.htm (downloaded 30.8.2007).
   Google Scholar
• Failing L, Gregory R, Harstone M. 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: a decision-focused approach. Ecol Econ. 64(1):47–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repachol MH. 2000. Risk management:science and the precautionary principle. Science. 288(5468):979–981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilden M, Ostamo E, Rahikainen M, Päivärinne A-M. 1997. Arviointiselostusten laadun arviointi. Ympäristöopas 33. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen julkaisuja. Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Hokkanen P, Jantunen J. 2012. A multi-view evaluation of the finnish eia system: an 18-year success story? J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 14(4):1250024(22p.).
   Google Scholar
• Jalava K, Pasanen S, Saalasti M, Kuitunen M. 2010. Quality of environmental impact assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinions of EIA professionals. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 28(1):15–27.
   Google Scholar
• Jha-Takur U, Gazzola P, Peel D, Fischer TB, Kidd S. 2009. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment – the significance of learning. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 27(2):133–144.
   Google Scholar
• Koivurova T, Pölönen I. 2010. Transboundary environmental impact assessment in the case of the Baltic sea gas pipeline. Int J Mar Coast Law. 25(25):151–181.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen J. 2006. Jätteen rinnakkaispolton rooli ja rajaehdot Suomen jätestrategiassa., p. 82, Valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016. Taustaselvitys Osa 1. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja. 15/2006.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence DP. 2003. Environmental impact assessment. In: Practical solutions to recurrent problems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 562.
   Google Scholar
• Litmanen T. 2001. The struggle over risk. The spatial, temporal, and cultural dimensions of protest against nuclear technology. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research 177. University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Meloni E. 2004. Mikä jätteenpoltossa kuumentaa tunteita?, p. 30–33, Tekniikka ja Kunta 2/2004.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment. 2007. Ehdotus valtakunnalliseksi jätesuunnitelmaksi vuoteen 2016., p. 83, Ympäristöministeriön raportteja.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment. 2008. Valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016., p. 27, Ympäristöministeriö.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment. 2010. Jätealan lainsäädännön kokonaisuudistus., p. 41, Sihteeristön alustava luonnos hallituksen esityksen yleisperusteluiksi.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment. 2011. EIA support material. Available from: http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node = 14140&lan = fi (last accessed 12.2.2013).
   Google Scholar
• O'Riordan T, Jordan A. 1995. The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental politics. Environ Values. 4(3):191–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partidario MR, Sheate WR. 2013. Knowledge brokerage – potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 39:26–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pölönen I. 2007. Ympäristövaikutustenarviointimenettely., p. 304, Tutkimus YVA-menettelynoikeudellisestaasemastajakehittämistarpeistaympäristöllisenvaikuttavuudennäkökulmasta. Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys. Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Pölönen I, Hokkanen P, Jalava K. 2011. The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system – what works, what doesn't, and what could be improved? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(2):120–128.
   Google Scholar
• Ravetz J. 2004. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures. 36(3):347–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renn O. 2008. Risk governance. In: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan. p. 455.
   Google Scholar
• Saarikoski H. 2006. When frames conflict: policy dialogue on waste. Environ Plann C Govern Policy. 24(4):615–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandin P. 2007. Common-sense precaution and varieties of the precautionary principle. In: Lewens T, editor. Risk. Philosophical perspectives. Oxon and New York: Routledge. p. 217.
   Google Scholar
• Sheate WR, Partidario MR. 2010. Strategic approaches and assessment techniques – potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30(4):278–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snell T, Cowell R. 2006. Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing precaution and efficiency? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(4):359–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto. 2008. Jätteenpoltto. Available from: http://www.sll.fi/luontojaymparisto/kestava/jatepolitiikka_uusi/jatteenpoltto (21.5.2008).
   Google Scholar
• Tannert C, Elvers HD, Jandrig B. 2007. The ethics of uncertainty. In the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty. Sci Soc. 8(10):892–896.
   Google Scholar
• Tennoy A, Kvaerner J, Gjerstad KI. 2006. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 24(1):45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Yoe CH. 1996. Incorporating risk and uncertainty into environmental evaluation: an annotated bibliography. Evaluation of Environmental investments research program. US Army Corps of Engineers. IWR Report 96-R-9. Alexandria, Virginia and Vicksburg, Mississippi.
   Google Scholar