Spatial information during public participation within environmental impact assessment in Kenya

REFERENCES

• Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin F-P. 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 57(2):239–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackroyd S, Hughes JA. 1981. Data collection in context. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Angwenyi A. 2004. Environmental legislation and domestication of international environmental law in Kenya. In: Sesei program sub-regional legal workshop. Nairobi, Kenya: Sesei Program. p. 1–21, 13–17 December 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Appelstrand M. 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners. Forest Pol Econ. 4(4):281–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleton K, Lovett A. 2005. GIS-based visualisation of development proposals: reactions from planning and related professionals. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 29(3):321–339.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein SR. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J Amer Inst Plann. 35(4):216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacic ILZ, Rossiter DG, Bregt AK. 2006. Using spatial information to improve collective understanding of shared environmental problems at watershed level. Landscape Urban Plan. 77(1–2):54–66.
   Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Hindmarsh RA, McDonald GT. 1991. Environmental assessment procedures and issues in the Pacific Basin-Southeast Asia region. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 11(2):143–156.
   Google Scholar
• Chéneau-Loquay A. 2007. From networks to uses patterns: the digital divide as seen from Africa. GeoJournal. 68(1):55–70.
   Google Scholar
• Coluccia E, Iosue G, Brandimonte MA. 2007. The relationship between map drawing and spatial orientation abilities: a study of gender differences. J Environ Psych. 27(2):135–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coluccia E, Louse G. 2004. Gender differences in spatial orientation: a review. J Environ Psych. 24(3):329–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connor DM. 1988. A new ladder of citizen participation. Nat Civic Rev. 77(3):249–257.
   Google Scholar
• Creighton C, Yieke F, editors. 2006. Gender inequalities in Kenya. Nairobi: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• de Jesus J. 2009. What is impact assessment? Fargo (ND): International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA).
   Google Scholar
• Diduck A, Sinclair AJ, Pratap D, Hostetler G. 2007. Achieving meaningful public participation in the environmental assessment of hydro development: case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 25(3):219–231.
   Google Scholar
• Doelle M, Sinclair AJ. 2006. Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(2):185–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebisemiju FS. 1993. Environmental impact assessment: making it work in developing countries. J Environ Manage. 38(4):247–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enserink B, Monnikhof RAH. 2003. Information management for public participation in co-design processes: evaluation of a Dutch example. J Environ Plann Manage. 46(3):315–344.
   Google Scholar
• O'Faircheallaigh C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30(1):19–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glicken J. 2000. Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environ Sci Policy. 3(6):305–310.
   Google Scholar
• González A, Gilmer A, Foley R, Sweeney J, Fry J. 2008. Technology-aided participative methods in environmental assessment: an international perspective. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 32(4):303–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government of the United States of America. 1969. The national environmental policy act. Washington (DC): Senate and House of Representatives.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith C. 1980. Geographic information systems and environmental impact assessment. Environ Manage. 4(1):21–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haklay ME. 2003. Public access to environmental information: past, present and future. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 27(2):163–180.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond D, Conlon K, Barzyk T, Chahine T, Zartarian V, Schultz B. 2011. Assessment and application of national environmental databases and mapping tools at the local level to two community case studies. Risk Anal. 31(3):475–487.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harding J. 2011. Usability of geographic information. Factors identified from task-focused user interviews. In: 25th International cartographic congress. Vienna, Austria: International Cartographic Association. p. 1–5, 3–8 July 2011, Paris, France.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley N, Wood C. 2005. Public participation in environmental impact assessment—implementing the Aarhus convention. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25(4):319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman JF, Roth SF, Miranda C, Getz M. 1982. Children's memory for spatial locations: the influence of recall perspective and type of environment. J Exp Child Psychol. 34(2):257–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirji R, Ortolano L. 1991. Controlling industrial pollution using EIA: case study of a Kenyan tannery project. Environmentalist. 11(4):255–266.
   Google Scholar
• Hirtle SC, Hudson J. 1991. Acquisition of spatial knowledge for routes. J Environ Psychol. 11:335–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horberry J. 1985. International organization and EIA in developing countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 5(3):207–222.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter GJ, de Bruin S, Bregt AK. 2007. Improving the usability of spatial information products and services. Lect Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. 9:405–418.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter GJ, Wachowicz M, Bregt AK. 2003. Understanding spatial data usability. Data Sci J. 2:79–89 (Spatial Data Usability Special Section).
   Google Scholar
• Iachini T, Ruotolo F, Ruggiero G. 2009. The effects of familiarity and gender on spatial representation. J Environ Psych. 29(2):227–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iaria G, Palermo L, Committeri G, Barton JJS. 2009. Age differences in the formation and use of cognitive maps. Behav Brain Res. 196(2):187–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Economic Affairs (Kenya) (IEC). 2008. Profile of women's socio-economic status in Kenya. Nairobi: Institute of Economic Affairs (Kenya).
   Google Scholar
• International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). 2007. IAP2 spectrum of public participation. Available from: http://www.iap2.org.au/sitebuilder/resources/knowledge/asset/files/36/iap2spectrum.pdf [Accessed 23 June 2013].
   Google Scholar
• International Cartographic Association. 2012. Usability of maps and GI. Available from: http://icaci.org/research-agenda/usability-of-maps-and-gi/ [Accessed 23 June 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(4):287–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kakonge JO, Imevbore AM. 1993. Constraints on implementing environmental impact assessments in Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 13(5):299–309.
   Google Scholar
• Kameri-Mbote P. 2000. Strategic planning and implementation of public involvement in environmental decision-making as they relate to environmental impact assessment in Kenya. International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC), Nairobi. Available from: http://www.ielrc.org/content/w003.pdf [Accessed 23 June 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Kibutu TN, Mwenda AN. 2010. Provision for environmental impact assessment in Kenya's legislation: a review of the environmental management and coordination act and environmental (impact assessment and audit) regulation. Eastern Afr J Humanit Sci. 10(2):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Kimani NN. 2010. Participatory aspirations in environmental governance in East Africa. Law Environ Dev J. 6(2):200–215.
   Google Scholar
• Kolhoff AJ, Runhaar HAC, Driessen PPJ. 2009. The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 27(4):271–282.
   Google Scholar
• Konecny M, Kubíček P, Stachoň Z, Šašinka Č. 2011. The usability of selected base maps for crises management—users' perspectives. Appl Geomatics. 3(4):189–198.
   Google Scholar
• Kontić B, Bohanec M, Urbančič T. 2006. An experiment in participative environmental decision making. Environmentalist. 26(1):5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Lai PC, Kwong K-H, Mak ASH. 2010. Assessing the applicability and effectiveness of 3D visualisation in environmental impact assessment. Environ Plann B. 37(2):221–233.
   Google Scholar
• Lane MB, Ross H, Dale AP, Rickson RE. 2003. Sacred land, mineral wealth, and biodiversity at Coronation Hill, Northern Australia: indigenous knowledge and SIA. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21(2):89–98.
   Google Scholar
• Lee N. 1983. Environmental impact assessment: a review. Appl Geogr. 3(1):5–27.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JL, Sheppard SRJ. 2006. Culture and communication: can landscape visualization improve forest management consultation with indigenous communities? Landscape Urban Plan. 77(3):291–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipman PD, Caplan LJ. 1992. Adult age differences in memory for routes: effects of instruction and spatial diagram. Psychol Aging. 7(3):435–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse MM, Zwaan RA. 2009. Language encodes geographical information. Cogn Sci. 33(1):51–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marara M, Okello N, Kuhanwa Z, Douven W, Beevers L, Leentvaar J. 2011. The importance of context in delivering effective EIA: case studies from East Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(3):286–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews MH. 1980. Children represent their environment: mental maps of Coventry city centre. Geoforum. 11(4):385–397.
   Google Scholar
• McCall MK. 2003. Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat Int. 27(4):549–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne J. 1999. Questionnaires: advantages and disadvantages. Available from: www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info-questionnaires/ [Accessed 28 July 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Montello DR, Freundschuh SM. 1995. Sources of spatial knowledge and their implications for GIS: an introduction. Geographical Sys. 2:169–176.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey M. 2009. Appraising the role of relationships between regulators and consultants for effective EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(5):284–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moufaddal WM. 2005. Use of satellite imagery as environmental impact assessment tool: a case study from the NW Egyptian Red Sea coastal zone. Environ Monit Assess. 107(1–3):427–452.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mwenda AN, Bregt AK, Ligtenberg A, Kibutu TN. 2012. Trends in consultation and public participation within environmental impact assessment in Kenya. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(2):130–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Fischer TB. 2011. An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(1):36–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). 2002. Environmental impact assessment guidelines and administrative procedures. Nairobi: National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
   Google Scholar
• Newcombe NS, Stieff M. 2012. Six myths about spatial thinking. Int J Sci Educ. 34(6):955–971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of Public Communications. 2008. About Kenya; office of government spokesperson. Available from: http://www.communication.go.ke [Accessed 23 June 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Okello N, Beevers L, Douven W, Leentvaar J. 2009. The doing and undoing of public participation during environmental impact assessments in Kenya. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 27(3):217–226.
   Google Scholar
• Olokesusi F. 1998. Legal and institutional framework of environmental impact assessment in Nigeria: an initial assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 18(2):159–174.
   Google Scholar
• Otiso KM, Owusu G. 2008. Comparative urbanization in Ghana and Kenya in time and space. GeoJournal. 71(2–3):143–157.
   Google Scholar
• Palerm JR. 2000. An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact assessment. J Environ Plann Manage. 43(5):581–600.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeffer K, Baud I, Denis E, Scott D. 2013. Sydenstricker-Neto J. 2013. Participatory spatial knowledge management tools: empowerment and upscaling or exclusion? Inf Comm Soc. 16(2):258–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prendergast P, Rybaczuk K. 2005. Using visualization techniques in planning to improve collaborative governance in Ireland. In: 10th International conference on information and communication technologies (ICT) in urban planning and spatial development and impacts of ICT on physical space. Vienna, Austria: CORP Association. p. 235–243, 22–25 February 2005, Vienna University of Technology, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Republic of Kenya. 1999. The environmental management and coordination act. No. 8. Nairobi: Government Printer.
   Google Scholar
• Republic of Kenya. 2003. The environmental (impact assessment and audit) regulation. No. 101. Nairobi: Government Printer.
   Google Scholar
• Satapathy DR, Katpatal YB, Wate SR. 2008. Application of geospatial technologies for environmental impact assessment: an Indian scenario. Int J Remot Sens. 29(2):355–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlossberg M, Shuford E. 2005. Delineating ‘public’ and ‘participation’ in PPGIS. J Urban Reg Inf Syst Assoc (URISA). 16(2):15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd A, Bowler C. 1997. Beyond the requirements: improving public participation in EIA. J Environ Plann Manage. 40(6):725–738.
   Google Scholar
• Soini K. 2001. Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map-making. Landscape Urban Plan. 57(3–4):225–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sors JC. 2001. Public participation in Local Agenda 21: a review of traditional and innovative tools. Nota di Lavoro. 17(2001):10–49.
   Google Scholar
• Thorndyke PW, Stasz C. 1980. Individual differences in procedures for knowledge acquisition from maps. Cogn Psychol. 12:137–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuler S, Webler T. 1999. Voices from the forest: what participants expect of a public participation process. Soc Natural Resources: An Int J. 12(5):437–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2011. Human development report 2011. New York (NY): Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderhaegen M, Muro E. 2005. Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA studies. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25(2):123–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandesforde-Smith G. 1980. International perspectives on environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 1(1):53–64.
   Google Scholar
• Wane N, Chandler DJ. 2002. African women, cultural knowledge, and environmental education with a focus on Kenya's indigenous women. Can J Environ Educ. 7(1):86–98.
   Google Scholar
• Warner LL, Diab RD. 2002. Use of geographic information systems in an environmental impact assessment of an overhead power line. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 20(1):39–47.
   Google Scholar
• Webler T, Tuler S. 2006. Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Stud J. 34(4):699–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiedemann PM, Femers S. 1993. Public participation in waste management decision making: analysis and management of conflicts. J Hazard Mater. 33(3):355–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar