Owl meets beehive: how impact assessment and governance relate

References

• AckermanF, HeinzerlingL. 2004. Priceless: on knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. New York: The New Press.
   Google Scholar
• ArtsJ, Faith-EllC. 2012. New governance approaches for sustainable project delivery. Procedia.48:3239–3250.
   Google Scholar
• BartlettRV, KurianP. 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making. Policy Politics.27(4):415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ. 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.30(1):53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, AxelssonA. 2013. The mediation of environmental assessment's influence: what role for power?Environ Impact Assess Rev.39(0):5–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, RichardsonT. 2013. Power and environmental assessment: introduction to the special issue. Environ Impact Assess Rev.39:1–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Challe S, Christopoulos S, Kull M, Meuleman L. 2014. Governance of mainstreaming poverty and environment in Tajikistan: paving the ground for SEA/EIA? Paper presented at: IAIA14 Conference, Vina del Mar, Chile.
   Google Scholar
• CzempielE-O, RosenauJ, editors. 1992. Governance without government: order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis G, Rhodes RAW. 2000. From hierarchy to contracts and back again: reforming the Australian public service. Paper presented at: Political Studies Association-UK 50th Annual Conference, Apr 10–13, London.
   Google Scholar
• DixonJ, DoganR. 2002. Hierarchies, networks and markets: responses to societal governance failure. Administrative Theory Praxis.24(1):175–196.
   Google Scholar
• EstevesA, FranksD, VanclayF. 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.30(1):34–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2001. European governance: a white paper. COM (2001) 428 final, Jul 25, 2001. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2009. Impact assessment guidelines. SEC(2009)92. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2014. European Semester staff working documents for Belgium. Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Environment Agency. 2013. Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation [EEA report no 1/2013]. Copenhagen: EEA.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. Decision NO 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’2013. Brussels: European Union.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive)2014. Brussels: European Union.
   Google Scholar
• FedericksonH, SmithK. 2003. The public administration theory primer. Boulder (CO): Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• FuntowiczS, RavetzJ. 1994. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecolo Econ.10:197–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GiddensA. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Redwood City (CA): Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• HansenA, KørnøvL, CashmoreM, RichardsonT. 2013. The significance of structural power in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev.39:37–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HéritierA. 2002. New modes of governance in Europe: policy making without legislating?IHS Political Science Series, No. 81. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.
   Google Scholar
• HillC, Lynn, Jr, L. 2005. Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. J Public Adm Res Theory.15(2):173–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HoodC. 1991. A public management for all seasons?Public Adm.69(1):3–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingelson A. 2013. The new Canadian environmental assessment act. Paper presented at: 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, May 13–16, Calgary Stampede BMO Centre, Calgary, Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• In't VeldRJ, ed. 2000. Willingly and knowingly. The Hague: RMNO. Reprinted 2009.
   Google Scholar
• In't VeldRJ. 2013. Transgovernance: the quest for governance of sustainable development. In: MeulemanL, editor. Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Heidelberg: Springer; p. 275–310.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob K, Heetin J, Hjerp P, Radaelli C, Meuwese A, Wolf O, Pacchi C, Rennings K. 2008. Improving the practice of impact assessment. Policy conclusions of the Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments Project EVIA.
   Google Scholar
• JessopB. 1997. Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance. Rev Int Political Economy.4(3):561–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JessopB. 2003. Governance and metagovernance: on reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In: BangB, editor. Governance as social and political communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press; p. 101–116.
   Google Scholar
• JessopB. 2004. Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance changes in the European Union as integral moments in the transformation and reorientation of contemporary statehood. In: BacheI, FlindersM, editors. Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 49–74.
   Google Scholar
• JilibertoR. 2012. Recognizing the institutional dimension of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.29(2):133–140.
   Google Scholar
• KahnemannD. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Zoido-Lobatón P. 2000. Governance matters: from measurement to action. Finance & Development. 37(2).
   Google Scholar
• KickertW. 1997. Public governance in the Netherlands: an alternative to Anglo-American ‘managerialism’. Public Adm.75:731–752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolar-Planinsic V, Partidario M, Meuleman L. 2013. Background paper on good practice on communication, cooperation and conflict resolution. Working Group on Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Espoo Convention and the SEA Protocol, Nov 11–15.
   Google Scholar
• Kull M. 2014. European integration and rural development – actors, institutions and power. Aldershot: Ashgate. Available from: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409468547.
   Google Scholar
• LeeuwF. 1991. Policy theories, knowledge utilization, and evaluation. Knowledge Policy.4:73–92.
   Google Scholar
• LindblomC, CohenD. 1979. Usable knowledge: social science and social problem solving. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• LobosV, PartidárioM. Sep 2014. Theory versus practice in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environ Impact Assess Rev.48:34–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LowndesV, SkelcherC. 1998. The dynamics of multi-organisational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Adm.76:313–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MayntzR. 2004. Governance im modernen staat. In: BenzA, editor. Governance – regieren in komplexen regelsystemen. Wiesbaden: Springer; p. 65–76.
   Google Scholar
• MeulemanL. 2003. The Pegasus principle: reinventing a credible public sector. Utrecht: Lemma.
   Google Scholar
• MeulemanL. 2008. Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: the feasibility of designing and managing governance styles. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• MeulemanL. 2011. Metagoverning governance styles: broadening the public manager's action perspective. In: TorfingJ, TriantafillouP, editors. Interactive policy making, metagovernance and democracy. Colchester: ECPR Press; p. 95–110.
   Google Scholar
• MeulemanL. 2012. Cognitive dissonance and evidence-based sustainability policy-making. Paper presented at: 2012:5–6.
   Google Scholar
• MeulemanL, ed. 2013a. Cultural diversity and sustainability metagovernance. In: Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; p. 37–81.
   Google Scholar
• Meuleman L. 2013b. Governance. Fastips No. 4, IAIA. Available from: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/fast-tips/Fastips_4%20Governance.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MeulemanL. Forthcoming. The implementation of the EU SEA directive: main achievements and challenges. In: SadlerB, DusikJ, editors. European and international experience of strategic environmental assessment: recent progress and future prospects. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• MeuweseA. 2008. Impact assessment in EU lawmaking [PhD dissertation]. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro M, Partidário M. 2012. Perceptions on SEA: not all that glitters is gold. Paper presented at: IAIA 2012 Conference, Porto, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro M, Partidário M, Meuleman L. 2014. Governance systems may influence the success of SEA. Paper presented at: IAIA 2014 Conference, Vina del Mar, Chile.
   Google Scholar
• Niestroy I. 2008. Sustainability impact assessment and regulatory impact assessment. In: OECD, editor. Conducting sustainability assessments. Paris: OECD Sustainable Development Studies; p. 67–88.
   Google Scholar
• NitzT, BrownAL. 2001. SEA must learn how policy making works. J Environ Assess Policy Manag.3(3):329–342.
   Google Scholar
• OlsenJ. 2006. Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. J Public Adm Res Theory.16(1):1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Guidance on sustainability impact assessment2010. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• ParkinsJ. 2008. The metagovernance of climate change: institutional adaptation to the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia. J Rural Community Dev.3(2):7–26.
   Google Scholar
• Partidário M. Impact assessment. Fastips No. 1, IAIA2012.
   Google Scholar
• PartidárioM, SheateW. 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
• Peirson-Smith T. 2013. Amplifying the voice of the silent majority in public engagement exercises in Hong Kong. Paper presented at: IAIA 2013 Conference, Calgary, Canada, May 13–16.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli C, Allio L, Renda A, Schrefler L. 2010. How to learn from the international experience: impact assessment in the Netherlands [Final report]. University of Exeter: Centre for European Governance.
   Google Scholar
• RadaelliC, DunlopCA, FritschO. 2013. Narrating impact assessment in the European Union. Eur Political Sci.12:500–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RennO. 2009. Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• RichardsonT, CashmoreM. 2011. Power, knowledge and environmental assessment: the World Bank's pursuit of ‘good governance’. J Political Power.4:105–125.
   Google Scholar
• StephensonP. 2013. Twenty years of multi-level governance: ‘Where does it come from? What is it? Where is it going’?J Eur Public Policy.20(6):817–837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ThalerR, SunsteinC. 2004. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• TherivelR, FischerTB. 2012. Sustainability appraisal in England. UVP Report.26(1):16–21.
   Google Scholar
• ThompsonG, FrancesJ, LevacicR, MitchellJ, editors. 1991. Markets, hierarchies and networks: the co-ordination of social life. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Van BuurenA, NoteboomS. 2010. The success of SEA in the Dutch planning practice: how formal assessments can contribute to collaborative governance. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:127–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VincentI, Morrison-SaundersA. 2013. Applying sustainability assessment thinking to a community-governed development: a sea cucumber farm in Madagascar. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.31(3):208–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WeberM. 1952. The essentials of bureaucratic organization: an ideal-type construction. In: MertonRK, AilsaPG, BarbaraH, HananCS, editors. Reader in bureaucracy. Glencoe (IL): The Free Press; p. 19–27.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 1994. Governance: the World Bank's experience. Development in practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2013. Brief strategic environment assessment. [cited 2014 Jul 24]. Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/brief/strategic-environmental-assessment.
   Google Scholar