Demonstrating the benefits of impact assessment for proponents

References

• AnnandaleD, Morrison-SaundersA, BoumaG. 2004. The impact of voluntary environmental protection instruments on company environmental performance. Bus Strat Environ. 13(1):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• AnnandaleD, Morrison-SaundersA, HughesM. 2007. Measuring the impact of voluntary environmental protection instruments: perceptual vs. archival techniques. IJEWE. 3(1):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• AnnandaleD, TaplinR. 2003. Is environmental impact assessment regulation a ‘burden’ to private firms?Environ Impact Assess. 23(3):383–397.
   Google Scholar
• BarkerS. 1999. Counterfactuals, probabilistic counterfactuals and causation. Mind. 108(431):427–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BartlettR, KurianP. 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making. Policy Polit. 27(4):415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BondA, Morrison-SaundersA. 2011. Re-evaluating sustainability assessment: aligning the vision and the practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(1):1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, HowittR, editors. 2013. Chapter 8: framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice. In: Sustainability assessment: pluralism, practice and progress. London: Routledge; p. 117–131.
   Google Scholar
• BondA, PopeJ, Morrison-SaundersA, RetiefF, GunnJ. 2014. Impact assessment: eroding benefits through streamlining?Environ Impact Assess. 45:46–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoydB, DessG, RasheedA. 1993. Divergence between archival and perceptual measures of the environment: causes and consequences. Acad Manage Rev. 18(2):204–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrownA, McDonaldG. 1995. From environmental impact assessment to environmental design and planning. Aust J Environ Manage. 2(2):65–77.
   Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, GwilliamR, MorganR, CobbD, BondA. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 22:295–310.
   Google Scholar
• ChanchitprichaC, BondA. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environ Impact Assess. 43:65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CooperT, CanterL. 1997. Substantive issues in cumulative impact assessment: a state-of-practice survey. Impact Assess. 15(1):15–31.
   Google Scholar
• EllingB. 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms?Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(2):121–131.
   Google Scholar
• FullerK. 1999. Quality and quality control in environmental impact assessment. In: PettsJ, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Volume 2 – environmental impact assessment in practice: impact and limitations. Oxford: Blackwell Science; p. 55–82.
   Google Scholar
• GibsonR. 2006. Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 24(3):170–182.
   Google Scholar
• GibsonR. 2011. Application of a contribution to sustainability test by the Joint Review Panel for the Canadian Mackenzie Gas Project. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 29(3):231–244.
   Google Scholar
• GibsonR. 2013. Why sustainability assessment? In: BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, HowittR, editors. Sustainability assessment pluralism, practice and progress. London: Routledge; p. 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• HardistyP. 2010. Environmental and economic sustainability. New York: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• HillierJ. 2003. Agonizing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Plann Theory. 2(1):37–59.
   Google Scholar
• International Association for Impact Assessment, Institute of Environmental Assessment. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice; [accessed 2013 Jan 16]. Available from: http://iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/PrinciplesofIA_web.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• IraniZ, LoveP. 2000–2001 Winter. The propagation of technology management taxonomies for evaluating investments in information systems. J. Manage Inf Syst. 17(3):161–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LenihanH, HartM. 2004. The use of counterfactual scenarios as a means to assess policy deadweight: an Irish case study. Environ Plann C: Gov Policy. 22(6):817–839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LevB, ZarowinP. 1999. The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them. J Accounting Res. 37(2):353–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacintoshA. 2010. The Australian Government's environmental impact assessment (EIA) regime: using surveys to identify proponent views on cost-effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 28(3):175–188.
   Google Scholar
• MacveR, ChenX. 2010. The ‘equator principles’: a success for voluntary codes?Accounting, Auditing & Account J. 23(7):890–919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MarshallR, ArtsJ, Morrison-SaundersA. 2005. Principles for EIA follow-up. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 23(3):175–181.
   Google Scholar
• McDonaldG, BrownA. 1995. Going beyond EIA: environmental input to planning and design. Environ Impact Assess. 15(6):483–495.
   Google Scholar
• MiddleG, ClarkeB, FranksD, BrownL, KellettJ, LockieS, Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ, GlassonJ, HarrisE, Harris-RoxasB. 2013 May 13–16. Reducing green tape or rolling back IA in Australia: what are four jurisdictions up to? Paper presented at: Impact Assessment the Next Generation. 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment; Calgary, Canada, IAIA.
   Google Scholar
• MorganR. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ, GunnJ, BondA, RetiefF. 2014. Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(1):2–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MurphyK, SimonS. 2002. Intangible benefits valuation in ERP projects. Inf Syst J. 12(4):301–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NobleB. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: what is it? and what makes it strategic?J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 2(2):203–224.
   Google Scholar
• OosterhuisF. 2007. Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive [accessed 2014 Oct 13]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• OrtolanoL, ShepherdA. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assess. 12(1):3–30.
   Google Scholar
• PopeJ, BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, RetiefF. 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess. 41:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RemenyiD, BannisterF, MoneyA. 2007. The effective measurement and management of ICT costs & benefits. 3rd ed.. Oxford: CiMA.
   Google Scholar
• RetiefF, ChabalalaB. 2009. The cost of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in South Africa. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 11:51–68.
   Google Scholar
• RozemaJ, BondA, CashmoreM, ChilversJ. 2012. An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess. 33(1):80–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ShangS, SeddonP. 2002. Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective. Inf Syst J. 12(4):271–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StarbuckW, MeziasJ. 1996. Opening Pandora's box: studying the accuracy of managers' perceptions. J Organ Behav. 17:99–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TallonP, KraemerK, GurbaxaniV. 2000. Executives' perceptions of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach. J Manage Inf Syst. 16:145–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van DorenD, DriessenP, SchijfB, RunhaarH. 2013. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: towards a better understanding. Environ Impact Assess. 38:120–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VaughanW, RussellC, RodriguezD, DarlingA. 2000. Uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis based on referendum contingent valuation. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 18(2):125–137.
   Google Scholar
• VegaD, AlpízarF. 2011. Choice experiments in environmental impact assessment: the case of the Toro 3 hydroelectric project and the Recreo Verde tourist center in Costa Rica. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 29(4):252–262.
   Google Scholar
• Western Australian Government Gazette. 2012 Dec 7. Environmental Protection Act 1986 Environmental impact assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) administrative procedures 2012. Western Australian Government Gazette. 223:5939–5959.
   Google Scholar
• ZillerA, PhibbsP. 2003. Integrating social impacts into cost-benefit analysis: a participative method: case study: the NSW area assistance scheme. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21(2):141–146.
   Google Scholar