Using a Delphi study to identify effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment

References

• Appiah-OpokuS. 2001. Environmental impact assessment in developing countries: the case of Ghana. Environ Impact Assess Rev.21:59–71.
   Google Scholar
• BaileyJ. 1997. Environmental impact assessment and management: an under-explored relationship. Environ Manage.21(3):317–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BaileyJ, SaundersA. 1988. Ongoing environmental impact assessment as a force for change. Project Appraisal.2:37–42.
   Google Scholar
• BakerD, McLellandJ. 2003. Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment process for First Nations’ participation in mining development. Environ Impact Assess Rev.23(5):581–603.
   Google Scholar
• BallM, NobleBF, DubeMG. 2013. Valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects: an analysis of environmental impact assessments in the South Saskatchewan River Watershed, Canada. Integr Environ Assess Manage.9(3):469–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BanulsVA, TuroffM. 2011. Scenario construction via Delphi and cross-impact analysis. Technol Forecast Social Change.78:1579–1602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BardeckiMJ. 1984. Participants’ response to the Delphi method: an attitudinal perspective. Technol Forecast Social Change.25:281–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BarnesJ, HegmannG. 2013. It's not the end of EA in Canada! Paper presented at: International Association for Impact Assessment Conference; Calgary, Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• BhatiaR, WernhamA. 2008. Integrating human health into environmental impact assessment: an unrealized opportunity for environmental health and justice. Environ Health Perspect.116(8):991–1000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BolgerF, StranieriA, WrightG, YearwoodJ. 2011. Does the Delphi process lead to increased accuracy in group-based judgment or does it simply induce consensus amongst judgment forecasters?Technol Forecast Social Change.78:1671–1680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, HowittR. 2013. Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice. In: BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, HowittR, editors. Sustainability assessment: pluralism, practice and progress. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
   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
• BondA, PopeJ, Morrison-SaundersA, RetiefF, GunnJAE. 2014. Impact assessment: eroding benefits through streamlining?Environ Impact Assess Rev.45:46–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoydenA. 2007. Environmental assessment under threat. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment Newsletter.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2013. Operational policy statement: assessing cumulative environmental effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• CashmoreM. 2004. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environ Impact Assess Rev.24:403–426.
   Web of Science ®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(4):295–310.
   Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, RichardsonT, Hilding-RyedvikT, EmmelinL. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environ Impact Assess Rev.30:371–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChanchitprichaC, BondA. 2013. Conceptualizing the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environ Impact Assess Rev.43:65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CheX, EnglishA, LuJ, ChenYD. 2011. Improving the effectiveness of planning EIA (PEIA) in China: integrating planning and assessment during the preparation of Shenzhen's master urban plan. Environ Impact Assess Rev.31:561–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiduckAP, PratapD, SinclairAJ, DeaneS. 2013. Perceptions of the impacts, public participation and learning in the planning, assessment and mitigation of two hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand, India. Land Use Policy. 33(1):170–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DoelleD. 2012. CEAA 2012: the end of federal EA as we know it?J Environ Law Pract.24(1):1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuinkerPN, GreigLA. 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev.27:206–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EckenP, GnatzyT, von der GrachtHA. 2011. Desirability bias in foresight: consequences for decision quality based on Delphi results. Technol Forecast Social Change.78:1654–1670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EmmelinL. 1998a. Evaluating environmental impact assessment systems. Part 1: theoretical and methodological considerations. Scand Housing Plan Res.15(3):129–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EmmelinL. 1998b. Evaluating environmental impact assessment systems. Part 2: professional culture as an aid in understanding implementation. Scand Housing Plan Res.15(4):187–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FitzpatrickP, SinclairAJ. 2009. Multi-jurisdictional environmental impact assessment: Canadian experiences. Environ Impact Assess Rev.29:252–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GeistMR. 2010. Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: a comparison of two studies. Eval Program Plan.33:147–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GibsonRG. 1993. Environmental assessment design: lessons from the Canadian experience. Environ Prof.15:12–24.
   Google Scholar
• GibsonRB. 2012. In full retreat: the Canadian government's new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.30(3):179–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GluckerAN, DriessenPPJ, KolhoffA, RunhaarHAC. 2013. Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how?Environ Impact Assess Rev.43:104–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GrahamB, RegehrG, WrightJG. 2003. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol.56:1150–1156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GuptaUG, ClarkeRE. 1996. Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: a bibliography (1975–1994). Technol Forecast Social Change.53:185–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HarrisonC. 2006. Industry perspectives on barriers, hurdles, and irritants preventing development of frontier energy in Canada's Arctic islands. Arctic.59(2):238–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HassonF, KeeneyS. 2011. Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technol Forecast Social Change.78:1695–1704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HeinmaK, PoderT. 2010. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment system in Estonia. Environ Impact Assess Rev.30:272–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilding-RydevikT, BjarnadóttirH. 2007. Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation. Environ Impact Assess Rev.27(7):666–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HollickM. 1981. EIA and environmental management in Western Australia. Environ Impact Assess Rev.2(1):116–120.
   Google Scholar
• HorvathC, BarnesJ. 2013. EA in Canada: out of the frying pan, into the fire. Paper presented at: International Association for Impact Assessment Conference; Calgary, Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• HungH-L, AltschuldJW, LeeY-F. 2008. Methodological and conceptual issues confronting a cross-country Delphi study of education program evaluation. Eval Program Plan.31:191–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Association for Impact Assessment [IAIA]. 2014. Available from: http://www.iaia.org/about/.
   Google Scholar
• JayS, JonesC, SlinnP, WoodC. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev.27:287–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KaukoK, PalmroosP. 2014. The Delphi method in forecasting financial markets: an experimental study. Int J Forecast.30:313–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LandetaJ. 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol Forecast Social Change.73:467–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LawrenceD. 2007. Impact significance determination: back to basics. Environ Impact Assess Rev.27(7):755–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LinstoneHA, TuroffM. 2011. Delphi: a brief look backward and forward. Technol Forecast Social Change.78:1712–1719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrankN. 2008. Road to improvement: the review of regulatory systems across the North. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Development Canada.
   Google Scholar
• MoldanB, JanouskovaS, HakT. 2012. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol Indic.17:4–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MorganRK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA. 1996. Environmental impact assessment as a tool for ongoing environmental management. Project Appraisal.11:99–104.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, ArtsJ. 2004. Assessing impact: handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, BaileyJ. 1999. Exploring the EIA/environmental management relationship. Environ Manage.24(3):281–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, RetiefF. 2012. Walking the sustainability assessment talk – progressing the practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA). Environ Impact Assess Rev.36:34–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NobleB, StoreyK. 2005. Toward increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev.25(2):163–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'FaircheallaighC. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev.30:19–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OkoliC, PawlowskiSD. 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manage.42:15–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PillJ. 1971. The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Socio-Econ Plann Sci.5:57–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PölönenI. 2006. Quality control and the substantive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland. Environ Impact Assess Rev.26:481–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PölönenI, HokkanenP, JalavaK. 2011. The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system– what works, what doesn't, and what could be improved?Environ Impact Assess Rev.31:120–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PopeJ, BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, RetiefF. 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess Rev.41:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RetiefF, WelmanCNJ, SandhamL. 2011. Performance of environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening in South Africa: a comparative analysis between the 1997 and 2006 EIA regimes. South Afr Geogr J.93(2):154–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RoweG, WrightG. 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int J Forecast.15:353–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SadlerB. 1996. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment: environmental assessment in a changing world. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment, Final Report.
   Google Scholar
• SandhamLA, van HeerdenAJ, JonesCE, RetiefFP, Morrison-SaundersA. 2013. Does enhanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev.38:155–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SenécalP, SadlerB, GoldsmithB, BrownK, ConoverS. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment, best practice. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment; Lincoln, UK: Institute of Environmental Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, DiduckA, FitzpatrickP. 2008. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environ Impact Assess Rev.28:415–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SnellT, CowellR. 2006. Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing precaution and efficiency?Environ Impact Assess Rev.26(4):359–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SteinemannA. 2001. Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev.21:3–21.
   Google Scholar
• ToroJ, RequenaI, ZamoranoM. 2010. Environmental impact assessment in Colombia: critical analysis and proposals for improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev.30:247–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TzoumisK. 2007. Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004. Environ Impact Assess Rev.27(1):26–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van DorenD, DriessenP, SchijfB, RunhaarH. 2013. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: towards a better understanding. Environ Impact Assess Rev.38:120–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von der GrachtHA. 2012. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies – review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol Forecast Social Change.79:1525–1536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WeblerT, LevineD, RakelH, RennO. 1991. A novel approach to reducing uncertainty. Technol Forecast Social Change.39:253–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WhiteL, NobleBF. 2013. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: a review of a decade of academic research. Environ Impact Assess Rev.42:60–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WilsonL. 1998. A practical method for environmental impact assessment audits. Environ Impact Assess Rev.18:59–71.
   Google Scholar
• WoodC. 1993. Environmental impact assessment in Victoria: Australia discretion rules in EA!J Environ Manage.39(4):281–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WoodC. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Harlow: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• WoudenbergF. 1991. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol Forecast Social Change.40:131–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YapMBH, PilkingtonPD, RyanSM, KellyCM, JormAF. 2014. Parenting strategies for reducing the risk of adolescent depression and anxiety disorders: a Delphi consensus study. J Affective Disord.156:67–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZhangJ, KornovL, ChristensenP. 2013. Critical factors for EIA implementation: literature review and research options. J Environ Manage.114:148–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar