Selection of valued ecosystem components in cumulative effects assessment: lessons from Canadian road construction projects

References

• Baker DC, McLelland JN. 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. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00093-3.
   Google Scholar
• Ball MA, Noble BF, Dubé MG. 2013. Valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects: an analysis of environmental impact assessments in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 9(3):469–479. doi:10.1002/ieam.1333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes J, Hardwick L, Chan C. 2010. A review of the project scope and environmental assessment scope for energy and mining projects across Canada. Paper presentation given at: The Role of Impact Assessment in Transitioning to the Green Economy. 30th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment; Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Baxter W, Ross WA, Spaling H. 2001. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 19(4):253–262. doi:10.3152/147154601781766916.
   Google Scholar
• [BBOP] Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. 2009. The relationship between Biodiversity Offsets and Impact Assessment: a BBOP resource paper. Washington, DC: BBOP.
   Google Scholar
• Beanlands G, Duinker P. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Benson JF. 2003. What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21(4):261–280. doi:10.3152/147154603781766185.
   Google Scholar
• Bérubé M. 2007. Cumulative effects assessment at Hydro-Quebec: what have we learned? Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 25(2):101–109.
   Google Scholar
• Bina O, Jing W, Brown L, Partidário MR. 2011. An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: towards criteria for Chinese practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(6):572–581. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. S.C. 1992, c. 37 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 2012. S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52.
   Google Scholar
• Cancer L, Kamath J. 1995. Questionnaire checklist for cumulative impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 15(4):311–339. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00010-C.
   Google Scholar
• Canter L, Ross B. 2010. State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 28(4):261–268. doi:10.3152/146155110X12838715793200.
   Google Scholar
• Canter L, Swor T, Harrell L, Hollins E. 2013. Addressing VEC-related sustainability in CEAM. Presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment; May 13–16, Calgary AB, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Gwilliam R, Morgan R, Cobb D, Bond A. 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. doi:10.3152/147154604781765860.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Richardson T, Hilding-Ryedvik T, Emmelin L. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30(6):371–379. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CEQ] US Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly R. 2008. Canadian and International EIA frameworks as they apply to cumulative effects. Paper presentation given at: Assessing and Managing Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Special Topic Meeting. Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment: Calgary, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper LM, Sheate WR. 2002. Cumulative effects assessment: a review of UK environmental impact statements. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22(4):415–439. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00010-0.
   Google Scholar
• Dowlatabadi H, Boyle M, Rowley S, Kandalikar M. 2004. Bridging the gap between project-level assessments and regional development dynamics: a methodology for estimating cumulative effects. Research supported by Canadian Environmental Agency‘s Research and Development Program. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Duinker P, Greig LA. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ Manage. 37(2):153–161. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elling B. 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms? Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(2):121–131. doi:10.3152/146155109X454294.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Gazzola P. 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria—equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(4):396–409. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folkeson L, Antonson H, Helldin J. 2013. Planners' views on cumulative effects. A focus-group study concerning transport infrastructure planning in Sweden. Land Use Policy. 30(1):243–253. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forman RTT, Alexander LE. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 29(1):207–231. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207.
   Google Scholar
• Fuggle R. 2005. Have impact assessments passed their “sell by” date? Int Assoc Impact Assess Newslett. 16(3): 1, 6.
   Google Scholar
• Gallaugher P, Wood L, editors. 2009. Building a vision for green energy in British Columbia. Proceedings from a dialogue co-hosted by Continuing Studies in Science and the Centre for Coastal Studies with the faculties of Environment and Science at Simon Fraser University; Canada, November 3–4.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RB. 2012. In full retreat: the Canadian government's new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(3):179–188. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.720417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunn J, Noble BF. 2011. Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(2):154–160. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunn J, Noble B. 2012. Critical review of the Manitoba Hydro Bipole III Cumulative Effects Assessment. Prepared for: Public Interest Law Centre; Manitoba, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Harwell MA, Gentile JH. 2006. Ecological significance of residual exposures and effects from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Integr Environ Assess Manage. 2(3):204–246. doi:10.1897/1551-3793(2006)2[204:ESOREA]2.0.CO;2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay D, Waters R, Boxwell T. 1996. Proceedings, Marine ecosystem monitoring network workshop, Nanaimo, B.C., March 28–30, 1995. Report Number 2108.
   Google Scholar
• Hegmann G, Cocklin C, Creasey R, Dupuis S, Kennedy A, Kingsley L. 1999. Cumulative effects assessment practitioners guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting and CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger J, Bertiller R, Schwick C. 2007. Degree of landscape fragmentation in Switzerland: quantitative analysis 1885–2002 and implications for traffic planning and regional planning (condensed version). Neuchâtel: Federal Statistical Office.
   Google Scholar
• João E. 2002. How scale affects environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22:289–310.
   Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Gazzola P, Peel D, Fischer TB, Kidd S. 2009. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment – the significance of learning. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(2):133–144. doi:10.3152/146155109X454302.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson D, Lalonde K, McEachern M, Kenney J, Mendoza G, Buffin A, Rich K. 2011. Improving cumulative effects assessment in Alberta: regional strategic assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(5):481–483. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy A, Ross W. 1992. An approach to integrate impact scoping with environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 16:475–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohani B, Evans J, Ludwig H, Everitt R, Carpenter R, Tu S. 1997. Environmental impact assessment for developing countries in Asia, Volume 1. Asian Development Bank, Overview. Available from: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29779/eia-developing-countries-asia.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• McAfee B, Malouin C, editors. 2008. Implementing ecosystem-based management approaches in Canada's forests: a science-policy dialogue. Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• McCarty L, Power M. 2000. Approaches to developing risk management objectives: an analysis of international strategies. Environ Sci Policy. 3(6):311–319. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00103-9.
   Google Scholar
• McGarigal K, Romme WH, Crist M, Roworth E. 2001. Cumulative effects of roads and logging on landscape structure in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado (USA). Landscape Ecol. 16(4):327–349. doi:10.1023/A:1011185409347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30(1):5–14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulvihill PR, Baker DC. 2001. Ambitious and restrictive scoping: case studies from Northern Canada. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 21(4):363–384. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00079-8.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2008. Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: a case study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 26(2):78–90. doi:10.3152/146155108X316405.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B, Gunn J. 2013. Review of KHLP's approach to the Keeyask generation project cumulative effects assessment. Research report prepared for the Public Interest Law Centre, Manitoba, on behalf of the Consumers Association of Canada (Manitoba Branch) under contract agreement. Winnipeg, MB: Public Interest Law Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B, Hill M, Nielsen J. 2011. Environmental assessment framework for identifying and mitigating the effects of linear development to wetlands. Landscape Urban Plann. 99(2):133–140. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunes D. 2010. Strategic environmental assessment and the cumulative impacts. Lisboa: Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universidade Tecnica. Available from: http://www.scribd.com/david_nunes_5.
   Google Scholar
• Olagunju A, Gunn J. 2013. What influences valued ecosystem component selection for cumulative effects in impact assessment? J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 15(4). doi:10.1142/S1464333213500221.
   Google Scholar
• Owens S. 2012. Experts and the environment – the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1970–2011. J Environ Law. 24(1):1–22. doi:10.1093/jel/eqr031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F. 2006. The quality and effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as a decision-aiding tool for national park expansion – the greater Addo Elephant National Park case study. Koedoe. 49(2):103–122. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v49i2.119.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Final Report of the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment; CEAA-IAIA.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B, Canter L. 2013. Sharpening CEAM tools and methods. Presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment; May 13–16, Calgary AB, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Senner R. 2011. Appraising the sustainability of project alternatives: an increasing role for cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(5):502–505. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheelanere P, Noble B, Patrick R. 2013. Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy. 30: 67–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swor C, Canter L. 2008. Promoting environmental sustainability via an expert elicitation process. Presented at Assessing and Managing Cumulative Environmental Effects, Special Topic Meeting, International Association for Impact Assessment; November 6–9, Calgary, AB, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Thérivel R, Minas P. 2002. Measuring SEA effectiveness: ensuring effective sustainability appraisal. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 20(2):81–91.
   Google Scholar
• Thérivel R, Ross W. 2007. Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(5):365–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treweek J. 1995. Ecological impact assessment. Impact Assess. 13(3):289–315. doi:10.1080/07349165.1995.9726099.
   Google Scholar
• Treweek J. 1999. Ecological impact assessment. London: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Tricker RC. 2007. Assessing cumulative environmental effects from major public transport projects. Transp Policy. 14(4):293–305. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2001. Multistage environmental and social impact assessment of road projects: guidelines for a comprehensive process. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (Road Publications Series – ST/ESCAP/2177). New York: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Van Buuren A, Nooteboom S. 2009. Evaluating strategic environmental assessment in the Netherlands: content, process and procedure as indissoluble criteria for effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(2):145–154. doi:10.3152/146155109X454311.
   Google Scholar
• Van Doren D, Driessen P, Schijf B, Runhaar H. 2013. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: towards a better understanding. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38(1):120–130. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasike W. 2001. Road infrastructure policies in Kenya: historical trends and current challenges. Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, Working Paper No. 1, Nairobi, Kenya.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment – a comparative overview. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2005. Assessing the environmental impact of road projects. In: Roads and the environment: a handbook. Chapter 1. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSPORT/Resources/336291-1107880869673/chap_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar