Good practices for environmental assessment

References

• Ahammed R, Harvey N. 2004. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment procedures and practice in Bangladesh. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 22:63–78. doi:10.3152/147154604781766102.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmad B, Wood C. 2002. A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22:213–234. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00004-5.
   Google Scholar
• Allen C. 2004. Reducing uncertainty. Public Roads. 68:34–39.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuler A, Luberoff D. 2003. Mega-projects: the changing politics of urban public investment. Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA: Brookings Institution Press and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Andre P, Enserink B, Connor D, Croal P. 2006. Public participation international best practice principles. Fargo, ND.
   Google Scholar
• Archer K, Gibbons R, Knopff R, Pal LA. 1999. Parameters of power: Canada's political institutions. 2nd ed. Toronto: ITP Nelson.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein SR. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. 35:216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascher W. 1993. The ambiguous nature of forecasts in project evaluation: diagnosing the over-optimism of rate-of-return analysis. Int J Forecasting. 9:109–115. doi:10.1016/0169-2070(93)90058-U.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2008. Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annu Rev Environ Resourc. 33:317–344. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardach E. 2004. Presidential address – The extrapolation problem: how can we learn from the experience of others? J Pol Anal Manage. 23:205–220. doi:10.1002/pam.20000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barget E, Gouguet J-J. 2010. Hosting mega-sporting events: which decision-making rule? Int J Sport Finance. 5:141–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter W, Ross WA, Spaling H. 2001. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 19:253–262. doi:10.3152/147154601781766916.
   Google Scholar
• BC Auditor General. 2011. An audit of the environmental assessment office's oversight of certified projects. Victoria, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Beierle TC, Cayford J. 2002. Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Benevides H, Kirchhoff D, Gibson R, Doelle M. 2008. Law and policy options for strategic environmental assessment in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Blair SR, Carr SG. 1981. Major Canadian projects, major Canadian opportunities: a report by the Consultative Task Force on Industrial and Regional Benefits from Major Canadian Projects.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30:53–62. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd D. 2003. Unnatural law: rethinking Canadian environmental law and policy. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bradshaw B. 2003. Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management. Can Geogr. 47:137–150. doi:10.1111/1541-0064.t01-1-00001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruzelius N, Flyvbjerg B, Rothengatter W. 2002. Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects. Transp Policy. 9:143–154. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00014-8.
   Google Scholar
• Busenberg GJ. 1999. Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sciences. 32:1–11. doi:10.1023/A:1004414605851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CAPP. 2006. Industry practices: developing effective working relationships with aboriginal communities. Calgary: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; [cited 2009 July 6]. Available from: http://membernet.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&dn=100984.
   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 Assessment and Proj Apprais. 22:295–310. doi:10.3152/147154604781765860.
   Google Scholar
• CCME. 2009. Regional strategic environmental assessment in Canada: principles and guidance. Winnipeg: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• CEARC. 1998. Evaluating environmental impact assessment: an action prospectus. Hull, QC: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.
   Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Enviro Impact Assessment Rev. 43:65–72. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chicken JC. 1994. Managing risks and decisions in major projects. New York: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cocklin C, Kelly B. 1992. Large-scale energy projects in New Zealand: whither social impact assessment? Geoforum. 23:41–60. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(92)90035-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collingridge D. 1992. The management of scale: big organizations, big decisions, big mistakes. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke RM. 1991. Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Creasey R, Ross WA. 2009. The Cheviot Mine Project: cumulative effects assessment lessons for professional practice. In: Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation. 2nd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press; p. 158–172.
   Google Scholar
• Davis HC. 1990. Regional economic impact analysis and project evaluation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Bruijn H, Leijten M. 2008. Management characteristics of mega-projects. In: Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van Wee B, editors. Decision-making on mega-projects. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; p. 23–39.
   Google Scholar
• Diez MA. 2001. New approaches to evaluating regional policy: the potential of a theory-based approach. Greener Manage Int. 2001:37–49. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2001.wi.00006.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly A, Dalal-Clayton B, Hughes R. 1998. A directory of impact assessment guidelines. 2nd ed. International Institute for Environment and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle D, Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in Canada: frameworks, procedures & attributes of effectiveness. A report in support of the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Droitsch D, Kennett SA, Woynillowicz D. 2008. Curing environmental dis-integration: a prescription for integrating the government of Alberta's strategic initiatives. Drayton Valley/Canmore, AB: The Pembina Institute and The Water Matters Society of Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Greig LA. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ Manage. 37:153–161. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EMMRPIWG. 2008. Key factors for environmental assessment/regulatory success in Canada's mining and energy sectors. Submission for the 2008 Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(1):34–42. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.660356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Égré D, Senécal P. 2003. Social impact assessments of large dams throughout the world: lessons learned over two decades. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:215–224.
   Google Scholar
• Failing L, Gregory R, Harstone M. 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: a decision-focused approach. Ecol Econ. 64:47–60. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino DJ. 1989. Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Anal. 9:293–299. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb00994.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino DJ. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci, Technol Human Values. 15:226–243. doi:10.1177/016224399001500204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Gazzola P. 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria equally valid in all countries? The case of italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:396–409. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2007. Megaproject policy and planning: problems, causes, cures. Aalborg: Aalborg University.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2008. Public planning of mega-projects: overestimation of demand and underestimation of costs. In: Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van Wee B, editors. Decision-making on mega-projects. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar; p. 120–144.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forbes RS, Hazell S, Kneen J, Paterson J, Sinclair J. 2012. Environmental assessment law for a healthy, secure and sustainable Canada: a checklist for strong environmental laws. Vancouver and Ottawa: West Coast Environmental Law; [cited 2012 June 28]. Available from: http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Checklist%20for%20Strong%20Environmental%20Laws%20February%202012.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Frame TM, Gunton TI, Day JC. 2004. The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia. J Environ Plann Manage. 47:59–82. doi:10.1080/0964056042000189808.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RB. 1993. Environmental assessment design: lessons from the Canadian experience. Environ Prof. 15:12–24.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RB. 2006. Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 24:170–182. doi:10.3152/147154606781765147.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RB, Hanna KS. 2009. Progress and uncertainty: the evolution of federal environmental assessment in Canada. In: Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation. 2nd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press; p. 18–36.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RB, Walker A. 2001. Assessing trade: an evaluation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's analytic framework for assessing the environmental effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 21:449–468. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00085-3.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson RE, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G. 2005. Sustainability assessment: criteria, processes and applications. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gray B. 1989. Collaboration finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Green TL. 1997. Accounting for natural capital in BC: forestry and conflict in the Slocan Valley. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai JL. 2006. Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol Appl. 16:2411–2425. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2411:DAMCFA]2.0.CO;2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greig LA. 2008. Refocusing cumulative effects assessment. Proceedings of the IAIA 2008: Assessing and managing cumulative environmental effects.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton T, Vertinsky I. 1990. Methods of analysis for forest land use allocation in British Columbia: options and recommendations. Prepared for the British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Victoria, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI. 1992. Evaluating land use tradeoffs: a review of selected techniques. Environments. 21:53–63.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI. 2003a. Megaprojects and regional development: pathologies in project planning. Reg Stud. 37:505–519. doi:10.1080/0034340032000089068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunton TI. 2003b. Natural resources and regional development: An assessment of dependency and comparative advantage paradigms. Econ Geogr. 79:67–94. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00202.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunton TI, Day JC, Calbick KS, Johnsen S, Joseph C, McNab J, Peter T-D, Silcox K, Van Hinte T. 2004. A review of offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia. Burnaby, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI, Day JC, Van Hinte T. 2005. Managing impacts of major projects: an analysis of the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline Project. Prepared for Coastal First Nations. Burnaby, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI, Joseph C. 2007. Toward a national sustainable development strategy for Canada: putting Canada on the path to sustainability within a generation. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation. Available from: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/SWAG/NSDS-Rpt-full-Eng.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI, Rutherford MB, Dickinson M. 2010. Stakeholder analysis in marine planning. Environments. 37:95–110.
   Google Scholar
• Hall P. 1980. Great planning disasters. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Spash CL. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna K, Noble BF. 2015. Using a Delphi study to identify effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 33:116–125. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.992672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haveman RH. 1976. Policy analysis and the Congress: an economist's view. Policy Anal. 2:235–250.
   Google Scholar
• Herring RJ. 2009. The Canadian federal EIA system. In: Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation. 2nd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press; p. 281–297.
   Google Scholar
• Hessing M, Howlett M, Summerville T. 2005. Canadian natural resource and environmental policy: political economy and public policy. Vancouver: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks TD. 2011. Exploring the use of arguments in impact assessment: a case for impact significance arguments. Victoria, BC: Royal Roads University.
   Google Scholar
• Hierlmeier JL. 2008. “The public interest”: can it provide guidance for the ERCB and NRCB? J Environ Law Pract. 18:279–311.
   Google Scholar
• Hochschorner E, Finnveden G. 2003. Evaluation of two simplified life cycle assessment methods. Int J LCA. 8:119–128. doi:10.1007/BF02978456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollick M. 1981. Role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 12:65–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollick M. 1984. Who should prepare environmental impact assessments? Environ Manage. 8:191–196. doi:10.1007/BF01866960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICPGSIA. 2003. Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA: the interorganizational committee on principles and guidelines for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:231–250. doi:10.3152/147154603781766293.
   Google Scholar
• Innis JE, Booher DE. 2010. Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Irvin RA, Stansbury J. 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Rev. 64:55–65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27:287–300. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph CTRB. 2013. Megaproject review in the megaprogram context: examining Alberta bitumen development. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
   Google Scholar
• Keeney RL. 1992. Value focused thinking: a path to creative decision-making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennett SA. 1999. Towards a new paradigm for cumulative effects management. Calgary: Canadian Institute for Resources Law.
   Google Scholar
• Kennett SA. 2006. Integrated landscape management in Canada: getting from here to there. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
   Google Scholar
• Kennett SA. 2007. Closing the performance gap: the challenge for cumulative effects management in Alberta's Athabasca oil sands region. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
   Google Scholar
• Kennett SA, Alexander S, Duke D, Passelac-Ross MM, Quinn M, Stelfox B, Tyler M-E, Vlavianos N. 2006. Managing Alberta's energy futures at the landscape scale. Calgary: Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.
   Google Scholar
• Kinnaman TC. 2011. The economic impact of shale gas extraction: a review of existing studies. Ecol Econ. 70:1243–1249. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight N. 1990. Mega-project planning and economic welfare: a case study of British Columbia's North East Coal Project. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
   Google Scholar
• Kok R, Benders RMJ, Moll HC. 2006. Measuring the environmental load of household consumption using some methods based on input-output energy analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy. 34:2744–2761. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laird FN. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Sci, Technol Human Values. 18:341–361. doi:10.1177/016224399301800305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Land-Murphy B. 2004. Understanding Aboriginal participation in northern environmental assessments: the case of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence DP. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: practical solutions to recurrent problems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Leu WS, Williams WP, Bark AW. 1996a. Development of an environmental impact assessment evaluation model and its application: Taiwan case study. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 16:115–133. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00107-7.
   Google Scholar
• Leu WS, Williams WP, Bark AW. 1996b. Quality control mechanisms and environmental impact assessment effectiveness with special reference to the UK. Proj Apprais. 11:2–12. doi:10.1080/02688867.1996.9727013.
   Google Scholar
• Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E. 2006. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int. 32:1072–1093. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovallo D, Kahneman D. 2003. Delusions of success. Harvard Business Rev. 07;81 p. 56–63.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R, Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2005. International principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 23:175–181. doi:10.3152/147154605781765490.
   Google Scholar
• McAllister DM. 1982. Evaluation in environmental planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDaniels TL, Gregory R, Fields D. 1999. Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal. 19:497–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan MG, Henrion M. 1990. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30:5–14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris PWG, Hough GH. 1987. The anatomy of major projects: a study of the reality of project management. Toronto, ON: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. 2003. Practitioner perspectives on the role of science in environmental impact assessment. Environ Manage. 31:683–695. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-2709-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Baker J, Arts J. 2003. Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:43–56. doi:10.3152/147154603781766527.
   Google Scholar
• Muldoon P, Lucas AR, Gibson R, Pickfield P. 2009. An Introduction to environmental law and policy in Canada. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Nash C, Pearce D, Stanley J. 1975. Criteria for evaluating project evaluation techniques. J Am Inst Planners. 41:83–89. doi:10.1080/01944367508977522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikiforuk A. 1997. “The nasty game”: the failure of environmental assessment in Canada. Toronto: Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2010. Introduction to environmental impact assessment: a guide to principles and practice. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment systems and practices in Canada. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29:66–75. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OAGC. 2009. Report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development to the House of Commons. Chapter 1: Applying the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, p. 33.
   Google Scholar
• Otway H, Winterfeldt D. 1992. Expert judgment in risk analysis and management: process, context, and pitfalls. Risk Anal. 12:83–93. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01310.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park PJ, Tahara K, Jeong IT, Lee KM. 2006. Comparison of four methods for integrating environmental and economic aspects in the end-of-life stage of a washing machine. Resour, Conserv Recycl. 48:71–85. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passelac-Ross MM, Potes V. 2007. Crown consultation with Aboriginal peoples in oil sands development: is it adequate, is it legal? Calgary.
   Google Scholar
• Priemus H. 2008. How to improve the early stages of decision-making on mega-projects. In: Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van Wee B, editors. Decision-making on mega-projects. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; p. 105–119.
   Google Scholar
• Priemus H, Flyvbjerg B, Van Wee B, editors. 2008. Decision-making on mega-projects. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Rajvanshi A. 2008. Mitigation and compensation in environmental assessment. In: Fischer TB, Gazzola P, Jha-Thakur U, BelČáková I, Aschemann R, editors. Environmental assessment lecturer's handbook. Bratislava: Slovak University of Technology; p. 167–198.
   Google Scholar
• Rickson RE, Western JS, Burdge RJ. 1990. Social impact assessment: knowledge and development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 10:1–10. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(90)90002-H.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenhead J. 2005. Problem structuring methods as an aid to multiple-stakeholder evaluation. In: Miller D, Potassini D, editors. Beyond benefit cost analysis-accounting for non-market values in planning evaluation. Burlington, VT: Ashgate; p. 163–171.
   Google Scholar
• Ross MM. 2002. Legal and institutional responses to conflicts involving the oil and gas and forestry sectors. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe G, Frewer LJ. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci, Technol Human Values. 30:251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ. 2007. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 25:2–14. doi:10.3152/146155107X190613.
   Google Scholar
• Sadar MH. 1996. Environmental impact assessment. 2nd ed. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1990. An evaluation of the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel Review. Ottawa: Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment: final report – Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, International Association for Impact Assessment, Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Samset K. 2003. Project evaluation: making investments succeed. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Senecal P, Goldsmith B, Conover S, Sadler B, Brown K. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute of Environmental Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer M. 2010. Multiple account benefit-cost analysis: a practical guide for the systematic evaluation of project and policy alternatives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shiftan Y, Shefer D. 2009. Evaluating the impact of transport projects: lessons for other disciplines. Eval Program Plann. 32:311–314. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.08.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siemiatycki M. 2010. Managing optimism biases in the delivery of large-infrastructure projects: a corporate performance benchmarking approach. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res. 10:30–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinnette J. 2004. Accounting for megaproject dollars. Public Roads. 68:40–47.
   Google Scholar
• Slotterback CS. 2008. Stakeholder involvement in NEPA scoping processes: evaluating practices and effects in transportation agencies. J Environ Plann Manage. 51:663–678. doi:10.1080/09640560802211060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorel T. 2004. Great expectations. Public Roads. 68:10–15.
   Google Scholar
• Sosa I, Keenan K. 2001. Impact benefit agreements between Aboriginal communities and mining companies: their use in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia, CooperAcción; [cited 2008 Mar 9]. Available from: http://cela.ca/uploads/f8e04c51a8e04041f6f7faa046b03a7c/IBAeng.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Soumelis CG. 1977. Project evaluation methodologies and techniques. Paris: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• Spaling H, Montes J, Sinclair J. 2011. Best practices for promoting participation and learning for sustainability: lessons from community-based environmental assessment in Kenya and Tanzania. J Env Assmt Pol. Mgmt. 13:343–366. doi:10.1142/S1464333211003924.
   Google Scholar
• Storey K, Hamilton LC. 2003. Planning for the impacts of megaprojects: two North American examples. In: Rasmussen RO, Koroleva NE, editors. Social and environmental impacts in the north: methods in evaluation of socio-economic and environmental consequences of mining and energy production in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 281–302.
   Google Scholar
• Stough RR, Haynes KE. 1997. Megaproject impact assessment. In: Chatterji M, editor. Regional science: perspectives for the future. New York: St Martin's Press; p. 384–398.
   Google Scholar
• Stratos. 2008. Improvements to the performance of the federal regulatory system: issues and research scoping workshop. Ottawa.
   Google Scholar
• Susskind L, van der Wansem M, Ciccareli A. 2003. Mediating land use disputes in the United States: pros and cons. Environments 31, p. 39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Tennøy A, Kværnner J, Gjerstad KI. 2006. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 24:45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Tiruta-Barna L, Benetto E, Perrodin Y. 2007. Environmental impact and risk assessment of mineral wastes reuse strategies: review and critical analysis of approaches and applications. Resour Conserv Recycl. 50:351–379. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.01.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tollefson C. 2003. Public participation and judicial review. In: Hughes EL, Lucas AR, Tilleman WA, editors. Environmental law and policy. 3rd ed. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications; p. 255–300.
   Google Scholar
• UN. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
   Google Scholar
• Van Hinte T, Gunton TI, Day JC. 2007. Evaluation of the assessment process for major projects: a case study of oil and gas pipelines in Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 25:123–137. doi:10.3152/146155107X204491.
   Google Scholar
• Van Wee B, Tavasszy LA. 2008. Ex-ante evaluation of mega-projects: methodological issues and cost-benefit analysis. In: Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van Wee B, editors. Decision-making on mega-projects. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; p. 40–65.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:5–12. doi:10.3152/147154603781766491.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks D. 2015. Social impact assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available from: http://www.socialimpactassessment.com/documents/IAIA%202015%20Social%20Impact%20Assessment%20guidance%20document.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Vesely A. 2011. Theory and methodology of best practice research: a critical review of the current state. Cent Eur J Public Pol. 5:98–117.
   Google Scholar
• Vickerman R. 2007. Cost–benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges. Environ Plann B. 34:598–610. doi:10.1068/b32112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlavianos N. 2007. The legislative and regulatory framework for oil sands development in Alberta: a detailed review and analysis. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
   Google Scholar
• Walters C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Warner ML, Preston EH. 1974. A review of environmental impact assessment methodologies. Washington, DC: Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Warrack A. 1993. Megaproject decision making: lessons and strategies. Edmonton, AB: Western Centre for Economic Research, Faculty of Business, University of Alberta.
   Google Scholar
• Wathern P, editor. 1988. Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• WCD. 2000. Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making. London: The Report of the World Commission on Dams.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wozniak K. 2007. Evaluating the regulatory review and approval process for major projects: a case study of the Mackenzie Gas Project. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
   Google Scholar
• Zeremariam TK, Quinn N. 2007. An evaluation of environmental impact assessment in Eritrea. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 25(1):53–63. doi:10.3152/146155107X190604.
   Google Scholar