The rationale for and practice of EIA follow-up: an analysis of Finnish road projects

References

• Ahammed AR, Nixon BM. 2006. Environmental impact monitoring in the EIA process of South Australia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:426–447. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts J. 1998. EIA follow-up. On the role of ex-post evaluation in environmental impact assessment. Groningen: Geopress; p. 558.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Caldwell P, Morrison-Saunders A. 2001. Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions – findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 19:175–185. doi:10.3152/147154601781767014.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Nootebum S. 1999. Environmental impact assessment monitoring and auditing. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of enviromental impact assessment. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science; p. 229–251.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey J, Hobbs V, Saunders A. 1992. Environmental auditing: artificial waterway developments in Western Australia. J Environ Manag. 34:1–13. doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80106-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker J. 2004. A practical framework for EIA follow-up. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, editors. Assessing impact. Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London: Earthscan Publications; p. 42–62.
   Google Scholar
• Beanlands GE, Duinker PN. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Halifax, NS: Institute of Resource and Environmental Studies Dalhousie University and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
   Google Scholar
• Bisset R, Tomlinson P. 1988. Monitoring and auditing impacts. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assesment. Theory and practice. 1st ed. New York and London: Routledge; p. 115–128.
   Google Scholar
• Culhane P, Friesema H, Beecher J. 1987. Forecasts and environmental decision-making, the content and predictive accuracy of EISs. Boulder: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2012. Introduction to enviromental impact assessment. 4th ed. Oxon: Routledge; p. 392.
   Google Scholar
• Haakana A-M. 2008a. YVA-menettelyssä arvioitujen ympäristövaikutusten seuranta Suomen tiehankkeissa [MA dissertation], p. 69. University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Haakana A-M. 2008b. Ympäristövaikutusten seuranta tiehankkeissa. Esiselvitys. Helsinki: Tiehallinto; p. 58.
   Google Scholar
• Hokkanen P, Jantunen J. 2012. A multi-view evaluation of the Finnish EIA system: an 18-year success story? J Environ Assess Pol Manag. 14:1250024. doi:10.1142/S146433321250024X.
   Google Scholar
• Hunsberger CA, Gibson RB, Wismer SK. 2005. Citizen involvement in sustainability-centred environmental assessment follow-up. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25:609–627. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalava K, Pasanen S, Saalasti M, Kuitunen M. 2010. Quality of environmental impact assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinions of EIA professionals. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 28:15–27. doi:10.3152/146155110X488826.
   Google Scholar
• Jantunen J, Hokkanen P. 2010. Ympäristövaikutusten arviontimenettelyn toimivuus ja kehittämistarpeet. Suomen ympäristö. 18/2010. Ympäristöministeriö YVA-lainsädännön toimivuusarviointi.
   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
• Morgan RK. 2001. Environmental impact assessment: a methodological perspective. 2nd ed. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; p. 307.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. 1999. Exploring the EIA/environmental management relationship. Environ Manag. 24:281–295. doi:10.1007/s002679900233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Baker J, Arts J. 2003. Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21:43–56. doi:10.3152/147154603781766527.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J. 2004. Assessing impact. Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London: Earthscan Publications; p. 338.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B, Storey K. 2005. Towards increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25:163–180. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Faircheallaigh C. 2007. Environmental agreements, EIA follow-up and aboriginal participation in environmental management: the Canadian experience. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27:319–342. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petäjäjärvi R. 2005. Follow-up of socio-economic aspects in a road project in Finland. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 23:234–240.
   Google Scholar
• Pölönen I. 2007. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettely. In: Tutkimus YVA-menettelyn oikeudellisesta asemasta ja kehittämistarpeista ympäristöllisen vaikuttavuuden näkökulmasta. Helsinki: Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys; p. 304.
   Google Scholar
• Pölönen I, Hokkanen P, Jalava K. 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
• Ramjeawon T, Beedassy R. 2004. Evaluation of the EIA system on the Island of Mauritius and development of an environmental monitoring plan framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 24:537–549. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wathern P. 1988. Environmental impact assessment. Theory and practice. New York: Routledge; p. 332.
   Google Scholar