On the usefulness of guidelines and instructions for environmental assessment – a qualitative study of the helpfulness perceived by Polish practitioners

References

• A Europe of Results 2007. Communication from the Commission - A Europe of Results – Applying Community Law/COM/2007/0502 final */, 52007DC0502.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar HAC, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Vincent Onyango V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in The Netherlands and the UK. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 14(4):1250025.
   Google Scholar
• Babbie E. 2015. The basics of social research. Boston: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Balfors B, Schmidtbauer J. 2002. Swedish guidelines for strategic environmental assessment for EU structural funds. Eur Environ. 12(1):35–48.
   Google Scholar
• Balram S, Dragicevic S, Meredith T. 2003. Achieving effectiveness in stakeholder participation using the GIS-based collaborative spatial Delphi methodology. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 5(3):365–394.
   Google Scholar
• Baresi U, Karen J, Vella KJ, Neil G, Sipe NG. 2017. Bridging the divide between theory and guidance in strategic environmental assessment: a path for Italian regions. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 62:14–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrass L, Sotirov M, Winkel G. 2015. Policy change and Europeanization: implementing the European Union’s habitats directive in Germany and the United Kingdom environmental politics. Environmental Politics. 24(5): 3 September 2015, 788–809. doi:10.1080/09644016.2015.1027056
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Bond A, Sadler B. 2009. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Imp Assmt Project Appr. 27(2):91–93.
   Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 43:65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlitz V, Morrison-Saunders A. 2014. Assessing the utility of environmental factors and objectives in environmental impact assessment practice: Western Australian insights. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 33(2):142–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Montis A. 2013. Implementing strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning tools. A study on the Italian provinces. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 41:53–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Montis A, Ledda A, Caschili S. 2016. Overcoming implementation barriers: a method for designing strategic environmental assessment guidelines. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 61:78–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Montis A, Ledda A, Caschili S, Ganciu A, Barra M. 2014a. SEA effectiveness for landscape and master planning: an investigation in Sardinia. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 47:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Montis A, Ledda S, Caschili A, Ganciu M, Barra G, Cocco A. 2014b. Sea guidelines. A comparative analysis: first outcomes. J Land Use Mobility Environ Spec Issue. 321–330. http://www.jop.unina.it/index.php/tema/article/view/2484/2510.
   Google Scholar
• Drayson K, Wood G, Thompson S. 2017. An evaluation of ecological impact assessment procedural effectiveness over time. Env Sci Pol. 70:54–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission 2016, Legal Enforcement, Compliance promotion accessed 2018 Feb 8]. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/compliance.htm
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. 2012. Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 20 November 2013 on a general union environment action programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. OJ L 354/171 32013D1386.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 1999. The consideration of sustainability aspects within transport infrastructure related policies, plans and programmes. J Environ Plann Manag. 42(2):189–219.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment in transport and land-use planning. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2007. Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment – towards a more systematic approach. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Gazzola P. 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 26(4):396–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimaldi 1989 Judgment of 13 December 1989, Grimaldi, C-322/88, ECLI:EU:C:1989:646, paragraph 3
   Google Scholar
• Heinma K, Põder T. 2010. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment system in Estonia. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 30(4):272–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickie D, Wade M. 1998. Development of guidelines for improving the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 18(3):267–287.
   Google Scholar
• Karlson M, Mörtberg U, Balfors B. 2014. Road ecology in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 48: [2014 Sept]. 10–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazak J, van Hoof J, Szewranski S. 2017. Challenges in the wind turbines location process in Central Europe – the use of spatial decision support systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 76:425–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krok E. 2015. Budowa kwestionariusza ankietowego a wyniki badań [The Structure of a Questionnaire and Research Results]. Studia Informatica [In Polish]. 37:37–55.
   Google Scholar
• Lackowski A, Lenart W, Wiszniewska B, Szydłowski M. 2004. Metodyka oceny oddziaływania na środowisko jako całość w procesie wydawania pozwolenia zintegrowanego. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Środowiska. http://www.ekoportal.gov.pl/fileadmin/Ekoportal/Pozwolenia_zintegrowane/poradniki_branzowe/opracowania/5._Metodyka_oceny_oddzialywania_na_srodowisko_jako_calosc_w_procesie_wydawania_pozwolenia_zintegrowanego.pdf,) in polish
   Google Scholar
• Lei L, Hilton B. 2013. A spatially intelligent public participation system for the environmental impact assessment process. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf. 2:480–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis JJ, Dziedzic M. 2018. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: a state of the art. Env Impt Assmt Rev. 68:29–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludovico D, Fabietti V. 2018. Strategic environmental assessment, key issues of its effectiveness. Env Impt Assmt Rev. 68:19–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyhne I, van Laerhoven F, Cashmore M, Runhaar HAC. 2017. Theorising EIA effectiveness: a contribution based on the Danish system. Env Impt Assmt Rev. 62:240–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
•  Managing Natura 2000. In: The provisions of article 6 of the habitats directive 92/43/CEE. European Communities: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; p. 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Matejun M. 2016. Metodyka badań ankietowych w naukach o zarządzaniu - ujęcie modelowe. In: Lisiński M, Ziębicki B, editors. Współczesne problemy rozwoju metodologii zarządzania. [Methodology of Survey Studies in Management Sciences: A Model Approach. In Lisiński M., Ziębicki B., eds. Contemporary Challenges of the Development of Management Methodology] [in Polish]. Cracow: Fundacja Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie; p. 341–354.
   Google Scholar
• Middle G, Middle I. 2010. The inefficiency of environmental impact assessment: reality or myth? Imp Assmt Project Appr. 28(2):159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Imp Assmt Project Appr. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaisen M, Fischer TB. 2016. Editorial: special issue on ex-post evaluation of environmental assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 18(01): 2016 Mar. doi:10.1142/S1464333216010018
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF, Gunn J, Martin J. 2012. Survey of current methods and guidance for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(3):139–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak MJ. 2014. Strategiczna ocena oddziaływania na środowisko jako instrument zarządzania środowiskiem w wybranych polskich gminach (Strategic evaluation of the impact on envirnoment as an instrument in envirnoment managing in selected polish municipalities). Ekonomia i Środowisko [in polish]. 1(48):125–140.
   Google Scholar
• Phylip-Jones JFischer TB. 2015. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: Lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 50:203–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasheed M, Mian S, Almasri M, Aubrey D. 2017. Guidelines for EIA of a fishing port in a semi-enclosed water body. Fresenius Environ Bull. 26(7):4504–4516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F. 2007a. A quality and effectiveness review protocol for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in developing countries. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 9(4):443–471.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F. 2007b. Effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in South Africa. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 9(1):83–101.
   Google Scholar
• Rozema JG, Bond AJ. 2015. Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 50:66–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runhaar H, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Arts J. 2013. Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 39:13–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [SKOŚ 2013] The Association of Environmental Assessment Consultants 2013. Report from the seminar (in Polish). http://www.skos.org.pl/pdf/sprawozdanie.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schijf B. 2011. Developing SEA Guidance. In: Sadler B, Dusik J, Fischer TB, Partidário MR, Verheem R, Aschemann R, editors. Handbook of strategic environmental assessment. London and Washington (DC): Earthscan Publications Ltd; p. 487–500.
   Google Scholar
• Skjærseth JB. 2018. Implementing EU climate and energy policies in Poland: policy feedback and reform. Env Polit. 27(3):498–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoeglehner G. 2014. Enhancing SEA effectiveness: lessons learnt from Austrian experiences in spatial planning. Imp Assmt Project Appr. 28(3):217–231.
   Google Scholar
• Szafranko E. 2017. Application of multi-criterial analytical methods for ranking environmental criteria in an assessment of a development project. J Ecol Eng. 18(5):151–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szewrański S, Kazak J, Sylla M, Świąder M. 2017. Spatial data analysis with the use of ArcGIS and Tableau systems. Lecture Notes Geoinf Cart. F3:337–349.
   Google Scholar
• The World Bank. 2012. Guidance notes on tools for pollution management. In: Getting to Green: a sourcebook of pollution management policy tools for growth and competitiveness. The World Bank Group. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ENVIRONMENT/Resources/Getting_to_Green_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Theophilou V, Bond A, Cashmore M. 2010. Application of the SEA directive to EU structural funds: perspectives on effectiveness. Env Imp Assmt Rev. 30(2):136–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Buuren A, Nooteboom S. 2009. Evaluating strategic environmental assessment in The Netherlands: content, process and procedure as indissoluble criteria for effectiveness. Imp Assmt Project Appr. 27(2):145–154.
   Google Scholar
• van Doren D, Driessen PPJ, Schijf B, Runhaar HAC. 2013. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: towards a better understanding. Env Impt Assmt Rev. 38:120–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zvijáková L, Zeleňáková M, Purcz P. 2014. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia. Imp Assmt Project Appr. 32(2):150–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar