Scholar and practitioner views on science in environmental assessment

References

• Annandale D. 2000. Mining company approaches to environmental approvals regulation: a survey of senior environmental managers in Canadian firms. Resour Policy. 26:51–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annandale D, Morrison‐Saunders A, Bouma G. 2004. The impact of voluntary environmental protection instruments on company environmental performance. Bus Strategy Environ. 13(1):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Annandale D, Taplin R. 2003. Is environmental impact assessment regulation a ‘burden’ to private firms? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23(3):383–397.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar HAC, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, van Laerhoven F, Driessen PPJ, Onyango V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance – a comparison of the Netherlands and the UK. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 14(4):1250025.
   Google Scholar
• Barker A, Wood C. 1999. An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 19(4):387–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beanlands G, Duinker PN. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Halifax (NS): Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University.
   Google Scholar
• Bisbal GA. 2002. The best available science for the management of anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 59(12):1952–1959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs SV. 2006. Integrating policy and science in natural resources: why so difficult? Ecol Manage Restor. 7(1):37–39.
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell LK, Bartlett RV, Parker DE, Keys DL. 1982. A study of ways to improve the scientific content and methodology of environmental impact analysis: final report to the National Science Foundation. Bloomington (Ind): School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Canelas L, Almansa P, Merchan M, Cifuentes P. 2005. Quality of environmental impact statements in Portugal and Spain. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25(3):217–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cape L, Retief F, Lochner P, Fischer T, Bond A. 2018. Exploring pluralism – different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 69:32–41.
   Web of Science ®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 Proj Appraisal. 22(4):295–310.
   Google Scholar
• Cheremisinoff PN, Morresi AC. 1977. Environmental assessment and impact statement handbook. Ann Arbor (MI): Ann Arbor Science.
   Google Scholar
• De Winter JCF, Dodou D. 2010. Five-point Likert items: T test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Pract Assessment, Res Eval. 15(11):1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Dipper B. 1998. Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental impact assessment: a review. J Environ Plan Manage. 41(6):731–747.
   Google Scholar
• Duinker PN. 2013. Proposed environmental impact statement for OPG’s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project for low and intermediate level waste. [accessed 2016 Jun 23]. www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p17520/94202E.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Enríquez-de-Salamanca Á. 2018. Stakeholders’ manipulation of environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 68:10–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Noble B. 2015. Impact assessment research – achievements, gaps, and future directions. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 17(1):1501001.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller K. 1999. Quality and quality control in environmental impact assessment. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment: impact and limitations. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; p. 55–82.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons P, Zammit C, Youngentob K, Possingham HP, Lindenmayer DB, Bekessy S, Burgman M, Colyvan M, Considine M, Felton A, et al. 2008. Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy‐makers in natural resource management. Ecol Manage Restor. 9(3):182–186.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Weston J, Wilson E, Frost R. 1997. EIA- learning from experience: changes in the quality of environmental impact statements for UK planning projects. J Environ Plan Manage. 40(4):451–464.
   Google Scholar
• Gray I, Edwards-Jones G. 2003. A review of environmental statements in the British forest sector. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 21(4):303–312.
   Google Scholar
• Green OO, Garmestani AS. 2012. Adaptive management to protect biodiversity: best available science and the Endangered Species Act. Diversity. 4(2):164–178.
   Google Scholar
• Greig LA, Duinker PN. 2011. A proposal for further strengthening science in environmental impact assessment in Canada. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 29(2):159–165.
   Google Scholar
• Holling C. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management (Wiley IIASA international series on applied systems analysis). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   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 Proj Appraisal. 28(1):15–27.
   Google Scholar
• Jones R, Fischer TB. 2016. EIA follow-up in the UK – a 2015 update. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 18(1):1650006.
   Google Scholar
• Kabir SMZ, Momtaz S. 2012. The quality of environmental impact statements and environmental impact assessment practice in Bangladesh. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(2):94–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landim SNT, Sánchez LE. 2012. The contents and scope of environmental impact statements: how do they evolve over time? Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(4):217–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee B, Haworth L, Brunk C. 1995. Values and science in impact assessment. Environments. 23(1):93–100.
   Google Scholar
• Lester SE, McLeod KL, Tallis H, Ruckelshaus M, Halpern BS, Levin PS, Chavez FP, Pomeroy C, McCay BJ, Costello C, et al. 2010. Science in support of ecosystem-based management for the US west coast and beyond. Biol Conserv. 143(3):576–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackinnon AJ, Duinker PN, Walker TR. 2018. The application of science in environmental impact assessment. London (UK): Routledge Focus on Environment and Sustainability, Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Microsoft. 2018. Microsoft Excel (Version 15.32) [A spreadsheet software]. [accessed 2018 Jun 23]. https://products.office.com/en-ca/excel
   Google Scholar
• Minitab Inc. 2018. Minitab Express (Version 1.5.0) [A statistical analysis software]. [accessed 2018 Jun 23]. http://www.minitab.com/en-us/products/express/
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro MB, Partidário MR, Meuleman L. 2018. A comparative analysis on how different governance contexts may influence strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72:79–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Annandale D, Cappelluti J. 2001. Practitioner perspectives on what influences EIA quality. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 19(4):321–325.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. 2003. Practitioner perspectives on the role of science in environmental impact assessment. Environ Manage. 31(6):683–695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey M. 2009. Appraising the role of relationships between regulators and consultants for effective EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(5):284–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Sadler B. 2010. The art and science of impact assessment: results of a survey of IAIA members. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 28(1):77–82.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2015a. Introduction to environmental impact assessment: a guide to principles and practice. 3rd ed. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2015b. Cumulative effects research: achievements, status, directions and challenges in the Canadian context. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 17(1):1550001.
   Google Scholar
• ObjectPlanet. 2018. Opinio (Version 7.7.2) [A online survey tool]. [accessed 2018 Jun 23]. http://www.objectplanet.com/opinio/
   Google Scholar
• Ortolano L, Shepherd A. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assess. 13(1):3–30.
   Google Scholar
• QSR International Pty Ltd. 2018. NVivo (Version 11.4.2) [A qualitative data analysis software]. [Accessed 2018 Jun 23]. http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/nvivo-mac
   Google Scholar
• Rogers KH. 2006. The real river management challenge: integrating scientists, stakeholders and service agencies. River Res Appl. 22(2):269–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roux D, Rogers K, Biggs H, Ashton P, Sergeant A. 2006. Bridging the science–management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol Soc. 11(1):art.4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryder DS, Tomlinson M, Gawne B, Likens GE. 2010. Defining and using ‘best available science’: a policy conundrum for the management of aquatic ecosystems. Mar Freshw Res. 61(7):821–828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. International study of effectiveness of environmental assessment –environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 248 p.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan PJ, Acheson JM, Angermeier PL, Faast T, Flemma J, Jones CM, Knudsen EE, Minello TJ, Secor DH, Wunderlich R, et al. 2006. Defining and implementing best available science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management. Fisheries. 31(9):460–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson S, Treweek JR, Thurling DJ. 1997. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. J Environ Plan Manage. 40(2):157–171.
   Google Scholar
• Tzoumis K. 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