The future of impact assessment: problems, solutions and recommendations

References

• Ascensão F, Fahrig L, Clevenger AP, Corlett RT, Jaeger JA, Laurance WF, Pereira HM. 2018. Environmental challenges for the Belt and Road Initiative. Nat Sustainability. 1:206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baines JT, Taylor CN, Vanclay F. 2013. Social impact assessment and ethical research principles: ethical professional practice in impact assessment part II. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 31:254–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevir M, editor. 2011. Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In: The Sage handbook of governance. Newbury Park: Sage, p. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S. 2013. No more sun shades, please: experiences of corporate social responsibility in remote Australian mining communities. Rural Soc. 22:138–152.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S. 2016. Responsible mining: key principles for industry integrity. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S, Lauderes L. 2018. One belt, one road: the Chinese acquisition of the Pireaus port in Greece. Beijing: China Case Centre: Tsinghua University and The Australian National University.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S, Neely K, Einfeld C. 2019. Next generation engagement: setting a research agenda for community engagement in Australia’s infrastructure sector. Aust J Public Administration. 78:290–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bice S, Poole A, Sullivan H. 2018. Conclusion: five emergent themes for public policy in the Asian century. In: Bice S, Poole A, Sullivan H, editors. Public policy in the ‘Asian century’: concepts, cases and futures. Springer, p. 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Boulton J. 2010. Complexity theory and implications for policy development. Emergence: Complexity Organ. 12:31.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney P. 2012. Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Stud Rev. 10:346–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30:34–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer T. 2017. Foreword to the first issue of 2017. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 35:1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fundingsland Tetlow M, Hanusch M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30:15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer M, Nilsson M, Raworth K, Bakker P, Berkhout F, De Boer Y, Rockström J, Ludwig K, Kok M. 2015. Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability. 7:1651–1660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge G, Greve C, Boardman A. 2017. Public‐private partnerships: the way they were and what they can become. Aust J Public Administration. 76:273–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Fischer TB, Xu H. 2017. The stakeholder analysis for SEA of Chinese foreign direct investment: the case of ‘One belt, one road’initiative in Pakistan. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 35:158–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurukulasuryia P. 2018. Wicked solutions for wicked problems. Macleod, C. (ed.). Geneva: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen RK, Raitio K, Stinnerbom M, Wik-Karlsson J. 2017. Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 64:67–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobos V, Partidario M. 2014. Theory versus practice in strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environ Impact Assess Rev. 48:34–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macleod C. 2018. John Stuart Mill. In: Zalta E, editor. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy Fall. 2018th ed. Palo Alto: Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Marsden S. 2011. The espoo convention and strategic environmental assessment protocol in the European Union: implementation, compliance, enforcement and reform. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law. 20:267–276.
   Google Scholar
• Meuleman L. 2015. Owl meets beehive: how impact assessment and governance relate. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 33:4–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 30:5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Next Generation Engagement Program. 2019. Next generation engagement program: overview [ Online]. Canberra: The Australian National University; [accessed 2019 Aug 27]. www.nextgenengagement.org.
   Google Scholar
• Putters K. 2005. HIA, the next step: defining models and roles. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25:693–701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli CM. 2009. Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe. J Eur Public Policy. 16:1145–1164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittel HW, Webber MM. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4:155–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts N. 2000. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. Int Public Manage Rev. 1:1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosberg D, Collins LB. 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Clim Change. 5:359–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Peirson-Smith TJ, Boerchers M. 2017. Environmental assessments in the Internet age: the role of e-governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 35:148–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, De Vries W, De Wit CA. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 347:1259855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson G, Tamir I, Kemp B. 2013. Human rights impact assessment in practice: oxfam’s application of a community-based approach. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 31:118–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woetzel J, Garemo N, Mischke J, Hjerpe M, Palter R. 2016. Bridging global infrastructure gaps. McKinsey Global Institute.
   Google Scholar