Impact assessment for the twenty-first century – rising to the challenge

References

• Ali SH, Giurco D, Arndt N, Nickless E, Brown G, Demetriades A, Durrheim R, Enriquez MA, Kinnaird J, and Littleboy A. 2017. Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature. 543(7645):367–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashford NA. 2002. Government and environmental innovation in Europe and North America. Am Behav Sci. 45(9):1417–1434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bina O. 2007. A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(7):585–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F, Gunn JAE. 2014. Impact assessment: eroding benefits through streamlining? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 45:46–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner N, Peck J, Theodore N. 2010. Variegated neoliberalization: geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks. 10(2):182–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown L. 2019. Climate change: what is a climate emergency? “BBC News”. [accessed 2019 Oct 08]. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47570654.
   Google Scholar
• Bruckner T, Bashmakov IA, Mulugetta Y, Chum H, de la Vega Navarro A, Edmonds J, Faaij A, Fungtammasan B, Garg A, Hertwich E, et al. 2014. Energy Systems. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, et al, editors. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge (United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA): Cambridge University Press; p. 511–597.
   Google Scholar
• Burritt R, Christ K. 2016. Industry 4.0 and environmental accounting: a new revolution? Asian J Sustain Social Respon. 1(1):23.
   Google Scholar
• Bütschi D, Carius R, Decker M, Gram S, Grunwald A, Machleidt P, Steyaert S, van Est R. 2004. The practice of TA; science, interaction, and communication. In: Decker M, Ladikas M, editors. Bridges between science, society and policy: technology assessment-methods and impacts. Berlin: Springer; p. 13–55.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Richardson T, Hilding-Ryedvik T, Emmelin L. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30(6):371–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates JF. 1971. Technology assessment: the benefits … the costs … the consequences. Futurist. 5:225–231.
   Google Scholar
• Dusik J. 2018. Exploring future governance of disruptive technologies in high-, middle-, and low-income settings. (IAIA Innovation Grants Application for Initial Enquiry on 4th Industrial Revolution concept paper).
   Google Scholar
• Dusik J, Fischer TB, Sadler B, Therivel R, Saric I. 2018. Strategic environmental and social assessment of automation: scoping working paper. [accessed 2019 May 10]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326461326_Strategic_Environmental_and_Social_Assessment_of_Automation_Scoping_Working_Paper
   Google Scholar
• Elling B. 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms? Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 27(2):121–131.
   Google Scholar
• Frey CB. 2019. The technology trap: capital. Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilpin R. 2016. The political economy of international relations). Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R. 2019. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald A. 2018. Technology assessment in practice and theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Fischer TB. 2006. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 8(1):19–39.
   Google Scholar
• Neumayer E. 2010. Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Nevett J. 2019. The greta effect? Meet the schoolgirl climate warriors. [accessed 2019 May 14]. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48114220.
   Google Scholar
• O’Faircheallaigh C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30(1):19–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owoseje T. 2019. Ireland becomes second country in the world after UK to declare ‘climate emergency’. Independent. [accessed 2019 Oct 08]. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ireland-climate-emergency-united-kingdom-greta-thunberg-global-warming-a8909396.html.
   Google Scholar
• Partidario M, Den Broeder L, Croal P, Fuggle R, Ross W. 2012. Fastips No.1: impact assessment. [accessed 2019 May 10]. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/Fastips_1%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Porter AL. 1995. Technology Assessment. Impact Assess. 13(2):135–151.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:52–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riddle S. 2019. Democracy and education in contemporary local-global contexts. IEJ:CP. 18(1):1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab K. 2016. The fourth industrial revolution: what it means, how to respond. [accessed 2019 May 10]. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/.
   Google Scholar
• Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America. 1969, “The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969”. [accessed 2013 Nov 27]. http://www.epw.senate.gov/nepa69.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 1992. Earth Summit ‘92. London:Regency Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2004. The triple bottom line and impact assessment: how do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS relate to each other? J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 6(3):265–288.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal J. 2019. Has the politics of climate change finally reached a tipping point? The Guardian. [accessed 2019 Oct 08]. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/15/climate-change-politics-environmental-crisis-government.
   Google Scholar
• Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 15:443–463.
   Google Scholar
• Yang T. 2019. “The Emergence of the Environmental Impact Assessment Duty as a Global Legal Norm and General Principle of Law”. Hastings Law Journal. 70(2):525–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar