Transforming the capacity of impact assessment to address persistent global problems

References

• Aaen SB, Kerndrup S, Lyhne I. 2016. Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: how citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development. Energy Policy. 96:576–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyris C. 1996. Actionable knowledge: design causality in the service of consequential theory. J Appl Behav Sci. 32(4):390–406.
   Google Scholar
• Avelino F, Grin J, Pel B, Jhagroe S. 2016. The politics of sustainability transitions. J Environ Policy Plann. 18:557–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidstrup M, Hansen AM. 2014. The paradox of strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 47:29–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Gunn J, Pope J, Retief F. 2015. Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Environ Manag. 151:97–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A. 2018. On legitimacy in impact assessment: an epistemologically-based conceptualization. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 69:16–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dusik J, Therivel R, Sadler B, Fischer T, Šarić I. 2018. Strategic environmental and social assessment of automation: scoping working paper. Technical Report (accessed through Research Gate).
   Google Scholar
• Elling B, Nielsen HN. 2018. The misleading of public participation in environmental assessment – exploring four infrastructure cases in Denmark. J Environ Policy Plann. 20(3):282–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodland R, Anhang J. editors. 2000. IAIA Presidents’ vision for impact assessment – where will impact assessment be in 10 years and how do we get there? International Association for Impact Assessment, IAIA 2000; Hong-Kong.
   Google Scholar
• Gunderson LH, Holling CS, editors. 2002. Panarchy: understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington (DC): Island.
   Google Scholar
• Haan F, Rotmans J. 2018. A proposed theoretical framework for actors in transformative change. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 128:275–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes S. 2019. It’s good to talk: dialogue between strategic environmental assessment and plan-making. TPR. 90(1):57–79. doi:10.3828/tpr.2019.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölscher K, Wittmayer J, Loorbach D. 2018. Transition versus transformation: what’s the difference? Environ Innovation Societal Transitions. 27:1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• João E, McLauchlan A. 2014. Would you do SEA if you didn’t have to? Reflections on acceptance or rejection of the SEA process. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(2):87–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler J, FW G, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A, Alkemade F, Avelino F, Bergek A, Boons F, et al. 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ Innovation Societal Transitions. 31:1–32. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
   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
• Loorbach D, Rotmans J. 2006. Managing transitions for sustainable development. In: Olsthoorn X, Wieczorek AJ, editors. Understanding industrial transformation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; p. 187–206.
   Google Scholar
• Loorbach D. 2014. To Transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F. 2017. Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 42:599–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monteiro MB, Partidário MR. 2017. Governance in strategic environmental assessment: lessons from the portuguese practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 65:125–138. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A, Retief F. 2014. Towards sustainability assessment follow-up. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 45:38–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2015. Demonstrating the benefits of impact assessment for proponents. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 33(2):108–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen HN, Aaen SB, Lyhne I, Cashmore M. 2019. Confronting institutional boundaries to public participation: a case of the Danish energy sector. Eur Plann Stud. 27(4):722–738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2019. Transforming IA from the outside in: capacity and levers for strategic assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 1–4. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1664811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble B, Gibson R, White L, Blakley J, Croal P, Nwanekezie K, Doelle M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 37:344–355. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1565708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble B, Nwanekezie K. 2017. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:165–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ Plann. 36:1943–1959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partidario MR. 2000. Elements of an SEA framework—improving the added-value of SEA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 20:647–663.
   Google Scholar
• Partidario MR. 2015. A strategic advocacy role in SEA for sustainability. JEAPM. 17(1):1550015 (8 pages).
   Google Scholar
• Partidário MR. 2016. Using strategic thinking and critical decision factors to achieve sustainability. In: Gibson RB, editor. chapter 10, Sustainability assessment: applications and opportunities. London (UK): Earthscan; p. 169–193.
   Google Scholar
• Partidário MR, Sheate WR. 2013. Knowledge brokerage - potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 39:26–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partidário MR, Verheem R. 2019. Impact assessment and the sustainable development goals. IAIA FasTips #19. www.iaia.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rees W. 1995. Cumulative environmental assessment and global change. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 15:295–309.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment (EA) practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:52–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FSI, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, et al. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc. 14(2):32. [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt MBA. 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight. 3(1):15–31.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment - final report: environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
   Google Scholar
• Sheate WR, Partidário MR. 2010. Strategic approaches and assessment techniques—Potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30:278–288. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Diduck A, Fitzpatrick P. 2008. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28:415–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Fitzpatrick P. 2002. Provisions for more meaningful public participation still elusive in proposed Canadian EA Bill. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 20(3):161–176.
   Google Scholar
• Stoeglehner G. 2019. Strategicness – the core issue of environmental planning and assessment of the 21st century. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 1–5. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1678969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [UN] United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world – the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlow M, Hanusch M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30:15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Kørnøv L, Christensen P. 2013. Critical factors for EIA implementation: literature review and research options. J Environ Manage. 114:148–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar