Metro infrastructure planning in Amsterdam: how are social issues managed in the absence of environmental and social impact assessment?

References

• Arts J, Faith-Ell C. 2012. New governance approaches for sustainable project delivery. Procedia: Soc Behav Sci. 48(SupplementC):3239–3250.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Filarski R, Jeekel H, Toussaint B. editor. 2016. Builders and Planners: A history of land-use and infrastructure planning in the Netherlands. Delft: Eburon.
   Google Scholar
• Banhalmi-Zakar Z, Gronow C, Wilkinson L, Jenkins B, Pope J, Squires G, Witt K, Williams G, Womersley J. 2018. Evolution or revolution: where next for impact assessment? Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 36(6):506–515. doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1516846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrow C. 2010. How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30(5):293–301. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantarelli CC, Molin EJ, van Wee B, Flyvbjerg B. 2012a. Characteristics of cost overruns for Dutch transport infrastructure projects and the importance of the decision to build and project phases. Transp Policy. 22:49–56. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantarelli CC, van Wee B, Molin EJ, Flyvbjerg B. 2012b. Different cost performance: different determinants?: the case of cost overruns in Dutch transport infrastructure projects. Transp Policy. 22:88–95. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dendena B, Corsi S. 2015. The environmental and social impact assessment: a further step towards an integrated assessment process. J Clean Prod. 108:965–977. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driessen PP, Glasbergen P, Verdaas C. 2001. Interactive policy-making: a model of management for public works. Eur J Oper Res. 128(2):322–337. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00075-8.
   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(1):34–42. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.660356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faithful and Gould Consult. 2005. Onderzoek Noord/Zuidlijn Definitief Rapport, Deel 2 – bijlagen [North-South Line Final Report – part 2 – appendices]. Cleveland (UK). Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer T.B. 1999. Comparative analysis of environmental and socio-economic impacts in SEA for transport related policies. Plans and Programs, Environ Impact Assess Rev. 19(3):275–303. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00008-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2006. From nobel prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Manage J. 37(3):5–15. doi:10.1177/875697280603700302.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2014. What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview. Project Manage J. 45(2):6–19. doi:10.1002/pmj.21409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2017. Introduction: the iron law of megaproject management. In: Flyvbjerg B, editor. The oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; p. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franks D, Vanclay F. 2013. Social impact management plans: innovation in corporate and public policy. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:40–48. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemeente Amsterdam. 2018. NoordZuidlijn. Dutch. [accessed 2019 Oct 30] http://noordzuidlijn.wijnemenjemee.nl/.
   Google Scholar
• Gemeente Amsterdam. n.d. Planning en begroting [Planning and budget]. Dutch. [accessed 2019 Nov 27]. http://noordzuidlijn.wijnemenjemee.nl/noordzuidlijn/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2013. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. 4th ed. New York (USA): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• GVB 2019. De Noord/Zuidlijn is (bijna) jarig! [The Noord/Zuidlijn is (almost) having a birthday!]. Dutch. [accessed 2020 Jan 13]. https://over.gvb.nl/nieuws/de-noord-zuidlijn-is-jarig/.
   Google Scholar
• Hartz-Karp J, Pope J. 2011. Enhancing effectiveness through deliberative democracy. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; p. 253–272.
   Google Scholar
• Hoff J. 2003. A constructivist bottom-up approach to governance: the need for increased theoretical and methodological awareness in research. In: Bang HP, editor. Governance as social and political communication. Manchester (UK): Manchester University Press; p. 41–60.
   Google Scholar
• Howitt R. 1993. Social impact assessment as “applied peoples’ geography”. Aust Geogr Stud. 31(2):127–140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8470.1993.tb00410.x.
   Google Scholar
• Informatiepunt Omgevingswet. 2019. Inspiratiegids Participatie Omgevingswet. [Inspiration Guide Participation Environment Act] Dutch. [accessed 2019 Oct 28].
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs I. 2019 July 18. GVB herkent zich niet in kritisch rapport Noord/Zuidlijn [GVB does not recognize itself in critical report North/South line]. Dutch. OVPRO; [accessed 2020 Jan 14]. https://www.ovpro.nl/metro/2019/07/18/gvb-herkent-zich-niet-in-kritisch-rapport-noord-zuidlijn/.
   Google Scholar
• Jijelava D, Vanclay F. 2017. Legitimacy, credibility and trust as the key components of a Social Licence to Operate: an analysis of BP’s projects in Georgia. J Clean Prod. 140(Part 3):1077–1086. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jijelava D, Vanclay F. 2018. How a large project was halted by the lack of a social licence to operate: testing the applicability of the Thomson and Boutilier Model. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 73:31–40. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KPMG Bureau voor Economische Augmentatie (BEA). 1996 Nov 17. Economishe effecten Noord-Zuidlijn. Gemeente Amsterdam, Directie Noord-Zuidlijn.
   Google Scholar
• Legacy C. 2016. Transforming transport planning in the postpolitical era. Urban Stud. 53:3108–3124. doi:10.1177/0042098015602649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehtonen M, Joly P-B, Aparicio L. 2017. Introduction. In: Lehtonen M, Joly P-B, Aparicio L, editors. Socioeconomic evaluation of Megaprojects: dealing with uncertainties. Abingdon (UK): Routledge; p. 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J. 2004. Assessing Impact: handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up. London (UK): Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Mottee LK, Arts J, Vanclay F, Howitt R, Miller F. 2020. Limitations of technical approaches to transport planning practice in two cases: social issues as a critical component of urban projects. Plann Theory Pract. 21(1):39–57. doi:10.1080/14649357.2019.1696980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottee LK, Howitt R. 2018. Follow-up and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in urban transport-infrastructure projects: insights from the Parramatta rail link. Aust Planner. 55(1):1–11. doi:10.1080/07293682.2018.1506496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons R, Everingham J, Kemp D. 2019. Developing social impact assessment guidelines in a pre-existing policy context. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 37(2):1–10. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1692585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto E, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2019. Distilling and applying criteria for best practice EIA follow-up. J Environl Assess Policy Manag. 21(2): 1950008-1-32. doi:10.1142/S146433321950008X.
   Google Scholar
• Prenzel P, Vanclay F. 2014. How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict management. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 45:30–37. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purdy G. 2010. ISO 31000: 2009: setting a new standard for risk management. Risk Anal. 30(6):881–886. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01442.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooijendijk C. 2005. That City is Mine!: urban Ideal Images in Public Debates and City Plans, Amsterdam & Rotterdam 1945–1995. Amsterdam (NL): Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Runhaar H, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Arts J. 2013. Environmental Assessment in the Netherlands: effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 39:13–25. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager T. 2002. Deliberative planning and decision making: an impossibility result. J Plann Educ Res. 21(4):367–378. doi:10.1177/0739456X0202100402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Cazorla A, Alfalla-Luque R, Irimia-Dieguez AI. 2016. Risk identification in megaprojects as a crucial phase of risk management: a literature review. Project Manage J. 47(6):75–93. doi:10.1177/875697281604700606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuurman FE, Sheerazi A. 2013. Vision document about the web strategy Noord/Zuidlijn between 2010–2013. [accessed 2019 Oct 31]. https://www.noordzuidlijnkennis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Visiedocument-webstrategie-def_EN2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Siemiatycki M. 2010. Managing optimism biases in the delivery of large-infrastructure projects: A corporate performance benchmarking approach. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res. 10(1):30–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvius A, Schipper RP. 2014. Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis. Soc Bus. 4(1):63–96. doi:10.1362/204440814X13948909253866.
   Google Scholar
• Soetenhorst B. 2011. Het wonder van de Noord/Zuidlijn: het drama van de Amsterdamse metro [The miracle of the North/South Line: the drama of the Amsterdam Metro]. Amsterdam (NL): Bert Bakker.
   Google Scholar
• Stolp A, Groen W, van Vliet J, Vanclay F. 2002. Citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens’ value judgements in Environmental Impact Assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 20(1):11–23. doi:10.3152/147154602781766852.
   Google Scholar
• Storey K, Jones P. 2003. Social impact assessment, impact management and follow-up: a case study of the construction of the Hibernia offshore platform. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21(2):99–107. doi:10.3152/147154603781766400.
   Google Scholar
• Storey K, Noble B. 2005. Socio-economic effects monitoring: toward improvements informed by bio-physical effects monitoring. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 23(3):210–214. doi:10.3152/147154605781765526.
   Google Scholar
• Valliant D. 2017. Van de eerste plannen tot definitief besluit [From the first planning to the final decision]. Dutch. [accessed 2019 Oct 31] http://noordzuidlijn.wijnemenjemee.nl/tijdlijn/van-de-eerste-plannen-tot-definitief-besluit/
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen H 2018 Oct 6. Sinds de Noord/Zuidlijn zit Noord potdicht [Since the North/South line, Noord has been completely closed]. Research [about 2 screens]. Dutch. [accessed 2019 Nov 21]. https://www.parool.nl/columns-opinie/sinds-de-noord-zuidlijn-zit-noord-potdicht~b61c9d88/
   Google Scholar
• Van Lohuizen HPS. 1989. A new pre-metro line for Amsterdam? Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 4(3):285–291. doi:10.1016/0886-7798(89)90079-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Marrewijk A, Clegg SR, Pitsis TS, Veenswijk M. 2008. Managing public–private megaprojects: paradoxes, complexity, and project design. Int J Project Manag. 26(6):591–600. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.007.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22(3):183–211. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21(1):5–11. doi:10.3152/147154603781766491.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2017. The potential contribution of social impact assessment to megaproject developments. In: Lehtonen M, Joly P-B, Aparicio L, editors. Socioeconomic evaluation of megaprojects: dealing with uncertainties. Abingdon (UK): Routledge; p. 181–198.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2020. Reflections on social impact assessment in the 21st century, impact assessment & project appraisal. 38(2):126–131. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1685807
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Baines JT, Taylor CN. 2013. Principles for ethical research involving humans: ethical professional practice in impact assessment Part I. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 31(4):243–253. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.850307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks D. 2015. Social impact assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. Fargo (ND):International Association for Impact Assessment. [accessed 2019 Nov 21]. http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_Document_IAIA.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Hanna P. 2019. Conceptualising company response to community protest: principles to achieve a social license to operate. Land. 8(6):101. doi:10.3390/land8060101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser & Smit Bouw. n.d. Noord/Zuidlijn [North South Line]. [accessed 2019 Oct 31] https://en.visserensmitbouw.nl/dynamics/modules/SFIL0200/view.php?fil_Id=5646.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Ende L, van Marrewijk A. 2019. Teargas, taboo and transformation: A neo-institutional study of community resistance and the struggle to legitimize subway projects in Amsterdam 1960–2018. Int J Project Manag. 37(2):331–346. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker G. 2010. Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: the implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 30(5):312–318. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woltjer J. 2002. The ‘public support machine’: notions of the function of participatory planning by Dutch infrastructure planners. Plann Prac Res. 17(4):437–453. doi:10.1080/02697450216358.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: a comparative review. 2nd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar