Learning support mechanisms in SEA: a review of the potential to optimize outcomes

References

• Apter MJ. 2001. Motivational styles in everyday life: a guide to reversal theory. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association. ISBN: 9781557987396.
   Google Scholar
• Arbter K. 2019. SEA in Austria and the participative SEA round table model. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):188–198. doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1562690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baresi U, Vella KJ, Sipe NG. 2017. Bridging the divide between theory and guidance in strategic environmental assessment: A path for Italian regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 62:14–24. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canter LW. 2008. Guidance related to the summary and abstract of an EIS. Gloucester (Massachusetts): National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Bond A, Cobb D. 2008. The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. Journal of Environmental Management. 88:1233–1248. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 30(6):371–379. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepuš S, Strmšnik K, Harmel M, Krajnc A, Premelč M, Harmel E, Weldt S. 2019. The effectiveness of the SEA process in Slovenia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):312–326. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1595934.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. 2004. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. London: LSRC reference, Learning & Skills Research Centre. http://itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/LSRC_LearningStyles.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Davidovic D. 2014. Review: experiences of strategic environmental assessment in developing countries and emerging economies. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/36241.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: european Commission. Official Journal of the European Union. L197/30, 21. 7.2001.
   Google Scholar
• Enríquez-de-Salamanca A. 2019. Environmental assessment: a third division subject at the university. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(5):452–454. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1589773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EPA. 2019. Integrating climatic factors into the strategic environmental assessment process in Ireland. Ireland: Prepared by Cian O’Mahony. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/ea/EPA%20SEA-Climatic-Factors-Guidance-Note.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• EPA. 2020. Second review of SEA effectiveness in Ireland. Prepared by González, A., Therivel, R. and Gaughran, A. for the Environmental Protection Agency: Ireland. [accessed 2020 Oct 07]. https://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/ea/secondreviewofseaeffectivenessinireland.html.
   Google Scholar
• Fekete JD, van Wijk JJ, Stasko JT, North C. 2008. The value of information visualization. In: Kerren A, Stasko JT, Fekete JD, North C, editors. Information visualization - human-centered issues and perspectives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; p. 2–18. ISBN: 354070955X, 9783540709558.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer T, Yu X. 2018. Sustainability appraisal in neighbourhood planning in England. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 62(6):939–959. doi:10.1080/09640568.2018.1454304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U. 2013. Environmental assessment and management related master level degree programmes in the EU: baseline, trends, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 15(4):1350020. doi:10.1142/S1464333213500208.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Kidd S, Jha-Thakur U, Gazzola P, Peel D. 2009. Learning through EC directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick region in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 29(6):421–428. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry J, Maxwell A, Apere S, McAweeney P, McSharry L, González A (2014). Non-technical summaries - Due care and attention? International Association for Impact Assessment Conference Proceedings. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.567.8444&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gazzola P, Jha-Thakur U, Kidd S, Fischer TB. 2011. Enhancing environmental appraisal effectiveness: towards an understanding of internal context conditions in organisational learning. Planning Theory & Practice. 12(2):183–204. doi:10.1080/14649357.2011.581008.
   Google Scholar
• Geissler G, Rehhausen A, Fischer T, Hanusch M. 2019. Effectiveness of SEA in Germany? – metareview of SEA research in the light of effectiveness dimensions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):219–232. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1587944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlak AK, Heikkila T, Smolinski SL, Huitema D, Armitage D. 2017. Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: A review of the scholarship. Policy Sciences. 51(3):335–371. doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9278-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González A. 2017. Mapping environmental sensitivity: A systematic online approach to support environmental assessment and planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 66:86–98. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González A, Bullock C, Gaughran A, Watkin-Bourne K. 2019. Towards a better understanding of SEA effectiveness in Ireland. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):233–243. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1580475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González A, Gazzola P. 2019. Untapping the potential of technological advancements in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 63(4):585–603. doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1588712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunton T, Day JC. 2003. The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management. Environments. 31(2):5–19. https://ucd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ucd.idm.oclc.org/docview/207672497?accountid=14507.
   Google Scholar
• Hergenhahn B, Olson M. 2005. An introduction to theories of learning. 7th ed. London: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0131147226.
   Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Gazzola P, Peel D, Fischer TB, Kidd S. 2009. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment – the significance of learning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 27(2):133–144. doi:10.3152/146155109X454302.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb DA. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kuldna P, Peterson K, Kuhi-Thalfeldt R. 2015. Knowledge brokering on emissions modelling in strategic environmental assessment of Estonian energy policy with special reference to the LEAP model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 54:55–60. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludovico D, Fabietti V. 2018. Strategic environmental assessment, key issues of its effectiveness. The results of the speedy project. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 68:19–28. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLauchlan A, João E. 2019. Recognising ‘learning’ as an uncertain source of SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):299–311. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1595940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrill MD. 2001. Components of instruction toward a theoretical tool for instructional design. Instructional Science. 29(4–5):291–310. doi:10.1023/A:1011943808888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuleman L. 2016. The implementation of the EU SEA directive: main achievements and challenges. Chapter 3. In: Sadler B, Dusik J, editors. European and international experiences of strategic environmental assessment. Abingdon (UK): Routledge; p. 57–83.
   Google Scholar
• Möller-Lindenhof T 2018. Allgemeinverständliche nichttechnische Zusammenfassung in der Umweltprüfung - wie lesefreundlich ist sie wirklich? [ master’s thesis]. Berlin: Berlin Institute of Technology. German.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2015. Demonstrating the benefits of impact assessment for proponents. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 33(2):108–115. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.981049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muntean OL, Ionescu-Tămaș CT, Măcicășan V. 2019. Strategic environmental assessment in Romania: between benefits and constraints. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):292–298. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1595938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musil M, Smutný M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environment assessment in the Czech Republic. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):199–209. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1578482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M. 2005. Learning, frames, and environmental policy integration: the case of Swedish energy policy. Environmental Planning C: Government Policy. 23(2):207–226. doi:10.1068/c0405j.
   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 Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):344–355. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1565708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichler M, Schaffartzik A, Haberl H, Görg C. 2017. Drivers of society-nature relations in the Anthropocene and their implications for sustainability transformations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 26–27:32–36. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope J, Bond A, Cameron C, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A. 2018. Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 70:34–44. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runhaar H. 2009. Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 29(3):200–209. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryall A. 2017. Strategic environmental assessment: the Irish experience. In: Jones G, Scofford E, editors. The strategic environmental assessment directive – a plan for success? Oxford: Hart Publishing; p. 353–374.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler-Smith E. 2001. The relationship between learning style and cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences. 30(4):609–616. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00059-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez LE, Mitchell R. 2017. Conceptualizing impact assessment as a learning process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 62:195–204. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Triana E, Ortolano L. 2001. Organizational learning and environmental impact assessment at Colombia’s Cauca valley corporation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 21(3):223–239. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00074-9.
   Google Scholar
• Sims L. 2012. Taking a learning approach to community-based strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 30(4):242–252. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.736761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair J, Diduck A. 2001. Public involvement in EA in Canada: a transformative learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 21(2):113–136. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00076-7.
   Google Scholar
• Stoeglehner G. 2010. Enhancing SEA effectiveness lessons learnt from Austrian experiences in spatial planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 28(30):217–231. doi:10.3152/146155110X12772982841168.
   Google Scholar
• Stoeglehner G, Brown AL, Kørnov LB. 2009. SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 27(2):111–120. doi:10.3152/146155109X438742.
   Google Scholar
• Suškevičs M, Hahn T, Rodela R. 2019. Process and contextual factors supporting action-oriented learning: A thematic synthesis of empirical literature in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources. 32(7):731–750. doi:10.1080/08941920.2019.1569287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suškevičs M, Hahn T, Rodela R, Macura B, Pahl-Wostl C. 2018. Learning for social-ecological change: a qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 61(7):1085–1112. doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therivel R. 2019. Effectiveness of English local plan SA/SEAs. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):266–278. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1579989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Buuren A, Nooteboom S. 2010. The success of SEA in the Dutch planning practice: how formal assessments can contribute to collaborative governance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 30(2):127–135. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker H, Spaling H, Sinclair AJ. 2016. Towards a home-grown approach to strategic environmental assessment: adapting practice and participation in Kenya. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 34(3):186–198. doi:10.1080/14615517.2016.1176409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallington T, Bina O, Thissen W. 2007. Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 27(7):569–584. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washington H, Taylor B, Kopnina H, Cryer P, Piccolo JJ. 2017. Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability. The Ecological Citizen. 1:35–41. https://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/pdfs/v01n1-08.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 15(5):443–463. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00043-E.
   Google Scholar
• Willingham DT, Hughes EM, Dobolyi DG. 2015. The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology. 42(3):266–271. doi:10.1177/0098628315589505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar