Can Tour de France inspire SEA effectiveness? An analogy to encourage a broader systems thinking

References

• Arbter K. 2019. SEA in Austria and the participative SEA round table model. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 37(3–4):188–198. doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1562690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar H, Fischer T, Jha-Thakur U, Van Laerhoven F, Driessen PPJ, Onyango V. 2013. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting on 25 years of EIA Practice in the Netherlands and the UK. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 14. 1250025.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Dusik J. 2020. Impact assessment for the twenty-first century – rising to the challenge. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 38(2):94–99. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1677083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Gwilliam R, Morgan R, Cobb D, Bond A. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 22:295–310. doi:10.3152/147154604781765860.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Hilding-Rydevik T, Smutny M, Stephansson E. 2020. Remaking science-policy interfaces in the quest for effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 38(2):172–177. doi:10.1080/14615517.2020.1724004.
   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 Assess Project Apprai. 37(3–4):312–326. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1595934.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González Del Campo A, Gazzola P, Onyango V. 2020. The mutualism of strategic environmental assessment and sustainable development goals. Environ Impact Assess Rev 82(106383):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kørnøv L, Lyhne I, Davila JG. 2020. Linking the UN SDGs and environmental assessment: towards a conceptual framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106463
   Google Scholar
• Kørnøv L, Zhang J, Christensen P. 2015. The influence of street level bureaucracy on the implementation of strategic environmental assessment. J Environ Plann Manage. 28:598–615. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.873711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyhne I, Cashmore MA, Runhaar H, van Laerhoven F. 2015. Quality control for environmental policy appraisal tools: an empirical investigation of relations between quality, quality control and effectiveness. J Environ Policy Plann. 18(1):121–140. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyhne I, van Laerhoven F, Cashmore MA, Runhaar H. 2017. Theorising EIA effectiveness: a contribution based on the Danish system. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:240–249. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLauchlan A, João E. 2019. Recognising ‘learning’ as an uncertain source of SEA effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 37(3–4):299–311. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1595940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montaño M, Fischer TB. 2019. Towards a more effective approach to the development and maintenance of SEA guidance. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 37(2):97–106. doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1550185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Sánchez LE, Retief F, Sinclair J, Doelle M, Jones M, Wessels JA, Pope J. 2020. Gearing up impact assessment as a vehicle for achieving the UN sustainable development goals. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 38(2):113–117. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1677089.
   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 Project Apprai. 37(3–4):344–355. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1565708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment systems and practices in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29. 66–75.
   Google Scholar
• Nooteboom S. 2020. Environmental assessment as an institution of liberal democracy. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 38(2):109–112. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1665947.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polido A, Ramos TB. 2015. Towards effective scoping in strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 33(3):171–183. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.993155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F, Jones C, Jay S. 2008. The emperor’s new clothes – reflections on strategic environmental assessment within the South Africa context. Environm Impact Assess Rev. 27:84–100. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ. 2007. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 25:2–14.
   Google Scholar
• Runhaar H, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Arts J, 2013. Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis.Environmental Impact Assessment Review.2012 2012 39.05.003 doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riki Therivel & Ainhoa González. 2019. Introducing SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):181–187. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1601432.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
   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
• Stoeglehner G, Brown AL, Kørnøv L. 2009. SEA and planning: ‘Ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 27(2):111–120. doi:10.3152/146155109X438742.
   Google Scholar
• Therivel R. 2019. Effectiveness of English local plan SA/SEAs. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 37(3–4):266–278. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1579989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therivel R, González A. 2019. Editorial: introducing SEA effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Apprai. 37(3–4):181–187. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1601432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thérivel R, Minas P. 2002. Ensuring effective sustainability appraisal. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 20:81–91. doi:10.3152/147154602781766717.
   Google Scholar
• UNECE. 2017 June 21. Role of environmental assessments emphasized as key to SDG and climate change action at minsk meeting. [accessed 2020 Nov 1]. http://www.unece.org/info/media/presscurrent-press-h/environment/2017/role-of-environment-assessments-emphasized-as-key-to-sdg-and-climate-change-action-at-minsk-meeting/doc.html
   Google Scholar
• Van Buuren A, Nooteboom S. 2009. Evaluating strategic environmental assessment in the Netherlands: content, process and procedure as indissoluble criteria for effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. (27):145–154. doi:10.3152/146155109X454311.
   Google Scholar
• Weick KE. 2001. Making sense of the organization. Blackwell publishing: Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Wu J, Chang I, Bina O, Lam K, Xu H. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment implementation in China — five-year review and prospects. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(1):77–84. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Christensen P, Kørnøv L. 2013. Review of critical factors for SEA implementation. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:88–98. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Kørnøv L, Christensen P. 2018. The discretionary power of the environmental assessment practitioner. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72:25–32. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZhuD, Ru J. 2008. Strategic environmental assessment in China: motivations, politics, and effectiveness. J Environ Manage. 88(4):615–626. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar