References
- Affolder N. 2007. Mining and the World Heritage convention: democratic legitimacy and treaty compliance. Pace Environ Law Rev. 24(1):35–66.
- Arts J, Filarski R, Jeekel H, Toussaint B. Editors. 2016. Builders and planners: a history of land-use and infrastructure planning in the Netherlands. Delft (the Netherlands): Eburon.
- Arts J, Runhaar HAC, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, van Laerhoven F, Driessen PPJ, Onyango V. 2012. 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(4):1–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333212500251.
- Ashrafi B, Kloos M, Neugebauer C. 2021. Heritage impact assessment, beyond an assessment tool: a comparative analysis of urban development impact on visual integrity in four UNESCO World Heritage properties. J Cult Heritage. 47:199–207. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.08.002.
- Baker DC, McLelland JN. 2003. Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia’s environmental assessment process for first nations’ participation in mining development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23(5):581–603. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00093-3.
- Bodansky D. 1999. The legitimacy of international governance: a coming challenge for international environmental law?. Am J Int Law. 93(3):596–624. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2555262.
- Breukel E. 2018. Dutch business culture and etiquette; egalitarian, individualistic, direct. Intercultural Communication. [Accessed 2020 Nov 05]. https://intercultural.nl/dutch-business-culture-and-etiquette/europe/e-breukel.
- Buitelaar E, Bregman A. 2016. Dutch land development institutions in the face of crisis: trembling pillars in the planners’ paradise. Eur Plann Stud. 24(7):1281–1294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1168785.
- Cashmore M, Bond A, Cobb D. 2008. The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. J Environ Manage. 88(4):1233–1248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.005.
- Chanchitpricha C, and Bond A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:65–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006.
- de Bony J. 2010. Project management and national culture: a Dutch-French case study. Int J Project Manage. 28(2):173–182. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.002.
- De Uitgeester. 2019. Terugblik ‘Heet Hangijzer’ opstelterrein NS in Uitgeest. [Accessed 2020 May 20]. https://www.uitgeester.nl/nieuws/algemeen/31389/terugblik-heet-hangijzer-opstelterrein-ns-in-uitgeest.
- de Vries J. 2015. Planning and culture unfolded: the cases of Flanders and the Netherlands. Eur Plann Stud. 23(11):2148–2164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1018406.
- Doberstein C, Millar H. 2014. Balancing a house of cards: throughput legitimacy in Canadian Governance Networks. Can J Polit Sci. 47(2):259–280. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423914000420.
- Driessen PPJ, Glasbergen P, Verdaas C. 2001. Interactive policy-making: a model of management for public works. Eur J Oper Res. 128(2):322–337. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00075-8.
- Faludi A, van de Valk A. 1994. Rule and Order: dutch planning doctrine in the Twentieth Century. Dordrecht (the Netherlands): Kluwer Academic.
- Fielden K. 2019. Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites WHS still under threat of road construction. In: World Heritage Watch. World Heritage watch report 2019. Berlin (Germany): World Heritage Watch; p. 138–141.
- Gaillard B, Rodwell D. 2015. A failure of process? Comprehending the issues fostering heritage conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool: maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites. Hist Environ. 6(1):16–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750515Z.00000000066.
- Gerrits L, Rauws W, de Roo G. 2012. Dutch spatial planning policies in transition. Plann Theor Pract. 13(2):336–341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.669992.
- Hajer M, Zonneveld W. 2000. Spatial planning in the network society: rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands. Eur Plann Stud. 8(3):337–355. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/713666411.
- Hurn BJ. 2007. The influence of culture on international business negotiations. Ind Commer Training. 39(7):354–360. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850710829058.
- ICOMOS. 2011. Guidance on heritage impact assessments for cultural World Heritage properties. Paris (France): ICOMOS. Accessed on 16 April 2021. https://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf
- ICOMOS. 2015. Technical review: defence Line of Amsterdam. Paris (France): ICOMOS. Accessed on 16 April 2021. https://www.commissiemer.nl/projectdocumenten/00002453.pdf
- ICOMOS. 2017. ICOMOS advisory mission report: defence Line of Amsterdam. Paris (France): ICOMOS. Accessed on 16 April 2021. https://api1.ibabs.eu/publicdownload.aspx?site=noordholland&id=1100048374
- Iusmen I, Boswell J. 2017. The dilemmas of pursuing ‘throughput legitimacy’ through participatory mechanisms. West Eur Polit. 40(2):459–478. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1206380.
- 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:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.070.
- Kloos M. 2017. Heritage Impact Assessment as a tool to open up perspectives for sustainability: three case studies related to discussions concerning the visual integrity of World Heritage Cultural and Urban Landscapes. In: Albert M, editor. Perceptions of sustainability in Heritage Studies. Göttingen (Germany): De Gruyter; p. 215–227.
- Land-id. 2015a. Stelling van Amsterdam: heritage Impact assessment verbinding A8-A9. Arnhem (the Netherlands): Land-id.
- Land-id. 2015b. Stelling van Amsterdam: heritage Impact Assessment opstelterrein nabij Uitgeest. Arnhem (the Netherlands): Land-id.
- Louw E, van der Krabben E, Priemus H. 2003. Spatial development policy: changing roles for local and regional authorities in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy. 20(4):357–366. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(03)00059-0.
- Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. 2012. Structuurvisie infrastructuur en ruimte: nederland concurrerend, bereikbaar, leefbaar en veilig. Den Haag (the Netherlands): Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.
- Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. 2013. MIRT-onderzoek Noordkant Amsterdam (MONA): eindrapport. Den Haag (the Netherlands): Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.
- Mottee LK, Arts J, Vanclay F, Miller F, Howitt R. 2020. Metro infrastructure planning in Amsterdam: how are social issues managed in the absence of environmental and social impact assessment?. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38(4):320–335. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1741918.
- O’Faircheallaigh C. 2009. Effectiveness in social impact assessment: aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 27(2):95–110. doi:https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X438715.
- Ochieng EG, Price ADF. 2009. Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural construction project teams: the case of Kenya and UK. Int J Project Manage. 28(5):449–460. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.08.001.
- Othengrafen F. 2010. Spatial planning as expression of culturised planning practices: the examples of Helsinki, Finland and Athens, Greece. Town Plan Rev. 81(1):83–110. doi:https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.25.
- Patiwael PR, Groote P, Vanclay F. 2019. Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique of the ICOMOS guidelines. Int J Heritage Stud. 25(4):333–347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1477057.
- Patiwael PR, Groote P, Vanclay F. 2020. The influence of framing on the legitimacy of impact assessment: examining the heritage impact assessments conducted for the Liverpool Waters project. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38(4):308–319. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1734402.
- 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. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 70:34–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.01.004.
- ProRail. 2014. Information document: location choice train depot sprinters with Uitgeest as final destination. [Informatiedocument: locatiekeuze opstelterrein sprinters met eindstation Uitgeest]. Utrecht (the Netherlands): ProRail.
- ProRail. 2019. Geen opstelterrein voor Uitgeest. [Accessed 2020 May 20]. https://www.prorail.nl/overheden/nieuws/geen-opstelterrein-voor-uitgeest?.
- Provincie Noord Holland. 2014. Planstudie Verbinding A8-A9: notitie Reikwijdte en Detailniveau. Haarlem (the Netherlands): Provincie Noord Holland.
- RCE. 2020a. Behoedzaam ontwikkelen in de Stelling van Amsterdam: goedkeuring voor geoptimaliseerde oplossing. [Accessed 2020 May 20]. https://praktijkvoorbeelden.cultureelerfgoed.nl/praktijkvoorbeelden/behoedzaam-ontwikkelen-de-stelling-van-amsterdam/goedkeuring-voor.
- RCE. 2020b. Wie zijn betrokken bij het Nederlands Werelderfgoed?. [Accessed 2020 May 26]. https://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/onderwerpen/werelderfgoed/wie-zijn-betrokken-bij-het-nederlands-werelderfgoed.
- Rozema JG, Bond AJ. 2015. Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:66–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.001.
- 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:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.05.003.
- Sanyal B. 2005. Preface. In: Sanyal B, editor. Comparative planning cultures. New York (USA): Routledge; xix–xxiv.
- Schmidt VA. 2013. Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: input, output and ‘Throughput’. Polit Stud. 61(1):2–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x.
- Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T. 2015. Planning cultures and histories: influences on the evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns. Eur Plann Stud. 23(11):2127–2132. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1016402.
- Stelling van Amsterdam. 2021. Stelling van Amsterdam: UNESCO Werelderfgoed. [Accessed 2021 Apr 15]. https://www.stellingvanamsterdam.nl/nl/historie/stelling-van-amsterdam.
- Strebel MA, Kübler D, Marcinkowski F. 2019. The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: evidence from a population-based survey experiment in four West European countries. Eur J Polit Res. 58(2):488–513. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12293.
- Taylor Z. 2013. Rethinking planning culture: a new institutionalist approach. Town Plann Rev. 84(6):683–702. doi:https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2013.36.
- Ton Y. 2019. Opstelterrein Uitgeest toch niet nodig voor hoogfrequent spoorvervoer. SpoorPro: Vakblad voor de Spoorsector. Rotterdam (the Netherlands). [Accessed 2020 May 20]. https://www.spoorpro.nl/materieel/2019/02/05/opstelterrein-uitgeest-toch-niet-nodig-voor-hoogfrequent-spoorvervoer/?gdpr=accept.
- UNESCO. 2021. Defence Line of Amsterdam. Paris (France): UNESCO. [Accessed 2021 Apr 16]. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/759.
- Valler D, Phelps NA. 2018. Faming the future: on local planning cultures and legacies. Plann Theor Pract. 19(5):698–716. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1537448.
- van Lente G. 1997. De groep, de kunst met groepen te werken. Utrecht (the Netherlands): Het Spectrum.
- van Rotterdam M. 2015. Werelderfgoed van Nederland: UNESCO - Monumenten van nu en de toekomst. Utrecht (the Netherlands): Uitgeverij Lias.
- van Straalen FM, van den Brink A, van Tatenhove J. 2016. Integration and decentralization: the evolution of Dutch regional land policy. Int Plann Stud. 21(2):148–163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2015.1115338.
- 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:https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.850307.
- Visser J, Hemerijck A. 1997. A Dutch Miracle: job Growth, welfare reform and corporatism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam (the Netherlands): Amsterdam University Press.
- Warsen R, Greve C, Klijn EH, Koppenjan JFM, Siemiatycki M. 2019. How do professionals perceive the governance of public-private partnerships? Evidence from Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark. Public Adm. 98(1):124–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12626.
- Woltjer J. 2002. The ‘public support machine’: notions of the function of participatory planning by Dutch infrastructure planners. Plann Pract Res. 17(4):437–453. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450216358.
- Zonneveld WAM, Evers D. 2014. Dutch national spatial planning at the end of an era. In: Reimer M, Getimis P, Blotevogel H, editors. Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: a comparative perspective on continuity and changes. New York (USA): Routledge; p. 61–82.