Distilling best practice principles for public participation in impact assessment follow-up

References

• André P, Enserink B, Connor D, Croal P. 2006. Public participation international best practice principles. Special publication series. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment; available: http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP4.pdf accessed 4
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein SR. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assocn. 35(4):216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts J. 1998. EIA follow-up – on the role of ex post evaluation in environmental impact assessment. GeoPress (Groningen).
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Caldwell P, Morrison-Saunders A. 2001. Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions – findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 Conference. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 19(3):175–185. doi:10.3152/147154601781767014.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A (2022), Impact Assessment Follow-up: International Best Practice Principles, Special Publication Series No. 6, International Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo USA. Available: https://iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP6_22%20Follow%20up_converted.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Nooteboom S. 1999. Environmental impact assessment monitoring and auditing. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment volume 1: environmental Impact assessment: process, methods and potential. Oxford: Blackwell Science; p. 229–251.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Tomlinson P, Voogd H. 2011. Planning in tiers: tiering as a way of linking EIA and SEA. In: Sadler B, Aschemann R, Dusik J, Fischer TB, Partidario M, Verheem R, editors. Handbook of strategic environmental assessment. Earthscan (London); p. 415–433.
   Google Scholar
• Au E, Hui S. 2004. Learning by doing: EIA follow-up in Hong Kong. In: Saunders AM, Arts J, editors. Assessing impact: handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London: Earthscan James and James; p. 197–223.
   Google Scholar
• Burdett T, Sinclair J. forthcoming. Public participation in impact assessment handbook. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Carley M. 1986. Monitoring as an extension of the impact assessment process for large projects. Proj Apprais. 1(2):88–95. doi:10.1080/02688867.1986.9726545.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Axelsson A. 2013. The mediation of environmental assessment’s influence: what role for power? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 39:5–12. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croal P, Tetreault C, Members of the IAIA IP section, 2012. Members of the IAIA IP section, Special Publication Series No. 99. Fargo. International Association for Impact Assessment, USA. https://www.iaia.org/up loads/pdf/SP9_Indigenous_Peoples_Traditional_Knowledge.pdf (accessed 10 Jan).
   Google Scholar
• DEAT – Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2005. Environmental monitoring committees (EMCs). Integr Environ Assess Manag. 21: DEAT: Pretoria, available Accessed: https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/series21environmental_monitiring_committees.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Devlin J (2011). Community Engagement for Adaptive Management in Environmental Assessment Follow-up: Final Report, N.T. Yap Environmental Systems Analysts Limited available: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ec/En1 06-99-2011-eng.pdf [ accessed 10Jan2022].
   Google Scholar
• Devlin J, Tubino SJ. 2012. Contention, participation, and mobilization in environmental assessment follow-up: the Itabira experience. Sustainability. 8(1):106–115.
   Google Scholar
• Edelenbos J, Klijn EH. 2006. Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: a comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. J Public Adm Res Theory. 16(3):417–446. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick P, Williams B (2020), Building the system: Follow-up, monitoring & adaptive management, The University of Winnipeg: Winnipeg (MB). http://winnspace.uwinnipeg.ca/bitstream/handle/10680/1787/08%2004%202020%20KMG%20IA%20Follow%20Up%20FItzpatrick%20WIlliams.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [accessed 2022 Jan 5].
   Google Scholar
• Fricker R. 2008. Sampling methods for web and E-mail surveys. In: Fielding N, Lee RM, Blank G, editors. The SAGE handbook of online research methods. London: Sage; p. 195–217.
   Google Scholar
• Gachechiladze-Bozhesku M. 2012. Towards improving strategic environmental assessment follow-up through stakeholder participation: a case of the pasquia-porcupine forest management plan, Saskatchewan, Canada. J Environ Plan Manag. 55(8):1058–1074. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.636544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson J. 1994. Life after the decision. Built Environ. 20(4):309–320.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J. 2022. Follow-up: post-decision learning in EIA. In: Fonseca A, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; pp. 198–218.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R. 2019. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Greene G, MacLaren J, Sadler B (1987), Workshop Summary, in: Sadler B (ed), Audit and Evaluation in Environmental Assessment and Management, Canadian and International Experience, Volume 1 Commissioned Research, Proceedings of the Conference on Follow-up/Audit of EIA Results, 13–16 October 1985, Banff, Environment Canada: Ottawa: Environment Canada, 301–315.
   Google Scholar
• Grima A (1997), The role of public participation In EA follow-up, in: Munn RE, Wheaton P (eds), Proceedings Environmental Assessment Follow-up and Monitoring Workshop, April 15-16, 1997, Research And Development Reports Series, University of Toronto Institute for Environmental Studies, Environment Canada: Ottawa, 39–46.
   Google Scholar
• Gulakov I, Vanclay F, Arts J. 2020. Modifying social impact assessment to enhance the effectiveness of company social investment strategies in contributing to local community development. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(5):296–382. doi:10.1080/14615517.2020.1765302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamersma M, Heinen E, Tillema T, Arts J. 2017. The development of highway nuisance perception: experiences of residents along the Southern Ring Road in Groningen, the Netherlands. Land Use Policy. 61(7):553–563. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.008.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna P, Vanclay F. 2013. Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of free, prior and informed consent. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 31(2):146–157. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.780373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna P, Vanclay F, Langdon EJ, Arts J. 2016a. The importance of cultural aspects in impact assessment and project development: reflections from a case study of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 34(4):306–318. doi:10.1080/14615517.2016.1184501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna P, Vanclay F, Langdon EJ, Arts J. 2016b. Conceptualizing social protest and the significance of protest actions to large projects. Extr Ind Soc. 3(1):217–239. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2015.10.006.
   Google Scholar
• Hollick M (1981), Report on environmental impact assessment procedures in Western Australia, Nedlands: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Western Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Hulett J, Diab R. 2002. EIA follow-up in South Africa: current status and recommendations. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 4(3):297–309. doi:10.1142/S1464333202001066.
   Google Scholar
• Hunsberger CA, Gibson R, Wismer S. 2005. Citizen involvement in sustainability-centred environmental assessment follow-up. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25(6):609–627. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IAIA and IEA – International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute for Environmental Assessment UK, (1999). Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice. availablewww.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/principlesEA_1.pdf (accessed 2022 Jan 3).
   Google Scholar
• IAP2 - International Association for Public Participation (2018), IAP2ʹs spectrum of public participation, available: https://iap2.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2018_IAP2_Spectrum.pdf [accessed 2022 Jan 3].
   Google Scholar
• ICMM – International Council on Mining and Metals (2010), Good practice guide: indigenous peoples and mining, ICMM: London, https://www.socialimpactassessment.com/documents/ICMM%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20and%20Mining.pdf [ accessed 10Jan2022].
   Google Scholar
• IEMA – Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency (2020), Annual Report 2019-2020 Plain Language, IEMA: Yellowknife (available): https://monitoringagency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2019-2020-IEMA_Annual_Report-Plain-language-WR.pdf [accessed 2022 Jan 5].
   Google Scholar
• IFC – International Finance Corporation (2007), Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets, IFC: Washington, available: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-ifc/publications/publications_handbook_stakeholderengagement__wci__1319577185063 [accessed 2022 Jan 5].
   Google Scholar
• IFC [International Finance Corporation] and On Common Ground (2010), International Lessons of Experience and Best Practice in Participatory Monitoring in Extractive Industry Projects: Guidance Note on Designing Participatory Monitoring Programs, Washington: IFC, available: https://commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/publications/Guidance-Note-on-Participatory-Monitoring-and-Extractive-Industries.pdf [ accessed 5Jan2022].
   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(3):1077–1086. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.070.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R. 2004. Can industry benefit from participation in EIA-follow-up? The ScottishPower experience. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, editors. Assessing impact — handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. London: Earthscan; p. 118–153.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R, Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2005. International principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 23(3):175–181. doi:10.3152/147154605781765490.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R, Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2005. International Principles for Best Practice EIA Follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 23(3):175–181. DOI:10.3152/147154605781765490.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R, Morrison-Saunders A. 2003. EIA follow-up - linking impact assessment with implementation. envi. 17:16–19.
   Google Scholar
• Mayring P (2014), Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Available at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173; last accessed 2022 Jul 5.
   Google Scholar
• McKay A, Johnson C. 2017. Confronting barriers and recognizing opportunities: developing effective community-based environmental monitoring programs to meet the needs of Aboriginal communities. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 64:15–16. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2017. Conceptualising best practice in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 66:78–85. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J (2021), Smartening IA through follow-up: 50 years of learning – updating the best practice principles for IA follow-up, presented at: IAIA21 Smartening Impact Assessment in Challenging Times Virtual event; Seville, Spain. 2021 May 18-21, available https://conferences.iaia.org/2021/draft-papers/952_Morrison-Saunders_Smartening%20IA%20through%20follow-up.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J. forthcoming. Effectively engaging in public assessment follow-up. In: Burdett T, Sinclair J, editors. Public participation in impact assessment handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, Baker J. 2003. Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21(1):43–56. doi:10.3152/147154603781766527.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2021. Reflecting on, and revising, international best practice principles for EIA follow-up. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 89:106596. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Jenkins B, Bailey J. 2004. EIA follow-up and adaptive management. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, editors. Assessing Impact: handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London: Earthscan; p. 154–177.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Marshall R, Arts J.2007. EIA follow-up international best practice principles. Special publication series. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment; Availablehttp://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP6_1.pdf) 6
   Google Scholar
• Moyer J, Fitzpatrick P, Diduck A, Froese B 2008. Towards community-based monitoring in Manitoba’s hog industry. Canadian Public Administration. 51(4):637–658. DOI:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2008.00045.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyer J, Fitzpatrick P, Diduck A, Froese B 2008. Towards community-based monitoring in Manitoba’s hog industry. Canadian Public Administration. 51(4):637–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijland H, Hartemink S, van Kamp I, van Wee B. 2007. The influence of sensitivity for road traffic noise on residential location: does it trigger a process of spatial selection? J Acoust Soc Am or JASA. 122(3):1595–1601. doi:10.1121/1.2756970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble BF (2020), Follow-up and monitoring in impact assessment: synthesis of knowledge and practice. Technical research report prepared for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Ottawa. 76pp, available: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/iaac-acei/documents/research/Follow-up-and-Monitoring-in-Impact-Assessment-Synthesis-of-Knowledge-and-Practice-Noble-2020.pdf [ accessed 3Jan2022].
   Google Scholar
• O’Faircheallaigh C. 2007. Environmental agreements, EIA follow-up and aboriginal participation in environmental management: the Canadian experience. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(4):319–342. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Riordan T, Sewell WRD. 1981. From project appraisal to policy review. In: O’Riordan T, Sewell WRD, editors. Project Appraisal and Policy Review. New York: John Wiley & Sons; p. 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Olszynski M. 2021. Monitoring, follow-up, adaptive management, and compliance in the post decision phase. Doelle M, Sinclair J editors. The next generation of impact assessment: a critical review of the Canadian impact assessment act. Toronto: Irwin Law Inc; pp. 346–371.
   Google Scholar
• Partidario M, Arts J. 2005. Exploring the concept of strategic environmental assessment follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 23(3):246–257. doi:10.3152/147154605781765481.
   Google Scholar
• Pillow W. 2003. Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 16(2):175–196. doi:10.1080/0951839032000060635.
   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 Environ Assess Policy Manag. 21(2):32. doi:10.1142/S146433321950008X.
   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. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 70:34–44. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross WA. 2004. The independent environmental watchdog: a Canadian experiment in EIA follow-up. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, editors. Assessing Impact — handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. London: Earthscan; p. 178–196.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B, McCabe M (2002), Environmental Impact Assessment training resource manual. 2nd ed., United Nations Environment Programme UNEP Training Manual. UNEP, Economics and Trade Branch: Geneva, available: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26503/EIA_Training_Resource_Manual.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [ accessed 3Jan2022].
   Google Scholar
• Solbar L, Keskitalo E 2017. A role for authority supervision in impact assessment? Examples from Finnish EIA reviews. Arctic Review on Law and Politics. 8:52–72.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart J, Sinclair J. 2007. Public participation in environmental assessment: perspectives from canadian participants, proponents, and government. J Environ Plan Manag. 9(2):161–183.
   Google Scholar
• Strangway R, Dunn M, Erless R. 2016. Monitoring Nutimesanan following the diversion of our river: a community led registry in Eeyou Istchee, Northern Quebec. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 18(1):21. doi:10.1142/S1464333216500010.
   Google Scholar
• Thérivel R, González Del Campo A (2019), Guidance on strategic environmental assessment–environmental impact assessment tiering, EPA Research Report (2019-SE-DS-21), Environmental Protection Agency: Wexford (Ireland): available: https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/socio-economics/Research_Report_392.pdf [ accessed 5Jan2022].
   Google Scholar
• UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1990), Post-project analysis in environmental impact assessment, ECE/ENVWA/11, United Nations: New York, available: https://unece.org/DAM/env/documents/1990/ece.envwa.11.e.pdf [accessed 2022 Jan 3].
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Esteves A-M, Aucamp I, Franks D (2015), Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects, International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, available: https://www.iaia.org/pdf/IAIA%202015%20Social%20Impact%20Assessment%20guidance%20document%20copy.pdf [accessed 2022 Jan 3].
   Google Scholar
• Wessels J-A FR, Morrison-Saunders A. 2015. Appraising the value of independent EIA Follow-up Verifiers. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:178–189. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar