Improving cumulative effects assessment: alternative approaches based upon an expert survey and literature review

References

• Andronak B. 2017. Achieving Next Generation Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-up and Monitoring. MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba. p. 151 + Appendices.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold LM, Hanna K, Noble B. 2019. Freshwater cumulative effects and environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley Northwest Territories: Challenges and decision-maker Needs. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(6):516–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter W, Ross WA, Spaling H. 2001. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 19(4):253–262. doi:10.3152/147154601781766916.
   Google Scholar
• BC EAO (BC Environmental Assessment Office). 2013. Guideline for the Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects. Victoria, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Blakley JAE. 2021. Introduction: foundations, issues and contemporary challenges in cumulative impact assessment. In: Blakley JAE, Franks DM, editors. Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; p. 2–20.
   Google Scholar
• Blakley JAE, Franks DM, Eds. 2021. Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 416
   Google Scholar
• Blakley JAE, Noble B. 2021. Assessing cumulative effects in regional and strategic assessment. In: Blakley JAE, Franks DM, editors. Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; p. 158–173.
   Google Scholar
• Blakley J, Noble B, MacLean J. 2021. The Scope and Focus of Cumulative Effects and Regional Assessment. In: Doelle M, Sinclair AJ, editors. The Next Generation of Impact Assessment: a Critical Review of the Canadian Impact Assessment Act. Toronto, Canada: Irwin Law; p. 241–256.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(1):53–62. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bragagnolo C, Geneletti D, Fischer TB. 2012. Cumulative effects in SEA of spatial plans – evidence from Italy and England. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(2):100–110. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.677522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canter LW, Ross B. 2010. State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 28(4):261–268.
   Google Scholar
• CEA Agency (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) (2018a). Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Interim Technical Guidance March 2018 Version 1. 11.
   Google Scholar
• CEA Agency (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 2018b. Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Interim Technical Guidance, March 2018. Version 2:8.
   Google Scholar
• Dubé MG. 2003. Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: a regional framework for aquatic ecosystems. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23(6):723–745. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00113-6.
   Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Greig LA. 2006. The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: ailments and Ideas for Redeployment. Environ Manage. 37(2):153–161. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Greig LA. 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(3):206–219. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Greig LA. 2021. Scenario planning in cumulative effects assessment. In: Blakley JAE, Franks DM, editors. Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; p. 92–105.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich A. 2021. Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 40(2):1–17. doi:10.1080/14615517.2021.1996901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich A, Ross W. 2015. The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 33(2):87–97. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.981023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EPREAP (Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes). 2017. Building Common Ground: a New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada. The Final Report of the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes. Ottawa ON: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; p. 120.
   Google Scholar
• ESSA Technologies, Laurence J, Risk Sciences International, Trent University, Trinity Consultants. 2013. Kitimat Airshed Emissions Effects Assessment. Report Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment. 205.
   Google Scholar
• Foley MM, Mease LA, Martone RG, Prahler EE, Morrison TH, Murray CC, Wojcik D. 2017. The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:122–134. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser GS, Russell J. 2016. Following-Up on Uncertain Environmental Assessment Predictions: the Case of Offshore Oil Projects and Seabirds Off Newfoundland and Labrador. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 18(1):1650004. doi:10.1142/S1464333216500046.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai JL. 2006. Deconstructing Adaptive Management: criteria for Applications to Environmental Management. Ecological Applications. 16(6):2411–2425. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2411:DAMCFA]2.0.CO;2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greig L (2017). Enabling Cumulative Effects Assessment. 2017 Conference of the Ontario Association for Impact Assessment: the Art and Science of Cumulative Effects Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn J, Noble B. 2014. Definitions for cumulative effect, cumulative effects assessment and cumulative effects management. Research report prepared for the Canadian council of ministers of the environment cumulative effects assessment scoping project team under contract agreement. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Harriman JAE, Noble BF. 2008. Characterizing project and strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment in Canada. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 10(1):25–50. doi:10.1142/S1464333208002944.
   Google Scholar
• Hegmann G. 2021. The challenge of cumulative effects assessment at the project level. In: Blakley JAE, Franks DM, editors. Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; p. 62–74.
   Google Scholar
• IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2013. Good Practice Handbook: Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management. Washington: DC; p. 82.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson CJ, Ray JC. 2021. The challenge and opportunity of applying ecological thresholds to environmental assessment decision making. In: Blakely JAE, Franks DM, editors. Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment. Elgar: Northampton, MA; p. 140–157.
   Google Scholar
• Jones FC. 2016. Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems. Environ Reviews. 24(2):187–204. doi:10.1139/er-2015-0073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph C, Gunton TI, Hoffele J. 2020. Assessing the public interest in environmental assessment: lessons from cost-benefit analysis of an energy megaproject. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(5):1–15. doi:10.1080/14615517.2020.1780371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph C, Zeeg T, Angus D, Usborne A, Mutrie E. 2017. Use of significance thresholds to integrate cumulative effects into project-level socio-economic impact assessment in Canada. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 67:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennett SA. 1999. Towards a New Paradigm for Cumulative Effects Management. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resource Law; p. 70.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence DP. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: practical solutions to recurrent problems. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; p. 562.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner J. 2018. If you build it, will they come? Using historical development patterns to better anticipate future development scenarios for cumulative effects assessment. Vancouver, Canada: Doctor of Philosophy, University of British Columbia; p. 203.
   Google Scholar
• MacLean J, Noble B, Blakley J. 2021. Strategic and Regional Assessments. In: Doelle M, Sinclair AJ, editors. The next generation of impact assessment: a critical review of the Canadian impact assessment act. Toronto, Canada: Irwin Law; p. 372–387.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews WH. 1975. Objective and subjective judgements in Environmental Impact Analysis. Environ Conserv. 2(2):121–131. doi:10.1017/S037689290000103X.
   Google Scholar
• Mehdic A, Gunton T, Rutherford M. 2020. Assessing the role of subjective judgment and science in environmental impact assessment: implications and options for reform. J Environ Plan Manag. 63(10):1771–1790. doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1688650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metlakatla First Nation. 2019. Metlakatla Cumulative Effects Management: Methods, Results, and Future Direction of a First Nation-led CEM Program. Metlakatla, Canada; p. 65.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(1):5–14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan R. 2017. Environmental impact assessment. In: Richardson, Douglas, Castree, Noel, Goodchild, Michael F., Kobayashi, Audrey, Weidong, Liu, Marston, Richard A. editors. The international encyclopedia of geography: people, the Earth, environment, and technology. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Muellmann S, Brand T, Jürgens D, Gansefort D, Zeeb H. 2021. How many key informants are enough? Analysing the validity of the community readiness assessment. BMC Res Notes. 14(1):85. doi:10.1186/s13104-021-05497-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CC, Wong J, Singh GG, Mach M, Lerner J, Ranieri B, Peterson St-Laurent G, Guimaraes A, Chan KMA. 2018. The Insignificance of Thresholds in Environmental Impact Assessment: an Illustrative Case Study in Canada. Environmental Management. 61(6):1062–1071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCEP (North Coast Cumulative Effects Project) (Undated). North Coast Data Management System 27 June 2022. https://www.north-coast-cumulative-effects.ca/.
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2010. Cumulative environmental effects and the tyranny of small decisions: towards meaningful cumulative effects assessment and management. Prince George B.C.: University of Northern British Columbia; p. 23.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2015. Cumulative effects research: achievements Status, Directions and Challenges in the Canadian Context. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 17(1):1550001.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B, Liu J, Hackett P. 2017. The contribution of project environmental assessment to assessing and managing cumulative effects: individually and collectively insignificant? Environ Manage. 59(4):531–545. doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0799-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olagunju A, Appiah DO, Cavalcanti PMPS, Durning B, Gonzalez JCT, MacLean J, Morgan R, Nelson R. 2021. Cumulative effects assessment requirements in selected developed and developing countries. In: Blakely JAE, Franks DM, editors. Handbook of cumulative impact assessment. Northampton MA USA: Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 21–42.
   Google Scholar
• Olagunju AO, Gunn JAE. 2015. Selection of valued ecosystem components in cumulative effects assessment: lessons from Canadian road construction projects. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 33(3):207–219. doi:10.1080/14615517.2015.1039382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross WA. 1998. Cumulative effects assessment: learning from Canadian case studies. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 16(4):267–276. doi:10.1080/14615517.1998.10600137.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Doelle M, Duinker PN. 2017. Looking up, down, and sideways: reconceiving cumulative effects assessment as a mindset. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:183–194. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Doelle M, Gibson RB. 2021. Next generation impact assessment: Exploring the key components. Impact assessment and project appraisal. 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh GG, Lerner J, Mach M, Murray CC, Ranieri B, St-Laurent GP, Wong J, Guimaraes A, Yunda-Guarin G, Satterfield T, et al. 2020. Scientific shortcomings in environmental impact statements internationally. People and Nature. 2(2):369–379. doi:10.1002/pan3.10081.
   Google Scholar
• Sunderland CV. 2021. Measures to effectively forecast potential cumulative effects. In: Blakley JAE, Franks DM, editors. Handbook of cumulative impact assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; p. 106–122.
   Google Scholar
• USAID CDIE (USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation). 1996. Conducting key informant interviews. Washington, DC, USA; p. 4.
   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; p. 98.
   Google Scholar
• Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science. 277(5325):494–499. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YESAB (Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board). 2021. The significance of cumulative effects as a matter to be considered in YESAB assessments. Whitehorse, Canada; p. 8.
   Google Scholar