Understanding impact assessment from other perspectives: what might nature have to say?

References

• Andrade MMD, Turra A. 2021. Advancing towards the implementation of ecosystem-based environmental impact assessment for coastal zone. Ocean Coastal Manage. 215:105973. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anthony SJ, Morrison-Saunders A. 2022. Analysing corporate forest disclosure: how does business value biodiversity? Bus Strategy Environ. 1–15. doi: 10.1002/bse.3164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atchison J, Head L. 2016. Rethinking ethnobotany? A methodological reflection on human-plant research. In: Participatory research in more-than-human worlds. London: Routledge; p. 192–205.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey JM, Saunders AN. 1988. Ongoing environmental impact assessment as a force for change. Project Appraisal. 3(1):37–42. doi:10.1080/02688867.1988.9726652.
   Google Scholar
• Barad K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barua M. 2020. Affective economies, pandas, and the atmospheric politics of lively capital. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 45(3):678–692. doi:10.1111/tran.12361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett J. 2010. Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bina O. 2013. The green economy and sustainable development: an uneasy balance? Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 31(6):1023–1047. doi:10.1068/c1310j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Fundingsland M, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F, Hauptfleisch M. 2020. Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): a neo-gramscian perspective. J Cleaner Prod. 24(118694):1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118694
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 2021. Taking an environmental ethics perspective to understand what we should expect from EIA in terms of biodiversity protection. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 86:106508. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106508
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowd R, Quinn NW, Kotze DC. 2015. Toward an analytical framework for understanding complex social-ecological systems when conducting environmental impact assessments in South Africa. Ecol Soc. 20(1):41. doi:10.5751/ES-07057-200141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CIRIA] Construction Industry Research and Information Association, [CIEEM] Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and IEMA. 2016. Biodiversity net gain good practice principles for development. England: CIEEM. [cited 2022 Nov 4]. Available from: https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Biodiversity-Net-Gain-Principles.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Country B, Wright S, Suchet-Pearson S, Lloyd K, Burarrwanga L, Ganambarr R, Maymuru D 2015. Working with and learning from Country: Decentring human author-ity. Cultural geographies. 22(2):269–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cresswell ID, Janke T, Johnston EL (2021). Australia state of the environment 2021: overview, independent report to the Australian government minister for the environment, commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 10.26194/f1rh-7r05. (Accessed: 2022 Nov 4).
   Google Scholar
• Croal P, Tetreault C & members of the IAIA IP Section. 2012. Respecting indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge. special publication series No. 9. Fargo, USA: International association for impact assessment. [cited 2022 Nov 4]. Available from: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP9_Indigenous_Peoples_Traditional_Knowledge.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dasgupta PS. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review (HM Treasury). [cited 2022 Nov 4]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze G, Guattari F (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich A. 2021. Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 40(2):129–145. doi:10.1080/14615517.2021.1996901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernwein M, Ginn F, Palmer J, editors. 2021. The work that plants do: Life, labour and the future of vegetal economies. New York: Colombia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fairfax SK. 1978. A disaster in the environmental movement: the national environmental policy act has wasted environmentalist’s resources on processing papers. Science. 199(4330):743–748. doi:10.1126/science.199.4330.743
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Riechers M. 2019. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat. 1(1):115–120. doi:10.1002/pan3.13.
   Google Scholar
• Fox M, Martin P, Green G. 2007. Doing practitioner research: developing the practitioner researcher. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson R, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G 2005. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Guattari F. 1989. The three ecologies. Durham: Whitechapel Gallery, MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway D. 2016. Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hopper S. 2021. Out of the OCBILs: new hypotheses for the evolution, ecology and conservation of the eucalypts. Biol J Linn Soc. 133(2):342–372. doi:10.1093/biolinnean/blaa160.
   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. [cited 2022 Nov 4] available from: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/Principles%20of%20IA%2019.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ibarra JT, Cockle K, Altamirano T, van der Hoek Y, Simard S, Bonacic C, Martin K. 2020. Nurturing resilient forest biodiversity: nest webs as complex adaptive systems. Ecol Soc. 25(2):27. doi:10.5751/ES-11590-250227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold T. 2011. Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson MC. 2019. Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Latour B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Crit Inq. 30(2):225–248. doi:10.1086/421123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavy P. 2017. Research design: quantitative. Qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leavy P. 2020. Bridging the art–science divide. In: Method meets art: arts-based research practice. Third. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mathews F. 2018. Relating to nature: deep ecology or ecofeminism? In: Stevens L, Tait P, Varney D, editors. Feminist ecologies: changing environments in the anthropocene. New York: Springer International Publishing; p. 35–55. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64385-4_3
   Google Scholar
• Mathews F. 2019. Biomimicry and the problem of praxis. Environ Values. 28(5):573–599. doi:10.3197/096327119X15579936382400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazé C, Coston-Guarini J, Danto A, Lambrechts A, Ragueneau O. 2018. Dealing with impact. An interdisciplinary, multi-site ethnography of environmental impact assessment in the coastal zone. Nat Sci Soc. 26(3):328–337. doi:10.1051/nss/2018050.
   Google Scholar
• Miller R-E. 1984. The EIS and the decision maker: closing the gap. In: Hart SL, Enk GA, Hornick WF, Jordan JJ, Perreault P, editors. Improving impact assessment: increasing the relevance and utilization of scientific and technical information Westview press, Inc. Boulder: Colorado; p. 289–311.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, Pope J, Bond A, Retief F. 2022. Distilling best practice principles for public participation in impact assessment follow-up. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. doi:10.1080/14615517.2022.2119527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Fischer T. 2006. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? - A skeptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment. J Environ Assess Plann Manage. 8(1):1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Naess A. 1973. The shallow and the deep, long range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry. 16(1–4):95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nykiel .2021. The lithic thinking of plant miners In: Phillips P (ed) Tectonics bringing together artistic practices united by lithic thinking beyond human scales. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357781384_Tectonics_bringing_together_artistic_practices_united_by_lithic_thinking_beyond_human_scales
   Google Scholar
• O’Bryan K. 2019. The changing face of river management in Victoria: the Yarra River protection (Wilip-gin birrarung murron) act 2017 (Vic). water international, 44 (6-7),769-785. 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.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell E. 2020. Rivers as living beings: rights in law, but no rights to water? Griffith Law Rev. 29(4):643–668. doi:10.1080/10383441.2020.1881304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pillow W 2003. Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking theuses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 16(2):175–196. doi:10.1080/0951839032000060635.
   Google Scholar
• Plumwood V. 2002. Environmental culture: the ecological crisis of reason. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pope J, Bond A, Hugé J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2017. Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:205–215. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RiverOfLife M, Pelizzon A, Poelina A, Akhtar-Khavari A, Clark C, Laborde S, Macpherson E, O’Bryan K, O’Donnell E, Page J. 2021a. Yoongoorrookoo: the emergence of ancestral personhood. Griffith Law Rev. 30(3):505–529. doi:10.1080/10383441.2021.1996882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RiverOfLife M, Taylor KS, Poelina A, Martuwarra RiverOfLife, Katherine S Taylor & Anne Poelina Living Waters. 2021b. Law first: nyikina and Mangala water governance in the Kimberley, Western Australia (2021). Australas J Water Resour. 25(1):40–56. doi:10.1080/13241583.2021.1880538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque D, Oliveira A, Partidário M. 2020. You see what I mean? – a review of visual tools for inclusive public participation in EIA decision-making processes. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 83:106413. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez LE, Souza BA, Siqueira-Gay J, Valetich R, Rosa JCS. 2022. Pathways to achieve net positive impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services in mining. São Paulo: fundação para o Desenvolvimento Tecnológico da Engenharia. [cited 2022 Nov 4]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361429255_Pathways_to_achieve_net_positive_impact_on_biodiversity_and_ecosystem_services_in_mining
   Google Scholar
• Sands P, Peel J. 2012. Principles of international environmental law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sawkins D, Verboom WH, Pate JS. 2011. Native vegetation in Western Australia is actively involved with soil formation. In: Department of primary industries and regional development. Western Australia (Perth): Bulletin; p. 4823.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Doelle M, Gibson RB. 2018. Implementing next generation assessment: a case example of a global challenge. Environ Impact Assess Rev 72:166e176. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stengers I. 2010. Cosmopolitics. Vol. 1, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strand M, Rivers N, Baasch R, Snow B. 2022. Developing arts-based participatory research for more inclusive knowledge co-production in Algoa Bay. Curr Res Environ Sustainability. 4:100178. doi:10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100178
   Google Scholar
• Toland A, Noller JS, Wessolek G, Eds. 2018. Field to palette: dialogues on soil and art in the anthropocene. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsing A. 2015. The mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• [UNEP] United Nations Environment Program. 2018. Assessing environmental impacts- A global review of legislation, Nairobi: UNEP. [cited 2022 Nov 4]. available from: http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/22691
   Google Scholar
• Vago MV, Strachan S. 2021. Reflexivity, methodologies and collaboration in art practice: plough through and the air we breathe. Innovative Practice in Higher Education. http://journals.staffs.ac.uk/index.php/ipihe/article/view/230
   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. [cited 2022 Nov 4]. available from: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Vanclayetal2015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren T, Rose DB. 2016. Lively ethography. Environ Humanit. 8(1):77–94. doi:10.1215/22011919-3527731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Patter L, Turnbull J, Dodsworth J. 2021. More-than-human collaborations” for hacking the anthropocene. Feral Feminisms:10. https://feralfeminisms.com/issue1/issue-10-hacking-the-anthropocene/
   Google Scholar
• Virapongse A, Brooks S, Metcalf EC, Zedalis M, Gosz J, Kliskey A, Alessa L. 2016. A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management. J Environ Manage. 178:83–91. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WADMIRS – Western Australia Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety. 2022. Western Australia mineral and petroleum statistics digest 2020-21; WADMIRS (formerly Department of Mines): Perth. https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Investors/Stats_Digest%2020_21.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wood C, Bailey J. 1994. Predominance and independence in environmental impact assessment: the Western Australian model. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 14(1):37–59. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(94)90041-8
   Google Scholar