Gaining a deeper understanding of the psychology underpinning significance judgements in environmental impact assessment (EIA)

References

• Bartlett R, Kurian P. 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making. Policy Polit. 24(4):415‐433.
   Google Scholar
• Beanlands G, Duinker P. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Halifax (Canada): Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
   Google Scholar
• Beike D, Sherman S. 1998. Framing of comparisons in research and practice. J Appl Psychol. 7(3):161‐180. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80019-8.
   Google Scholar
• Bond AJ, Lovett DA, Riche AB, Haughton AJ, Bohan DA, Sage RB, Shield IF, Finch JW, Turner MM, Karp A. 2011. Learning how to deal with values, frames and governance in Sustainability Appraisal. Reg Stud. 45(8):1157‐1170. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.485181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner LA, Koehler DJ, Tversky A. 1996. On the Evaluation of One‐Sided Evidence. J Behav Decis Mak. 9(1):59‐70. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199603)9:1<59::AID-BDM216>3.0.CO;2-V.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown AL, McDonald GT. 1995. From Environmental Impact Assessment to environmental design and planning. Australas J Environ Manag. 2(2):65‐77.
   Google Scholar
• Carstensen LL, Gottman JM, Levenson RW. 2004. Emotional Behavior in Long‐Term Marriage. In: Reis HT, Rusbult CE, editors. Close relationships. Philadelphia: Tylor and Frances; p. 457‐470.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M. 2004. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development in theory. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 24(4):403‐426. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2003.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duarte CG, Sánchez LE. 2020. Addressing significant impacts coherently in environmental impact statements. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 3:82.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich A, (2021) Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal.
   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
• Fiske A, Tetlock P. 1997. Taboo Trade‐Offs: reactions to Transactions that Transgress the Spheres of Justice. Polit Psychol. 18(2):255‐297. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox C. 1999. Strength of Evidence, Judged Probability, and Choice under Uncertainty. Cogn Psychol. 38(1):167‐189. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson RB. 2005. Sustainability Assessment: criteria and Processes. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2012. Introduction to impact assessment. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hardisty PE. 2010. Environmental and Economic Sustainability. Baton Rouge (USA): CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haug PT, Burwell RW, Stein A, Bandurski BL. 1984. Determining the significance of environmental issues under the National Environmental Policy Act. J Environ Manage. 18:15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman PJ, Slovic P, Rorer LG. 1968. An Analysis of Variance Model for the Assessment for the Assessment of Configural Cue Utilization in Clinical Judgment. Psychol Bull. 69(5):338‐339. doi:10.1037/h0025665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• João E, Vanclay F, Den Broeder L. 2011. Emphasising enhancement in all forms of impact assessment: introduction to a special issue. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 29(3):170‐180. doi:10.3152/146155111X12959673796326.
   Google Scholar
• Jones M, Morrison-Saunders A. 2016. Making sense of significance in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 34(1):87–93. doi:10.1080/14615517.2015.1125643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D. 2012. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Klein G. 2009. Conditions for Intuitive Expertise: a Failure to Disagree. Am Psychol. 64(6):515‐526. doi:10.1037/a0016755.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1984. Choices, Values, and Frames. Am Psychol. 39(4):341‐350. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King N (2009), ‘Ensuring Development Provides Net Benefit to Society: changing IA to Contribution Assessment’, Accra, Ghana, Presentation, IAIA Conference Proceedings.
   Google Scholar
• Klein WC, Bloom M. 1995. Practice Wisdom. Soc Work. 40(6):799‐807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence D. 2007. Impact significance determination – back to basics. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(8):755–769. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. 2001. Risk and Feelings. Psychol Bull. 127(2):267‐286. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyhne I, Kørnøv L. 2013. How do we make sense of significance? Indications and reflections on an experiment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 31(3):180–189. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.795694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meehl PE. 1954. Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller GA. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 63(2):81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK, Kahneman D. 2010. Associated Processes and Intuitive Judgment. Trends Cogn Sci. 14(10):435‐440. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison‐Saunders A, Bailey M. 2009. Appraising the Role of Relationships between Regulators and Consultants for Effective EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(5):284‐294. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Gunn J, Bond A, Retief F. 2014. Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(1):2–8. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.872841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nauts S, Langner O, Huijsmans I, Vonk R, Wigboldus D. 2014. Forming Impressions of Personality, A Replication and Review of Asch’s (1946) Evidence for a Primacy-of-Warmth Effect in Impression Formation. Soc Psychol. 45(3):153. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill S, Nicholson‐Cole S. 2009. Fear won’t do it: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci Commun. 30:355‐379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer DM. 2006. Consequences or Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: problems with Using Long Words Needlessly. Appl Cogn Psychol. 20(2):139‐156. doi:10.1002/acp.1178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ Plann. 36(11):1943‐1959. doi:10.1068/a36281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F, Bond A, Gunn J, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2014. International perspectives on strengthening impact assessment through integration and focus. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(1):27–30. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.885638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for Environmental Assessment (EA) practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:52–60. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief FP, Mlangeni G, Sandham LA. 2011. The effectiveness of state of the environment reporting (SoER) at the local government sphere – a developing country’s experience. Local Environ. 16(7):619‐636. doi:10.1080/13549839.2011.582860.
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A, Geneletti D, Pope J. 2013. Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision making in EIA. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 31(1):13–23. doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.768007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A. 2015. Key learning from psychology for sustainability assessment. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, editors. Handbook of Sustainability Assessment. London: Edward Elgar; p. 403–423.
   Google Scholar
• Ross D. 2018. Environmental impact communication: Cape Wind EIS, 2001–2015. J Tech Writ Commun. 48(2):222–249. doi:10.1177/0047281617706910.
   Google Scholar
• Rozin P, Royzman EB. 2001. Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 5(4):296‐320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B, McCabe M. 2002. UNEP Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme, Economics and Trade Branch; 561.
   Google Scholar
• Sandham L, Van Heerden A, Jones C, Retief F, Morrison-Saunders A. 2013. Does Enhanced Regulation Improve EIA report Quality? Lessons from South Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:155–162. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schanteau J. 1988. Psycological Characteristics and Strategies of Expert Decision Makers. Acta Psychol. 68:203‐215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz B. 2004. The Paradox of Choice: why More Is Less. New York: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Scruton R. 2012. Green philosophy – how to think seriously about the planet. London: Atlantic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair J, Diduck A, Fitzpatrick P. 2008. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(7):415–428. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sippe R. 1999. Criteria and standards for assessing significant impact. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment volume 1: process, methods and potential. Malden (MA): Blackwell Science; p. 74–92.
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2002. The Affect Heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, editors. Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; p. 397‐420.
   Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J. 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Swift V, Wilson KE, Peterson JB. 2020. Zooming in on the attentional foundations of the Big Five. Pers Individ Dif. 164:110000. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson MA. 1990. Determining impact significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies. J Environ Manage. 30(3):235–250. doi:10.1016/0301-4797(90)90004-G.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vohs KD, Mead NL, Goode MR. 2006. The Psychological Consequences of Money. Science. 314(5802):1154‐1156. doi:10.1126/science.1132491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardekker JA, van der Sluijs JP, Janssen PHM, Kloprogge P, Petersen AC. 2008. Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: views from the Dutch science-policy interface. Environ Sci Policy. 11(7):627–641. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.05.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: a comparative review. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wood G. 2008. Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(1):22–38. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood G, Rodriguez-Bachiller A, Becker J. 2007. Fuzzy sets and simulated environmental change: evaluating and communicating significance in environmental impact assessment. Environ Plan A. 39(pages):810–829. doi:10.1068/a3878.
   Google Scholar
• Xinyue Z, Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. 2009. The Symbolic Power of Money: reminders of Money Alter Social Distress and Physical Pain. Psychol Sci. 20(6):700‐706. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02353.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar