Change-making in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): piloting changeology approach using England as a case study

References

• Abbasi S. 2023. Environmental impact assessment with rapid impact assessment matrix method during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study in Tehran, research square. [accessed 2024 Jan 11]. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3125845/v1.
   Google Scholar
• Alberts RC, Retief FP, Roos C, Cilliers DP, Arakele M. 2020. Re-thinking the fundamentals of EIA through the identification of key assumptions for evaluation. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(3):205–213. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1676069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Ghassani AM, Kamara JM, Anumba CJ, Carrillo PM. 2006. Prototype system for knowledge problem definition. J Constr Eng Manag. 132(5):516–524. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:5(516).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arabadjieva K. 2016. ‘Better regulation’ in environmental impact assessment: the amended EIA directive. J Environ Law. 28(1):159–168. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqw001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar H, 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 Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 14(4):1250025–1250040. doi: 10.1142/S1464333212500251.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson J, Loftus E, Jarvis J. 2015. The art of change making. London: Leadership Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Banhalmi-Zakar Z, Gronow C, Wilkinson L, Jenkins B, Pope J, Squires G, Witt K, Williams G, Womersley J. 2018. Evolution or revolution: where next for impact assessment? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 36(6):506–515. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1516846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BEIS (Department for business, energy & industrial strategy). 2023. Better regulation framework: interim guidance. The better regulation framework (Publishing.Service.gov.uk). [accessed 2023 Apr 11].
   Google Scholar
• Bell GG, Rochford L. 2016. Rediscovering SWOT’s integrative nature: a new understanding of an old framework. Int J Manage Educ. 14(3):310–326. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2016.06.003.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S, Fischer TB. 2020. Impact assessment for the 21st century – what future? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):89–93. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2020.1731202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Dusik J. 2020. Impact assessment for the twenty-first century – rising to the challenge. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):94–99. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1677083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron E, Green M. 2024. Making sense of change management: a complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore M, Hilding-Rydevik T, Martin S, Eva S. 2020. Remaking science-policy interfaces in the quest for effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):172–177. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2020.1724004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castree N, Bellamy R, Osaka S. 2021. The future of global environmental assessments: making a case for fundamental change. Anthropocene Rev. 8(1):56–82. doi: 10.1177/2053019620971664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEC. 1993. Report from the commission of the implementation of directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and annexes for member states. Com (93) 28 final - Vol.12, Brussels, April CEC.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. 1997. Report from the commission of the implementation of directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, CEC.
   Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2020. Evolution or revolution? Reflecting on IA effectiveness in Thailand. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):156–166. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1664821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C, Zheng Y, Vanclay F, Zhang Y. 2024. Enhancing the social outcomes from restrictions on arrivees during global public health emergencies: a social impact assessment perspective. EIA Rev. 105:107460. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107460.
   Google Scholar
• Cottrell S. 2017. Critical thing skills. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Crotty MJ. 1998. Foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government). 2016. Environmental impact assessment: technical consultation (regulations on planning and major infrastructure) (publishing.Service.gov.uk) [accessed 2022 Mar 10].
   Google Scholar
• DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government). 2017. Government response to the technical consultation on environmental impact assessment (regulations on planning and nationally significant infrastructure). Amending environmental impact assessment regulations - government response (publishing.Service.gov.uk) [accessed 2022 Mar 10].
   Google Scholar
• Deming WE. 1986. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dilay A, Diduck AP, Patel K. 2020. Environmental justice in India: a case study of environmental impact assessment, community engagement and public interest litigation. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(1):16–27. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1611035.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2003. On the application and effectiveness of the EIA directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by directive 97/11/EC) COM(2003) 334 final Microsoft Word - DGenv-PE-COM_2003_334-Report EIA Directive_EN_ACTE.DOC (europa.Eu). [accessed 2022 Sep 23].
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2023. Better regulation – joining forces to make better laws. better_regulation_joining_forces_to_make_better_laws_en_0.Pdf (europa.Eu). [accessed 2022 Aug 10].
   Google Scholar
• EC (European Commission). 1985. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC). EUR-Lex - 31985L0337 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) [accessed 2022 Dec 11].
   Google Scholar
• EC (European Commission). 2009a. Mid-term review of the sixth community environment action programme mid-term review of the sixth community environment action programme (europa.Eu) [accessed 2022 Aug 7].
   Google Scholar
• EC (European Commission). 2009b. Report from the commission on the application and effectiveness of the EIA directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC), COM/2009/0378 (EN (europa.Eu). [accessed 2022 Dec 11].
   Google Scholar
• EC (European commission). 2011. Opinion of the European economic and social committee on the ‘proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Codification)’ COM(2011) 189 final. [accessed 2022 Aug 27].
   Google Scholar
• EC (European Commission). 2014. DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU of the European parliament and of the council, amending directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. EUR-Lex - 32014L0052 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.Eu) [accessed 2022 Sep 13].
   Google Scholar
• Emerson K, Baldwin E. 2019. Effectiveness in NEPA decision making: in search of evidence and theory. J Environ Plann Policy Manage. 21(4):427–443. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1615421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feser E. 2017. Five proofs of the existence of god. San Francisco, USA: Ignatius Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2022a. Replacing EIA and SEA with Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs) - the 2022 levelling up and regeneration bill in the UK. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(4):267–268. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2089375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2022b. ‘Simplification’ of environmental and other impact assessments – an international trend? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(5):355–355. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2108223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2023. Simplification and potential replacement of EA in the UK - is it fit for purpose? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 41(3):233–237. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2166257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Fonseca A, Jha-Thakur U, Retief F, Alberts R, Jiricka-Pürrer A. 2023. Simplification of environmental and other impact assessments – results from an international online survey. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 41(3):181–189. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2198839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Therivel R, Bond A, Fothergill J, Marshall R. 2016. The revised EIA directive – possible implications for practice in England. UVP Rep. 30(2):106–112.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca A. 2022. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. London, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca A, Sánchez LE, Ribeiro JCJ. 2017. Reforming EIA systems: a critical review of proposals in Brazil. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault M, Lawrence K. 1988. Politics, philosophy, culture: interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. MLN. 104(4):255–567. doi: 10.2307/2905276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryer KJ, Antony J, Douglas A. 2007. Critical success factors of continuous improvement in the public sector: a literature review and some key findings. Total Qual Manage. 19(5):497–517. doi: 10.1108/09544780710817900.
   Google Scholar
• Garza-Reye JA, Romero JT, Govindan K, Cherrafi A, Ramanathan U. 2018. A PDCA-based approach to environmental value stream mapping (E-VSM). J Cleaner Prod. 180:335–348. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gazzola P. 2022. The bad, the abnormal and the inadequate. A new institutionalist perspective for exploring environmental assessment’s evolutionary direction. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 95:106786. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. 2012. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. 4th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S, O’ Rourke K. 2008. Meta-analysis. In: Rothman K, Greenland S Lash T, editors Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; pp. 652–682.
   Google Scholar
• Gunningham N, Sinclair D. 2017. Smart regulation. In: Drahos P, editor. Regulatory theory: foundations and applications. Canberra, Australia: ANU Press; pp. 133–148.
   Google Scholar
• Hall AD, Fagan RE. 1956. Definition of System. Gen Syst. 1:18–28.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey F, Horton H, Niranjan A, Allegretti A. 2023. Rishi Sunak likely to face legal challenges over net zero U-turn. Available at Rishi Sunak likely to face legal challenges over net zero U-turn | Rishi Sunak | the Guardian. [accessed 2023 Mar 12].
   Google Scholar
• Hiatt JM. 2006. ADKAR a model for change in business, government and our community. Colorado, USA: Prosci Research Loveland.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks K. 2022. Top 8 change management models. A comparison guide. Top 8 change management models: A comparison guide (zendesk.Co.uk). [accessed 2023 Jan 10].
   Google Scholar
• HM Government. 2018. Transposition guidance how to implement European directives effectively. [Withdrawn] transposition guidance: how to implement EU directives into UK law effectively (publishing.Service.gov.uk). [accessed 2023 Jan 10].
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys D. 2016. Integers, integrants and normative vectors: the limitations of environmental policy integration under neoliberalism. Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 34(3):433–447. doi: 10.1177/0263774X15614721.
   Google Scholar
• IEMA. 2011. The state of environmental impact assessment in the UK. [accessed 2022 Feb 7]. https://google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj4zZK9sMiBAxVFiVwKHbXOCoEQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iema.net%2Fdownload-document%2F236676&usg=AOvVaw1b5oPYAVPEJlwVOGC2no8j&opi=89978449.
   Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Fischer TB. 2016. 25 years of the UK EIA system: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kågström M, Richardson T. 2015. Space for action: how practitioners influence environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 54:110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamijo T. 2022. How to enhance EIA systems in developing countries: a quantitative literature review. Environ Dev Sus. 24(12):13476–13492. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-02029-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kørnøv L, Lyhne I. 2023. Unfolding simplification beyond drawbacks: types and reasoning for simplifying environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 41(3):228–232. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kor L, O’Hickey B, Hanson M, Coroi M. 2022. Assessing habitat connectivity in environmental impact assessment: a case-study in the UK context. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(6):495–506. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2128557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotter JP, Cohen DS. 2012. The heart of change: real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston, USA: Havard Business Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langley GJ, Moen RD, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. 2009. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Lee N, Colley R, Bonde J, Simpson J. 1999. The quality of environmental statements and environmental appraisals. Manchester: University of Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Lonsdale J, Weston K, Blake S, Edwards R, Elliott M. 2017. The amended European environmental impact assessment directive: UK marine experience and recommendations. Ocean Coast Manag. 148:131–142. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B. 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy. 41(6):955–967. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEvilley T. 2012. The shape of ancient thought: comparative studies in ancient Greek and Indian philosophies. New York: Skyhorse.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Gunn JAE, 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
• Norcross JC. 2013. Changeology: 5 steps to realizing your goals and resolutions. New York: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Onyango V. 2016a. Enhancing environmental integration in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): insight from sensitivity analysis. J Environ Plann Manage. 59(7):1149–1167. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2015.1062745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onyango V. 2016b. Exploring the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process behaviour using sensitivity analysis. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 34(2):160–175. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1140990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onyango V, Gazzola P, Wood G. 2019. The effects of recent austerity on environmental protection decisions. Manage Environ Qual. 30(5):1218–1234. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-01-2019-0025.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterhuis F. 2007. Costs and benefits of the EIA directive. Final report for DG environment under specific agreement no. 07010401/2006/447175/FRA/G1 Amsterdam: European Commission, DG Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Perdicoúlis A. 2016. Systems thinking and SEA. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 34(2):176–179. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1152731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perdicoúlis A, Hanusch M, Kasperidus HD, Weiland U. 2007. The handling of causality in SEA guidance. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 27(2):176–187. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2006.09.001.
   Web of Science ®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
• Pope J, Squires G, Witt K, Williams G, Womersley J. 2018. Evolution or revolution: where next for impact assessment? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 36(6):506–515. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1516846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasad DMR. 1996. Changeology: a new discipline of the new generation. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Reid C. 2021. Environmental governance in Scotland – watchdog, principles and policy. UKELA e-law. 122:26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson L. 2012. Changeology: how to enable groups, communities and societies to do things they’ve never done before. Totnes, Devon: Green Books Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Sandfort R, Uhlhorn B, Geißler G, Lyhne I, Jiricka-Pürrer A. 2024. AI will change EA practice – but are we ready for it? A call for discussion based on developments in collecting and processing biodiversity data. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 1–9. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2024.2318684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrat O. 2017. Theories of Change. In: Knowledge Solutions. Singapore: Springer; p. 237–243.
   Google Scholar
• Sheate W, Byron H, Dagg S, Cooper L. 2005. The relationship between the EIA and SEA directives-final report to the European commission: final report to the European commission. ( Contract n. ENV. G). Imperial College London.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Doelle M, Gibson RB. 2022. Next generation impact assessment: exploring the key components. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(1):3–19. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2021.1945891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stake RE. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand oaks, California: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Taplin D, Clark H. 2012. Theory of change basics: a primer on theory of change. New York: ActKnowledge.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas J. 1985. Force field analysis: a new way to evaluate your strategy. Long Range Plann. 18(6):54–59. doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(85)90064-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torraco RJ. 2016. Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resour Deve Rev. 15(4):404–428. doi: 10.1177/1534484316671606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Government. 2017. The Town and country planning (Environmental impact assessment) regulations 2017. Available at the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (legislation.Gov.uk). [accessed 2021 Feb 12].
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2015. Changes in the impact assessment family 2003–2014: implications for considering achievements, gaps and future directions. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt. 17(1):1550003–1550020. doi: 10.1142/S1464333215500039.
   Google Scholar
• van den Bergh JCJM, Kallis G. 2009. Evolutionary policy. Papers on economics and evolution, No. 0902. Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics.
   Google Scholar
• van Gossum P, Arts B, Verheyen K. 2010. From “smart regulation” to “regulatory arrangements”. Policy Sci. 43(3):245–261. doi: 10.1007/s11077-010-9108-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vester F. 2007. The art of interconnected thinking. Munich: MCB Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• von Bertalanffy L. 1968. General system theory: foundations, development. New York: George Braziller.
   Google Scholar
• Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. 2008. Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med. 75(6):431–439. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.75.6.431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenning CJ. 2009. Scientific epistemology: how scientists know what they know. J Phys Teach Educ Online. 5(2):3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Witt U. 2016. Economic policy making in evolutionary perspective. In: Witt U, editor. Rethinking economic evolution: essays on economic change and its theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; pp. 209–226.
   Google Scholar
• Yin RK. 2017. Case study research: design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, California, US: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar