Identifying and promoting qualitative methods for impact assessment

References

• Alagan R, Aladuwaka S. 2012. Innovative public participatory GIS methodologies adopted to deal with the social impact assessment process challenges: a Sri Lankan experience. J Urban Reg Inf Syst Assoc. 24(2):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Al Balushi K. 2016. The use of online semi-structured interviews in interpretive research. Int J Sci Res. 57(4):2319–7064.
   Google Scholar
• Badger D, Nursten J, Williams P, Woodward M. 2000. Should all literature reviews be systematic? Eval Res Educ. 14(3–4):220–230. doi: 10.1080/09500790008666974.
   Google Scholar
• Beanlands G, Duinker P. 1984. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manag. 18:267–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee A. 2012. Social science research: principles, methods and practices. In: Textbooks collection, book 3. Global text project. 2nd ed. Tampa (FL): University of South Florida. [accessed 16 Oct 2023]. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3.
   Google Scholar
• Bisset R. 1978. Quantification, decision-making and environmental impact assessment in the United Kingdom. J Environ Manag. 7(1):43–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisset R. 1980. Methods for environmental impact analysis: recent trends and future prospects. J Environ Manag. 11(1):27–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen GA. 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 9(2):27–40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Brown SR. 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity. 16(3/4):91–138. doi: 10.22488/okstate.93.100504.
   Google Scholar
• Brown G, Kelly M, Whitall D. 2014. Which ‘public’? Sampling effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems for public lands management. J Environ Plann Manage. 57(2):190–214. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.741045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers R. 2006. Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron J Info Sys Dev Countries. 25(1):1–11. doi: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x.
   Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Caesemaecker C, Rahman HMT, Sherren K. 2020. Comparing cultural ecosystem service delivery in dykelands and marshes using Instagram: a case of the Cornwallis (Jijuktu’kwejk) river, Nova Scotia, Canada. Ocean Coast Manag. 193:105254. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Parkins JR, Sherren K. 2019. Leveraging social media to understand younger people’s perceptions and use of hydroelectric energy landscapes. Soc Natur Resour. 32(10):1114–1122. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2019.1587128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Creswell JD. 2018. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Crosby N. 1995. Citizens juries: one solution for difficult environmental questions. In: Renn O, Webler T Wiedemann P, editors. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Springer Netherlands; p. 157–174. 10.1007/978-94-011-0131-88.
   Google Scholar
• Deutskens E, De Ruyter K, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P. 2004. Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Mark Lett. 15(1):21–36. doi: 10.1023/B:MARK.0000021968.86465.00.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diduck AP, Sinclair AJ. 2024. The promise of social learning-oriented approaches to public participation.In Handbook of public participation in impact assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 89–101.
   Google Scholar
• Dodgson JS, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips LD. 2009. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. UK Department of Communities and Local Government; [accessed 12 Jan 2024]. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/12761/1/Multi-criteria_Analysis.pdf.
   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
• Egan AF, Jones SB. 1997. Determining forest harvest impact assessment criteria using expert opinion: a Delphi study. North J Appl For. 14(1):20–25. doi: 10.1093/njaf/14.1.20.
   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
• European Commission. 1999. Guidelines for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well as impact interactions. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; [accessed 14 Jan 2024]. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/pdf/guidel.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer DW, Davies GS. 1973. An approach to assessing environmental impacts. J Environ Manag. 1:207–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin JS. 2021. Deliberative public consultation via deliberative polling: criteria and methods. Hastings Cent Rep. 51(S2):S19–S24. doi: 10.1002/hast.1316.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gastil J. 2009. A comprehensive approach to evaluating deliberative public engagement. In: MASS LBP Engaging with impact: targets and indicators for successful community engagement by Ontario’s local health integration networks, Ontario ministry of health and long term care, health system strategy division, and the central, north west and south east LHINs. Toronto (ON): Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; p. 15–27.
   Google Scholar
• Geneletti D, Ferretti V. 2015. Multicriteria analysis for sustainability assess-ment: concepts and case studies. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J Bond A, editors. Handbook of sustainability assessment. Cheltenham, (UK): Edward Elgar; p. 235–264.
   Google Scholar
• Gislason MK, Morgan VS, Mitchell-Foster K, Parkes MW. 2018. Voices from the landscape: storytelling as emergent counter-narratives and collective action from northern BC watersheds. Health & Place. 54:191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goater S, Goater R, Goater I, Kirsch P. 2012. This life of mine – personal reflections on the well-being of the contracted fly-in, fly-out workforce. Proceedings from the Eighth AUSIMM Open Pit Operators’ Conference; [accessed 12 Jan 2024]; Perth, Western Australia. https://www.academia.edu/download/33505950/Goater_2012_This_life_of_mine_AUSIMM.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• González A, Gilmer A, Foley R, Sweeney J, Fry J. 2008. Technology-aided participative methods in environmental assessment: an international perspective. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 32(4):303–316. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2008.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant MJ, Booth A. 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 26(2):91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. 2005. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 331(7524):1064–1065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna K, Noble B. 2015. Using a Delphi study to identify effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 33(2):116–125. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.992672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins J. 2017. Rare earth at Bearlodge: anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives of mining development in a multiple use landscape. J Environ Stud Sci. 7:189–199.
   Google Scholar
• Joly TL, Longley H, Wells C, Gerbrandt J. 2018. Ethnographic refusal in traditional land use mapping: consultation, impact assessment, and sovereignty in the Athabasca oil sands region. Extr Ind Soc. 5(2):335–343. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2018.03.002.
   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
• Kørnøv L, Thissen W. 2000. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 18(3):191–200. doi: 10.3152/147154600781767402.
   Google Scholar
• Kwan M-P, Ding G. 2008. Geo-narrative: extending geographic information systems for narrative analysis in qualitative and mixed-method research. Prof Geogr. 60(4):443–465. doi: 10.1080/00330120802211752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Sci. 7(S1):25–43. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavy P. 2017. Research design: quantitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. (NY): The Gilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moen T. 2006. Reflections on the narrative research approach. Int J Qual. 5(4):56–59. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500405.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan DL. 1996. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol. 22(1):129–152. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris A. 2015. A practical guide to in-depth interviewing. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Narayanasamy N. 2008. Participatory rural appraisal principles, methods and application. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Nchanji YK, Levang P, Jalonen R. 2017. Learning to select and apply qualitative and participatory methods in natural resource management research: self-critical assessment of research in Cameroon. Forests Trees Livelihoods. 26(1):47–64. doi: 10.1080/14728028.2016.1246980.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman WL. 2014. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Nitz T, Brown A. 2001. SEA must learn how policy making works. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 3(3):329–342. doi: 10.1142/S146433320100073X.
   Google Scholar
• Ørngreen R, Levinsen K. 2017. Workshops as a research methodology. The Electron J eLearning. 15(1):70–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ Plan A. 36(11):1943–1959. doi: 10.1068/a36281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perdicoúlis A, Glasson J. 2006. Causal networks in EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(6):553–569. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2006.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed MS, Kenter J, Bonn A, Broad K, Burt TP, Fazey IR, Fraser EDG, Hubacek K, Nainggolan D, Quinn CH, et al. 2013. Participatory scenario development for environmental management: a methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. J Environ Manag. 128:345–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Revilla M, Ochoa C. 2017. Ideal and maximum length for a web survey. J Mark Res Soc. 59(5):557–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richey JS, Horner RR, Mar BW. 1985. The Delphi technique in environmental assessment II. Consensus on critical issues in environmental monitoring program design. J Environ Manag. 21(2):147–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie J, Lewis J. 2003. Qualitative Research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ross H. 1989. Community social impact assessment: a cumulative study in the Turkey Creek area, Western Australia. East Kimberley working paper No. 27. [accessed 12 Jan 2024]. https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/081519/081519-27.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ. 2010. Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 1(4):606–619. doi: 10.1002/wcc.63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satterfield T, Gregory R, Klain S, Roberts M, Chan KM. 2013. Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. J Environ Manag. 117:103–114. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savin-Baden M, Major CH. 2013. Qualitative research: the essential guide to theory and practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schieffer A, Isaacs D, Gyllenpalm B. 2004. The world café: part one. World. 18(8):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Shopley J, Sowman M, Fuggle R. 1990. Extending the capability of the component interaction matrix as a technique for addressing secondary impacts in environmental assessment. J Environ Manag. 31(3):197–213. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80034-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieber R. 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 96(3):491–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Diduck AP, Vespa M. 2015. Public participation in sustainability assessment: essential elements, practical challenges and emerging directions. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J Bond A, editors. Handbook of sustainability assessment. Cheltenham, (UK): Edward Elgar; p. 349–374.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Doelle M, Gibson RB. 2018. Implementing next generation assessment: a case example of a global challenge. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72:166–176. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Doelle M, Gibson RB. 2021. Next generation impact assessment: exploring key components. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(1):3–19. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2021.1945891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaling H, Montes J, Sinclair AJ. 2011. Best practices for promoting participation and learning for sustainability: lessons from community-based environmental assessment in Kenya and Tanzania. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 13(3):343–366. doi: 10.1142/S1464333211003924.
   Google Scholar
• Tang Z, Liu T. 2016. Evaluating internet-based public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) in environmental planning and management. J Environ Plann Manag. 59(6):1073–1090. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2015.1054477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te Boveldt G, Keseru I, Macharis C. 2021. How can multi- criteria analysis support deliberative spatial planning? A critical review of methods and participatory frameworks. Evaluation. 27(4):492–509. doi: 10.1177/13563890211020334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tight M. 2019. Documentary research in the social sciences. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias TN. 2014. Research design and data collection for land use and occupancy mapping. SPC Tradit Mar Resource Manag Knowl Inf Bull. 33:13–25.
   Google Scholar
• Toth FL. 2001. Participatory integrated assessment methods: an assessment of their usefulness to the European environmental agency. European Environmental Agency; [accessed 12 Jan 2024]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/Technical_report_no_64/page001.html.
   Google Scholar
• UK Government. 2017. Futures toolkit: tools for strategic futures for policy-makers and analysts. Cabinet Office and Government Office for Science; [accessed 12 Jan 2024]. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674209/futures-toolkit-edition-1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2015. Qualitative methods in regional program evaluation: an examination of the story-based approach. In: Karlsson C, Andersson M Norman T, editors. Handbook of research methods and applications in economic geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 544–570.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Esteves AM. 2024. Handbook of social impact assessment and management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Van Riper CJ, Foelske L, Kuwayama SD, Keller R, Johnson D. 2020. Understanding the role of local knowledge in the spatial dynamics of social values expressed by stakeholders. Appl Geogr. 123:102279. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitous CA, Zarger R. 2020. Visual narratives: exploring the impacts of tourism development in Placencia, Belize. Ann Anthropol Pract. 44(1):104–118. doi: 10.1111/napa.12135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker H, Pope J, Sinclair J, Bond A, Diduck A. 2023. Qualitative methods for the next generation of impact assessment. Report submitted to: impact assessment agency of Canada, University of Manitoba; [accessed 11 Jan 2024]. https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/items/40910784-63ad-4b1a-a330-158929aa7a6d.
   Google Scholar
• Wathern P. 1984. Ecological modelling in impact analysis. In: Roberts RD Roberts TM, editors. Planning and ecology. London and (NY): Chapman and Hall; p. 80–98.
   Google Scholar
• Wiklund H, Viklund P. 2006. Public deliberation in strategic environmental assessment: an experiment with citizens’ juries in energy planning. In: Emmelin L, editor. Effective environmental assessment tools-critical reflections on concepts and practice. Karlskrona, Sweden: Blekinge Institute of Technology; p. 44–59.
   Google Scholar
• Wood G, Rodriguez-Bachiller A, Becker J. 2007. Fuzzy sets and simulated environmental change: evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental impact assessment. Environ Plan A. 39(4):810–829. doi: 10.1068/a3878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 8(3):338–353. doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
   Google Scholar