Quality Control for Environmental Policy Appraisal Tools: An Empirical Investigation of Relations Between Quality, Quality Control and Effectiveness

References

• Adelle, C., Jordan, A., & Turnpenny, J. (2012). Proceeding in parallel or drifting apart? A systematic review of policy appraisal research and practice. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, 401–415. doi: 10.1068/c11104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adelle, C., & Weiland, S. (2012). Policy assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30, 25–33. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2012.663256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts, J., Runhaar, H. A. C., Fischer, T. B., Jha-Thakur, U., Van Laerhoven, F., Driessen, P. P. J., & 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. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(4), 1250025-1–1250025-40. doi: 10.1142/S1464333212500251
   Google Scholar
• Barker, A., & Jones, C. (2013). A critique of the performance of EIA within the offshore oil and gas sector. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett, R. V. (1986). Rationality and the logic of the national environmental policy act. The Environmental Professional, 8, 105–111.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., & Gunn, J. A. E. (2014). Impact assessment: Eroding benefits through streamlining? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.12.002
   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. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 1233–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D., & Bond, A. (2004). The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22, 295–310. doi: 10.3152/147154604781765860
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Hilding-Rydevik, T., & Emmelin, L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(6), 371–379. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha, C., & Bond, A. (2013). Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, P., Kørnøv, L., & Nielsen, E. H. (2003). Udbyttet Af VVM: Evaluering Af VVM i Danmark. Delrapport II - Kvalitet Og Kvalitetssikring Af VVM-Arbejdet [Benefit of EIA: Evaluation of EIA in Denmark. Subreport II - Quality and Quality Assurance of EIA]. Copenhagen: The Danish Ministry of Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, P., Kørnøv, L., & Nielsen, E. H. (2005). EIA as regulation: Does it work? Journal of Environmental Planning Management, 48, 393–412. doi: 10.1080/09640560500067491
   Google Scholar
• van Doren, D., Driessen, P. P. J., Schijf, B., & Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013). Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 120–130. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elling, B. (2008). Rationality and the environment: Decision-making in environmental politics and assessment. London: Earthscan Publications.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2001). Guidance on EIA. EIS review.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2003). On the application and effectiveness of the EIA directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as<br />amended by Directive 97/11/EC). How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive. COM(2003) 334.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2012). Key figures on Europe 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, T. B., & Noble, B. (2015). Impact assessment research: Achievements, gaps and future directions. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (Introduction to the March 2015 Special Issue of the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management), 18(1), 1501001-1–1501001-12.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick, P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2003). Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings. Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 161–174. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00204-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaardmand, A. (1993). Dansk Byplanlægning 1938–1992 [Danish urban planning 1938–1992]. Copenhagen: Arkitektens Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. B. (2012). In full retreat: The Canadian government's new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30, 179–188. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2012.720417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2012). Introduction to environmental impact assessment (4th ed). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hildén, M., Furman, E., & Kaljonen, M. (2004). Views on planning and expectations of SEA: The case of transport planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 519–536. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2004.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalava, K., Pasanen, S., Saalasti, M., & Kuitunen, M. (2010). Quality of environmental impact assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinions of EIA professionals. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28, 15–27. doi: 10.3152/146155110X488826
   Google Scholar
• Jamison, A. (2001). The making of green knowledge: Environmental politics and cultural transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirk, E. A., & Blackstock, K. L. (2011). Enhanced decision making: Balancing public participation against ‘Better Regulation’ in British environmental permitting regimes. Journal of Environmental Law, 23, 97–116. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqq024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjellerup, U. (1999). Legal problems in Danish EIA – the Oeresund case. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 1, 131–149. doi: 10.1142/S1464333299000089
   Google Scholar
• Lee, N., Walsh, F., & Reeder, G. (1994). Assessing the performance of the EA process. Project Appraisal, 9, 161–172. doi: 10.1080/02688867.1994.9726946
   Google Scholar
• Lyhne, I., & Kørnøv, L. (2013). How do we make sense of significance? Indications and reflections on an experiment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31, 180–189. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2013.795694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxim, L., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2011). Quality in environmental science for policy: Assessing uncertainty as a component of policy analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 482–492. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., Gunn, J. A. E., Bond, A., & Retief, F. (2014). Strengthening impact assessment: A call for integration and focus. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32, 2–8. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2013.872841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCEA. (2011). Annual report 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Owens, S., Rayner, T., & Bina, O. (2004). New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environmental Planning A, 36, 1943–1959. doi: 10.1068/a36281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podhora, A., Helming, K., Adenäuer, L., Heckelei, T., Kautto, P., Reidsma, P., … Jansen, J. (2013). The policy-relevancy of impact assessment tools: Evaluating nine years of European research funding. Environmental Science & Policy, 31, 85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pölönen, I. (2006). Quality control and the substantive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 481–491. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2007). Whither better regulation for the Lisbon agenda? Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 190–207. doi: 10.1080/13501760601122274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M., & Meuwese, A. C. M. (2009). Better regulation in Europe: Between public management and regulatory reform. Public Administration, 87, 639–654. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01771.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runhaar, H. A. C., Arts, E. J. M. M., van Laerhoven, F., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2011). Naar een toekomstbestendige m.e.r., lessen uit 25 jaar m.e.r. in Nederland en een verkenning van kansen en bedreigingen voor de m.e.r. in de nabije toekomst [Towards future-proof EA: lessons from 25 years of EA and an exploration of opportunities and dangers for EA in the near future], by order of the State Department of Infrastructure and the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Runhaar, H., van Laerhoven, F., Driessen, P., & Arts, J. (2013). Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 39, 13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, B. (1996). Environmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance. Final report of the international study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Sandham, L. A., van Heerden, A. J., Jones, C. E., Retief, F. P., & Morrison-Saunders, A. N. (2013). Does enhanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreurs, M. (2004). Environmental protection in an expanding European community: Lessons from past accessions. Environmental Politics, 13, 27–51. doi: 10.1080/09644010410001685128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Victor, D., & Agamuthu, P. (2013). Strategic environmental assessment policy integration model for solid waste management in Malaysia. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 233–245. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wathern, P. (1988). The EIA directive of the European community. In P. Wathern (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 192–209). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Weidner, H. (2002). Capacity building for ecological modernization: Lessons from cross-national research. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1340–1368. doi: 10.1177/0002764202045009004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolbers, M. A., Oostdijk, A., Wesselink, T., & Helder, H. (2012). Doorwerking m.e.r. Onderzoek naar de doorwerking van adviezen Commissie voor de m.e.r. en het MER in besluitvorming [Investigation of the influence of the Commission's advice on environmental reports on decision-making]. Final report commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure & the Environment, Berenschot, Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, C. (2003). Environmental impact assessment: A comparative review (2nd ed). Harlow: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, C., & Jones, C. E. (1997). The effect of environmental assessment on UK local planning authority decisions. Urban Studies, 34, 1237–1257. doi: 10.1080/0042098975619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, J., Kørnøv, L., & Christensen, P. (2013). Critical factors for EIA implementation: Literature review and research options. Journal of Environmental Management, 114, 148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zvijáková, L., Zeleňáková, M., & Purcz, P. (2014). Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32, 150–161. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.893124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar