Subjective environmental impact assessment: Causes, problems, solutions

Impact Assessment

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 191-213

  Mostert, Erik ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000158124     PISSN: 07349165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07349165.1996.9725896     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bacow, L. S., 1980. “The technical and judgemental dimensions of impact assessment”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2:109–124.
2. Berkenbosch, R., 1994. “Teleurstellend debat over Schiphol MER” (Disappointing debate on Schiphol-EIS)”. Kenmerken; tijdschrift voor milieu-effectrapportage, 4:28–31.
3. Berkenbosch, R., and van der Geest, I., 1994. “Project management:lessen uit de praktijk” (Project management:lessons from the practice)”. Kenmerken; tijdschrift voor milieu-effectrapportage, 3:8–11.
4. Berkenbosch, R., and Kluwer, A., 1994. “Betere scoping, meer communicatie”. Kenmerken; tijdschrift voor milieu-effectrapportage, 5:10–13.
5. Burmeister, H., 1993. “DiepolitischeKulturals DeterminantederEntwicklung politischer Partizipation in Polen & Ostdeutschland”. In Transformationsprozesse in Mittel- undOsteuropa (Transformation processes in Middle and Eastern Europe), Edited by:Wojtaszczyk, K., 104–120. Warsaw:Dom Wydawniczy i Handlowy “ELIPSA”. (Political culture as a determinant for political participation in Poland and Eastern-Germany)
6. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). 1993. A Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (final English text)., Hull, Quebec:Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
7. Canadian Legislature. 1992. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Statutes of Canada 1992, Chapter 37, Bill C-13, assented to 23 June 1992
8. Collingridge, D., and Reeve, C., 1986. Science Speaks to Power:The Role of Experts in Policy Making, London:Frances Printer (Publishers).
9. Dahl, R. A., 1970. After the Revolution?, New Haven:Yale University Press.
10. De Valk, Th. W., and de Vries, M. S., 1994. “Criteria voor milieu-effectrapporten” (Criteria for EISs)”. Beleidswetensclrap, 3:274–306.
11. Environmental Resources Limited. 1985. Handling Uncertainty in Environmental Impact Assessment, The Hague:Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening & Milieubeheer/Ministerie van Landbouw & Visserij. Serie Milieu-effectrapportage nr. 18
12. Frankena, F., 1988. “The emergent social role and political impact of the voluntary technical expert.”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 1:73–82.
13. Gardiner, J. L., “Towards sustainable development in river basins.”. Impact of Watercourse Improvements; Assessment, Methodology, Management Assistance, final proceedings of an international symposium. September9–10–111991, Wépion. pp. 63–78.
14. Herngreen, R., 1994. “Cijfer-fetisjisme slecht voor m.e.r.” (Quantification-fetishism bad for EIA). Kenmerken; tijdschrift voor milieu-effectrapportage, 6:4–7.
15. Hofstede, G., 1991. Allemaal and ersdenkenden; Omgaan met cultuurverschillen, Amsterdam:Uitgeverij Contact. 5th impression 1995 (translation by the editor of Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind. London:McGraw-Hill, 1991)
16. Irwin, G. A., and Andeweg, R. B., 1981. “Politieke participatie & democratie” (Political praticipation and democracy) ”. In Democratie; theorie & praktijk, Edited by:Thomassen, J. J.A., Alphen aan den Rijn:Samson Uitgeverij.
17. Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch:Science Advisers as Policymakers, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:Harvard University Press.
18. Mostert, E., 1995. Commissions for Environmental Impact Assessment:Their contribution to the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment, Ph.D. thesis Delft:Delft University Press. Delft University of Technology
19. Mostert, E., 1996. “De Commissie:Problemen & Oplossingen” (The Dutch EIA Commission:problems and solutions)”. Kenmerken; tijdschrift voor milieu-effectrapportage, 1 (in print)
20. Niedersachsisches Ministerium fur Wirtschaft & Verkehr. 1985. Zusamrnenfassende Umweltuntersuchung zum Dollarthafenprojekt Emden (EIS on Dollart harbour project Emden), Berlin:Prognos AG Basel and ARSU Oldenburg.
21. Odijk, M., and Sielcken, R.-J., 1994. “Actief opzoek naar het mma” (Actively in search of the most environmentally friendly alternative)”. Kenmerken; tijdschrift voor milieu-effectrapportage, 3:4–7.
22. Pawetas, A., 1994. Deciphering EIA:An Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, Delft:RBA Centre. (with contributions by Erik Mostert). RBA Series on River Basin Administration, Working Paper nr. 23
23. Policy Analysis Department, Dutch Ministry of Finance. 1986. Evaluatiemethoden; een introductie (Evaluation methods; an introduction)., The Hague:Staatsuitgeverij.
24. Van den Borne, C., 1996. “M.e.r. tussen democratisering & technocratisering” (EIA between democratization and technocratization) ”. In Milieu-effectrapportage; Methoden, Technieken & Resultaten (EIA; Methods, Techniques, and Results), Edited by:Bonte, R., Leroy, P., and Mooren, R., Best:Aeneas.
25. VanEck, M., 1994. “Comparing alternatives in environmental impact assessment.”. In EIA-methodology in the Netherlands:Views of the Commission for EIA, 55–62. Utrecht:Commissie voor de milieu-effectrapportage.
26. Wathern, P., 1988. Environmental Impact Assessment:Theory and Practice, London and New York:Routledge.
27. Weiss, C. H., 1991. “Policy research as advocacy:pro and con.”. Knowledge and Policy:The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 4 (1 and 2):37–55.
28. Werkgroep Kritische Biologie. 1980. “Liever geen mer dan slechte mer:De onvermoede gevaren van milieu-effectrapportering (Better no EIA than bad EIA:the unexpected dangers of EIA). Natuur & Milieu, 4:27–30.