Towards a framework for sea follow-up: Theorethical issues and lessons from policy evaluation

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 473-496

  Persson, Åsa ^a   Nilsson, Måns ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Monitoring; SEA directive; SEA follow up

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; POLICY ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT;

EID: 39449118230     PISSN: 14643332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S1464333207002901     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Arts, J, P Caldwell and A Morrison-Saunders (2001). Environmental impact assessment follow-up: Good practice and future directions - findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(3), 175-185.
2. Arts, J and A Morrison-Saunders (2004). Lessons for EIA follow-up. In Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (eds), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. London: Earthscan, pp. 286-314.
3. Arts, J, P Tomlinson and H Voogd (2005). EIA and SEA tiering: The missing link?, Paper presented at International experience and perspectives in SEA, Conference of the International Association of Impact Assessment, 26-30 September 2005, Prague.
4. Baker, D and J McLelland (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment process for first nations' participation in mining development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 581-603.
5. Bennear, LS and G Coglianese (2005). Measuring progress: Program evaluation of environmental policies. Environment, 47(2), 22-39.
6. Boverket & Naturvårsverket (2000). SMB och översiktlig fysisk plane ring. Karlskrona och Stockholm: Boverket och Naturvårdsverket.
7. Cherp, A (2005). Strategic environmental assessment follow-up. Position paper for the IAIA Conference in Prague, 26-30 September 2005.
8. EEA (2001). Reporting on environmental measures: Are we being effective? Environmental issue report No 25. Copenhagen: EEA.
9. Environment Agency (2005). Environment Agency National Datasets relevant to fulfilling the Agency's role as a statutory consultee to Strategic Environmental Assessments. Downloaded from http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/ national_datasets_840296.pdf on 9 January 2005.
10. European Commission (2003). Implementation of Directive 2001/42 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment. Brussels: European Commission.
11. European Council (2001). Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the environment.
12. Gysen, J, K Bachus and H Bruyninckx (2002). Evaluating the effectiveness of environmental policy: An analysis of conceptual and methodological issues. Paper presented at the European Evaluation Society Seville Conference, October 10-12 2002, Seville, Spain.
13. Government Bill 2003/04:116. Miljöbedömningar av planer och program. (Environmental assessment of plans and programmes).
14. Herrick, C and D Sarewitz (2000). Ex post evaluation: A more effective role for scientific assessments in environmental policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(3), 309-331.
15. Hildén, M, J Lepola, P Mickwitz et al. (2002). Evaluation of Environmental Policy Instruments - A Case Study of the Finnish Pulp and Paper and Chemical Industries. Monographs of the Boreal Environmental Research No. 21. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute.
16. Maltais, A, M Nilsson and A Persson (2002). Sustainability impact assessment of WTO negotiations on the major food crops sector. Final Report to European Commission's DG Trade, SEL Stockholm.
17. Marsden, S (1998). Importance of context in measuring the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 16(4), 255-266.
18. Marshall, R, J Arts, et al. (2005). International principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23(3), 175-181.
19. Mickwitz, P (2003). A set of principles for evaluating environmental policy instruments. Evaluation, 9(4), 415-436.
20. Morrison-Saunders, A, J Arts, J Baker and P Caldwell (2001). Roles and stakes in environmental impact assessment follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(4), 289-296.
21. Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (2004). Introduction to EIA follow-up. In Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (eds), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. London: Earthscan, pp. 1-21.
22. Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (2005). Editorial: Learning from experience: Emerging trends in environmental impact assessment follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3), 170-174.
23. Naturvårdsverket (2000). Strategiska miljöbedömningar: Ett användbart instrument i miljöarbetet. Rapport 5109. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverkets förlag.
24. Naturvårdsverket (2001). Miljöbedömningsguiden: Vägledning för miljöbedömning vid. planering av transportsystem. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverkets förlag.
25. Naturvårdsverket (2004). 21 miljöutvärderingar - vad lär de oss? En syntes av ett antal miljöutvärderingar åren 2000 till 2003. Rapport 5366. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.
26. Nilsson, M (2006). The role of assessments and institutions for policy learning: A study on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation. Policy Sciences, in press
27. Noble, B and K Storey (2005). Towards increasing the utility of follw-up in Canadian EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(2), 163-180.
28. Öko-Institut (2002). IMPEL project: Implementing Article 10 of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC. Final report. Darmstadt: Öko-Institut.
29. Partidario, MR and J Arts (2005). Exploring the concept of strategic environmental assessment follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3), 246-257.
30. Partidario, MR and TFischer (2004). Follow-up in Current SEA understanding. In Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (eds), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. London: Earthscan, pp. 224-247.
31. Riksrevisionsverket (1996). Att mäta effekter. RRV 1996:6. Stockholm: RRV.
32. Rossi, P, H Freeman and M Lipsey (1999). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 6th edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
33. Sanderson, I (2001). Performance management, evaluation and learning in "modern" local government. Public Administration, 79(2), 297-313.
34. Sanderson, I (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1-22.
35. Swedish National Audit Office (1999). Handbook in Performance Auditing: Theory and Practice. RRV 1999:17. Stockholm: RRV.
36. Swedish Government Regulations Miljöbalk (1998:808) (Environment Code). Plan- och bygglagen (1987: 10) (Planning and Building Act. Lag (1977:439) om kommunal energiplanering (Law on Municipal Energy Planning). Förordning (1998:905) om miljökonsekvensbeskrivningar (Regulation on Environmental Impact Statements).
37. Therivel, R (1996). SEA methodology in practice. In Therivel, R and MR Partidario (eds), The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment London: Earthscan, pp. 30-44.
38. Therivel, R (2004). Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Earthscan.
39. Therivel, R and MR Partidario (1996). Introduction. In Therivel, R and MR Partidario (eds), The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan, pp. 1-13.
40. Therivel, R, E Wilson et al. (1992). Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earth scan.
41. Thissen, W (2000). Criteria for evaluation of SEA. In Partidario, M and R Clarke (eds), Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assessment Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, pp. 113-127.
42. UNECE (2003) Protocol on strategic environmental assessment to the convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context. (Adopted by the UNECE countries in Kiev on 21 May 2003).
43. Vedung, E (1997). Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
44. Verheem, R and J Tonk (2000). Strategic environmental assessment: One concept, multiple forms". Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3), 177-182.
45. Weiss, C (1998). Evaluation. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.