Stakeholder involvement in NEPA scoping processes: Evaluating practices and effects in transportation agencies

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 51, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 663-678

  Slotterback, Carissa Schively ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

NEPA; Participation; Scoping; Transportation

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER; TRANSPORTATION;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 50349092671     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640560802211060     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Al-Kodmany, K. (1999) Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation, and evaluation. Landscape and urban planning, 45, pp. 37-45.
2. Baker, D. and Rapaport, E. (2005) The science of assessment: Identifying and predicting environmental impacts. Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation, University Press, Oxford
3. Banfield, E. C. (1959) Ends and means in planning. International social science journal, 11, pp. 361-368.
4. Bass, R. E., Herson, A. I. and Bogdan, K. M. (2001) The NEPA book: A step-by-step guide on how to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, Solano Press Books, Solano, CA
5. Beanlands, G. (1988) Scoping methods and baseline studies in EIA. Environmental impact assessment-theory and practice, Unwin Hyman, London
6. Becker, J. and Wood, G. (2003) Evaluating significant environmental effects: Decision-making at the scoping stage of environmental impact assessment, Oxford Brookes University Planning Research Conference, Oxford
7. Bentrup, G. (2001) Evaluation of a collaborative model: A case study analysis of watershed planning in the intermountain West. Environmental management, 27, pp. 739-748.
8. Bickerstaff, K. and Walker, G. (2001) Participatory local governance and transport planning. Environment and planning A, 33, pp. 431-451.
9. Burby, R. J. (2003) Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, pp. 33-49.
10. Dillman, D. A. (2000) Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, John Wiley and Sons, New York
11. Eccleston, C. (2000) Environmental impact statements: A comprehensive guide to project and strategic planning, Wiley, New York
12. Enserink, B. and Monnikhof, R. A. H. (2003) Information management for public participation in co-design processes: Evaluation of a Dutch example. Journal of environmental planning and management, 46, pp. 315-344.
13. Etzioni, A. (1967) Mixed scanning: A 'third' approach to decision-making. Public administration review, 27, pp. 385-392.
14. Gray, I. M. and Edwards-Jones, G. (1999) A review of the quality of environmental impact assessments in the Scottish forest sector. Journal of forestry, 72, pp. 1-10.
15. Hacklay, M., Feitelson, E. and Doytsher, Y. (1998) The potential of a GIS-based scoping system: An Israeli proposal and case study. Environmental impact assessment review, 18, pp. 439-459.
16. Haug, P. T. et al. (1984) Determining the significance of environmental issues under the National Environmental Policy Act. Journal of environmental management, 18, pp. 15-24.
17. Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E. (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, pp. 412-423.
18. Jain, R. K. et al. (2002) Environmental assessment, McGraw-Hill, New York
19. Jones, C. E. (1999) Screening, scoping and consideration of alternatives. Handbook of environmental impact assessment, Blackwell Science, Malden, MA
20. Kennedy, A. and Ross, W. (1992) An approach to integrate impact scoping with environmental impact assessment. Journal of environmental management, 16, pp. 475-484.
21. King, S. et al. (1989) Co-design: A process of design participation, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
22. Lowry, K., Adler, P. and Milner, N. (1997) Participating the public: group processes, politics, and planning. Journal of planning education and research, 16, pp. 177-187.
23. Mulvihill, P. R. (2003) Expanding the scoping community. Environmental impact assessment review, 23, pp. 39-49.
24. Mulvihill, P. R. and Baker, D. C. (2001) Ambitious and restrictive scoping: Case studies from Northern Canada. Environmental impact assessment review, 21, pp. 363-384.
25. Mulvihill, P. R. and Jacobs, P. (1998) Using scoping as a design process. Environmental impact assessment review, 18, pp. 351-369.
26. Mygatt, S. (1984) The uses of scoping: The Massachusetts experience. Improving impact assessment: Increasing the relevance and utilization of scientific and technical information, pp. 399-402. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
27. Sadler, B. (1996) International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment: Final report-environmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance
28. Salk, M. S., Tolbert, V. R. and Dickerman, J. A. (1999) Guidelines and techniques for improving the NEPA process. Environmental management, 23, pp. 467-476.
29. Schively, C. (2007) A quantitative analysis of consensus building in local environmental review. Journal of planning education and research, 27, pp. 82-98.
30. Snell, T. and Cowell, R. (2006) Scoping in environmental impact assessment: Balancing precaution and efficiency?. Environmental impact assessment review, 26, pp. 359-376.
31. Weston, J. (2000) EIA, decision-making theory and screening and scoping in UK practice. Journal of environmental planning and management, 43, pp. 185-203.
32. Wood, G., Glasson, J. and Becker, J. (2006) EIA scoping in England and Wales: Practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints. Environmental impact assessment review, 26, pp. 221-241.