Negotiating river ecosystems: Impact assessment and conflict mediation in the cases of hydro-power construction

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 319-327

  Karjalainen, Timo P ^a   Järvikoski, Timo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Conflict mediation; Distributional and procedural justice; Environmental impact assessment; Finland; Hydro power generation; Legitimacy; Social Impact Assessment

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MEDIATION; FINLAND; HYDRO-POWER GENERATION; PROCEDURAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;

ECOSYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM; HYDROELECTRIC POWER; POWER GENERATION; RIVER WATER; SOCIAL IMPACT;

FRANCE;

EID: 77955275182     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Armour A.M. The siting of locally unwanted land uses: towards a cooperative approach. Prog Plan 1991, 35:1-74.
2. Barrow C. How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30(5):293-301. (this issue).
3. Becker D.R., Harris C.C., Nielsen E.A., McLaughlin W.J. A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2004, 22:177-189.
4. Bergseng E., Vatn A. Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict - some evidence from the Nordic countries. J Forest Econ 2009, 15:147-165.
5. Burton J. Conflict: Resolution and Provention. New York: St. Martin's Press; 1990.
6. Cashmore M. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004, 24:403-426.
7. Deutsch M. Justice and conflict. The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice 2000, 45-65. Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco. M. Deutsch, P.T. Coleman (Eds.).
8. Dugan M.A. Legitimacy. Beyond intractability. Conflict research consortium [internet]. University of Colorado, Boulder 2004, Posted January 2004; cited 2009 Dec 12] Available from: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/legitimacy/. G. Burgess, H. Burgess (Eds.).
9. Gray B. Framing or environmental disputes. In: Lewicki RJ, Gray B, Elliott M, editors. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. Concepts and cases. Washington: Island Press; 2003, p. 11-35.
10. Esteves A.M., Vanclay F. Social development needs analysis as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community investment: applications in the minerals industry. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009, 29:137-145.
11. Hajer M.A., Wagenaar H. Introduction. Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society 2003, 1-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M.A. Hajer, H. Wagenaar (Eds.).
12. Harashina S. Environmental dispute resolution process and information exchange. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995, 15:69-80.
13. Hokkanen P. Public participation in environmental impact assessment [in Finnish, abstract in English]. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis; 1285 2007, Tampere University Press.
14. Järvikoski T. Vesien säännöstely ja paikallisyhteisö. [Regulation of water and the local community, in Finnish]. University of Turku, sosiologian tutkimuksia B 9 1979.
15. Järvikoski T. Alternative movements in Finland: the case of Koijärvi. Acta Sociol 1981, 4:313-320.
16. Jay S., Jones C., Slinn P., Wood C. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007, 27:287-300.
17. Klöpper Y. Southeast Asian water conflicts - from political geography perspective. Asia Eur J 2008, 6:325-343.
18. Kollaja EIA report. Kollaja-hanke. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointiselostus [in Finnish]. Pohjolan Voima. 2009. [cited in 2009 Jun 26; Sep 20; Nov 15] Available from: http://www.kollaja.fi/YVA/Kollaja-YVA-selostus.pdf.
19. Lockie S. Deliberation and actor-networks: the "practical" implications of social theory for the assessment of large dams and other interventions. Soc Natur Resour 2007, 20:785-799.
20. Luostarinen M. A social geography of hydro-electric power projects in Northern Finland. Oulu: Acta Universitatis Ouluensis A 7 1982.
21. Maiese M. Distributive justice. Beyond intractability. Conflict Research Consortium [internet]. University of Colorado, Boulder 2003, Posted January 2004; cited Jan 12] Available from: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_justice/. G. Burgess, H. Burgess (Eds.).
22. Manring N., West P.C., Bidol P. Social impact assessment and environmental conflict management. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990, 10:302-310.
23. Maxwell J., Lee J., Briscoe F., Stewart A., Suzuki T. Locked on course: hydro-Quebec's commitment to mega-projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1997, 17:19-38.
24. McNally A., Magee D., Wolf A.T. Hydropower and sustainability: resilience and vulnerability in China's powersheds. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:286-293.
25. Moore S.A. Defining "successful" environmental dispute resolution: case studies from public land planning in the United States and Australia. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1996, 16:151-169.
26. O'Faircheallaigh C. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30:19-27.
27. Paavola J. Rethinking the choice and performance of environmental policies. Economics, ethics, and environmental policy. contested choices 2002, 87-102. Blackwell, Oxford. D.W. Bromlew, J. Paavola (Eds.).
28. Paavola J. Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecol Econ 2007, 63:93-103.
29. Pahl-Wostl C. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol Soc 2006, 11(1). [art.no.10].
30. Persson J. Theoretical reflections on the connection between environmental assessment methods and conflict. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006, 26:605-613.
31. Pohjolan Voima Annual Report 2008, cited in 2009 Mar 9] Available from: http://www.pohjolanvoima.fi/en/communications/publications/?id=7938&folderId=117&fileId=7082&key=ea61f84750d1e0f673e07ad0c793857b.
32. P-P SKL (Pohjois-Pohjanmaan Seutukaavaliitto). Iijokiselvitys. Yhteenvetoraportti [The Northern Ostrobothnia Regional Planning Board. The Iijoki Survey. Summary in English.] Julkaisusarja A:78. Oulu; 1985.
33. Putnan L.L., Wondelleck J.M. Intractability: definitions, dimensions and distinctions. Making Sense of intractable environmental conflicts. concepts and cases 2003, 35-62. Island Press, Washington. R.J. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliott (Eds.).
34. Rannikko P. Local environmental conflicts and the change in environmental consciousness. Acta Sociol 1996, 39:57-72.
35. Rauschmaeyr F., Wittmer H. Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 2006, 23:108-122.
36. Rosenberg D.M., Bodaly R.A., Usher P.J. Environmental and social impacts of large scale hydro-electric development: who is listening?. Environ Impact Assess Review 1995, 5:127-148.
37. Ross H. Environmental mediation. The international handbook of social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances 2003, 297-314. Elgar, Cheltenham. H.A. Becker, F. Vanclay (Eds.).
38. Rusanen J. Role of the local people in the utilization of water resources, a case study of the river Iijoki in Northern Finland. Nordia 1989, 23:120-201.
39. Rydin Y. Guest editorial. Joined-up knowledge for the sustainable city. Environ Plan A 2006, 38:1005-1007.
40. Sairinen R. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenetelmät energia-alan suunnittelussa [The methods of environmental impact assessment in the planning of energy sector, in Finnish]. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun täydennyskoulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 64. Espoo: Teknillinen Korkeakoulu 1992.
41. Shrader-Frechette K. Environmental justice: creating equality, reclaiming democracy 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
42. Sigel K., Klauera B., Pahl-Wostl C. Conceptualising uncertainty in environmental decision-making: the example of the EU water framework directive. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:502-510.
43. Suopajärvi L. Vuotos- ja Ounasjoki -kamppailujen kentät ja merkitykset Lapissa [The disputes over harnessing the River Ounasjoki and building the Vuotos resorvoir. Fields and meanings in Lapland, in Finnish, abstract in English] Acta Universitas Lapponiensis 2001, 37. Lapin yliopisto, Rovaniemi.
44. Vanclay F. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2002, 22:183-211.
45. Vanclay F. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003, 21:5-11.
46. Vanclay F. Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison between the international and US documents. Environ Impact Assess Review 2006, 26:3-14.
47. Vatn A. Institutions and the environment 2005, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
48. Walker G. Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: the implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30(5):312-318. (this issue).
49. WCD (World Commission of Dams) Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making: the report of the World Commission on Dams 2000, Earthscan, London.
50. Wolsink M. River basin approach and integrated water management - governance pitfalls for the Dutch space-water-adjustment management principle. Geoforum 2006, 37:473-487.