Eia theories - All Chinese whispers and no critical theory

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 357-374

  Weston, Joe ^a  

^a OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

critical theory; Environmental Impact Assessment; planning; theory

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; CRITICAL ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; PLANNING THEORY;

EID: 79951571246     PISSN: 14643332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S1464333210003693     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Abrams, P (1982). Historical Sociology. London: Open Books.
2. Adams, GB and DL Balfour (1998). Unmasking Administrative Evil. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
3. Agger, B (1991). Critical theory, poststructualism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-131.
4. Alder, J (1993). Environmental impact assessment - The inadequacies of English Law. Journal of Environmental Law, 5(2), 203-220. (Pubitemid 24388584)
5. Allmendinger, P (2002). Planning Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave
6. Allmendinger, P, M Tewdwr-Jones and J Morphet (2003). Public scrutiny, standards and the planning system: Assessing professional values within a modernised local government, Public Administration, 8(4), 761-780. (Pubitemid 38005849)
7. Allmendinger, P (2009). Planning Theory, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.
8. Barrow, C (1997). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. London: Arnold.
9. Bartlett, R and A Kurian (1999). The theory of environmental assessment: Implicit models in policy making. Policy and Politics, 27(4), 415-433. (Pubitemid 30008622)
10. Beattie, RB (1995). Everything you already know about EIA (but don't often admit). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(2), 109-114.
11. Beck, U (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
12. Beck, U (1995). Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity.
13. Benson, JF (2003). What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(4), 261-266.
14. Boehmer-Christiansen, S (1994). Politics and environmental management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 37(1), 69-85. (Pubitemid 24390328)
15. Caldwell, L (1988). Environmental impact analysis: Origins, evolution and future directions. Review of Policy Research, 8(1), 75-83.
16. Campbell, H and R Marshall (2002). Utilitarianism's bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory, 1(2), 163-187.
17. Campbell, S (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of American Planning Association, 62, 296-313.
18. Cashmore, M (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: Process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 403-426. (Pubitemid 38355849)
19. Cashmore, M, R Gwilliam, R Morgan, D Cob and A Bond (2004). The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive purpose, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), 295-310. (Pubitemid 40234349)
20. Castells, M (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266.
21. Castells, M (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Committee on Standards in Public Life (1997). Third report: Standards of conduct in local government in England, Scotland and Wales: Volume 1: Report CM3702. London, Stationery Office.
23. Cremer, D (2002). Marx and the Postmodernist debates: An agenda for critical theory by Lorraine Y Landdry, book review. Journal of Political Ecology: Case Studies in History and Society, 9(2), http://jpe.library.arizona. edu/volume-9/903cremer.html (accessed 19/07/10).
24. Dahrendorf, R (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25. Dillar, J, F and L Ruchala (2005). The rules are no game: From instrumental rationality to administrative evil. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(5).
26. Drior, Y (1964). Muddling through - 'science' or inertia'. Public Administration Review, 24, 153-157.
27. Eccleston, CH (2006). Perspective: Lynton Caldwell, A founding father of America's "Environmental Magna Carta". Environmental Practice, 8(4), 206-207. (Pubitemid 46486840)
28. Elling, B (2008). Rationality and the Environment: Decision-making in Environmental Politics and Assessment. London: Earthscan.
29. Elling, B (2009). Rationality and effectiveness: Does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 121-131.
30. Etzioni, A (1967). Mixed-scanning: A "third" approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27(5), 385-392.
31. Fainstein, SS (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 451-478.
32. Faludi, A (1973). Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
33. Faludi, A (1983). Critical rationalism and planning methodology. Urban Studies, 20, 265-278.
34. Feenberg, A (2008). From critical theory of technology to the rational critique of rationality. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 5-28.
35. Flyvbjerg, B (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. London: University of Chicago Press.
36. Flyvbjerg, B (2000). Ideal theory, real rationality: Habermas Versus Foucault and Nietzsche. Political Studies Association's 50th Annual Conference, The Challenges for Democracy in the 21st Century, London School of Economics and Political Science, 10-13 April.
37. Forester, J (1989). Planning in the Face of Planning. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
38. Forte, JM (2008). Religion and capitalism: Weber, Marx and materialist controversy. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 34(4), 427-448.
39. Friedmann, J (1998). Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies, 6(3), 245-253. (Pubitemid 28358835)
40. Gamble, A (1981). An Introduction to Modern Social and Political Thought. London: Macmillan.
41. Giddens, A (1986). Sociology: A Brief Critical Introduction. London: MacMillan Press.
42. Giddens, A (2006). Sociology, 5th edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.
43. Glasson, J, R Therivel and A Chadwick (2005). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 3rd edn. London: UCL Press.
44. Gore, C, K Murray and B Richardson (1992). Strategic Decision-Making. London: Cassell.
45. Habermas, J (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
46. Hall, P (1982). Urban and Regional Planning. 2nd edn., London: George Allen and Unwin.
47. Healey, P and R Gilroy (1990). Towards a people sensitive planning. Planning Practice and Research, 5(2), 21-29.
48. Healey, P (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
49. Hill, M (2005). The Policy Process. 4th edn. London: PearsonLongman.
50. Holder, J (2004). Environmental Assessment: The Regulations of Decision-Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Huxley, M and O Yiftachel (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 333-342. (Pubitemid 30651294)
52. Huxham, M and D Sumner (2000). Science and Environmental Decision-Making. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
53. Jay, S, C Jones, P Slinn and C Wood (2007). Environmental impact assessment: Retrospective and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 287-300. (Pubitemid 46661027)
54. Kontic, B (2000). Why are some experts more credible than others? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 427-434. (Pubitemid 30446314)
55. Krämer, L (2007). The development of environmental assessment at the level of the European Union, in Holder, J and D McGillivray (eds.). Taking Stock of Environmental Assessment, London: Routledge-Cavendish.
56. Lawrence, D (1997). The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17(2), 79-107.
57. Lawrence, D (2000). Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 607-625.
58. Lee, D and H Newby (1985). The Problem of Sociology. London: Hutchinson.
59. Leknes, E (2001). The role of EIA in the decision-making process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 309-344.
60. Lindblom, CE (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Admin. Rev., 19(1), 79-88.
61. Lindblom, CE (1980). The Policy Making Process, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
62. Löwith, K (1982). Max Weber and Karl Marx. London: George Allen and Unwin.
63. McCarthy (1994). We don't have a theory of rationality, and we never will - A philosophically pragmatic point of view. In KatzM (ed.). Philosophy of Education. Urbana, Ill., Philosophy of Education Society. http://www.ed.uiuc. edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/94-docs/ MCCARTHYHTM (accessed 19/07/10).
64. Morgan, RK (1998). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Methodological Perspective. London: Kluwer.
65. Owens, S, T Rayner and O Bina (2004). New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice and research. Environment and Planning, 36, 1943-1959. (Pubitemid 39583697)
66. Paden, R, (2003). Marxism, utopianism, and modern urban planning. Utopian Studies, 14(1), 82-111.
67. Pepper, D (1984). The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
68. Persson, J (2006). Theoretical reflections on connection between environmental assessment methods and conflict. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 605-613. (Pubitemid 44205316)
69. Pische, F and M Cashmore (2006). Decision - Oriented environmental assessment: An empirical study of its theory and methods. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 643-662. (Pubitemid 44205318)
70. Richardson, T (2005). Environmental assessment and planning theory: Four short stories about power, multiple rationality and ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 341-365. (Pubitemid 40483187)
71. Rorty, R (1991). Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Rydin, Y (2003). Conflict, Consensus, and Rationality in Environmental Planning: An Institutional Discourse Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73. Smith, G and D May (1997). The artificial debate between rationalist and incrementalist models of decision-making. In Hill, M (ed.). The Policy Process: A Reader, 2nd edn. London: Prentice Hall Wheatsheaf.
74. Simon, H (1957). Administrative Behaviour, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan.
75. Simon, H (1976). Administrative Behaviour. 3rd edn. London: Free Press.
76. Taylor N (1998). Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. London: Sage.
77. Tewdwr-Jones, M (1996). Reflective planning theorising and professional protectionism. Town Planning Review, 67, 235-243. (Pubitemid 126598530)
78. Toke, D (2005). Explaining wind power planning outcomes: Some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy, 33, 1527-1539. (Pubitemid 40106389)
79. Walker, KJ (2001). Uncertainty, epistemic communities and public policy. In Handmer, J, T Norton and S Dovers (eds.). Ecology, Uncertainty and Policy, Harlow: PrenticeHall.
80. Warren CR, C Lumsden, S O'Dowd and RV Birnie (2005). Green On green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(6), 853-875. (Pubitemid 41823556)
81. Weber, M (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York: Oxford University Press.
82. Weber, M (1979). The essentials of bureaucratic organisation. In Worsley, P (ed.). Modern Sociology, 2nd edn. London: Penguin Books.
83. Weber, M (1997). Rational legal authority. In Hill, M (ed.). The Policy Process: A Reader, 2nd edn. London: Prentice Hall Harvester Wheatsheaf.
84. Weston, J (1997). Introduction: EIA in the UK. In Weston, J (ed.). Planning and EIA in Practice. London: Longmans.
85. Weston, J (2000). EIA decision-making theory and screening and scoping in UK practice. Journal of Planning and Environmental Management, 43(2), 185-204.
86. Weston, J (2003). Is there a future for EIA? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(4), 278-280.
87. Weston, J (2004). EIA in a risk society. Journal of Planning and Environmental Management, 47(2), 313-325. (Pubitemid 38616015)
88. Weston, J (2006). Common sense in environmental impact assessment - It cannot be avoided. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(1), 12-13.
89. Wilkins, H (2003). The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 401-414. (Pubitemid 36639701)
90. Wood, C (1995). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Harlow: Longman.
91. Yearley, S (1988). Science, Technology, and Social Change. London: Unwin Hyman.
92. Yearley, S (1991). The Green Case: A Sociology of Environmental Issues, Arguments and Politics. London: HarperCollinsAcademic.