Space for action: How practitioners influence environmental assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 54, Issue , 2015, Pages 110-118

  Kågström, Mari ^a   Richardson, Tim ^b  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Environmental assessment; Frame theory; Human health; Practitioner; Space for action

Indexed keywords

PLANNING;

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; FRAME THEORY; HUMAN HEALTH; PRACTITIONER; SPACE FOR ACTION;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;

HUMAN BEHAVIOR; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

SWEDEN;

EID: 84931262889     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. 6, Perri What's in a frame? Social organization, risk perception and the sociology of knowledge. Journal of Risk Research 2005, 8:91-118.
2. Benford R.D., Snow D.A. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 2000, 26:611-639.
3. Bhatia R., Wernham A. Integrating human health into environmental impact assessment: an unrealized opportunity for environmental health and justice. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116:991-1000.
4. Bryman A. Social Research Methods 2008, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
5. Burns J., Bond A. The consideration of health in land use planning: barriers and opportunities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2008, 28:184-197.
6. Carmichael L., Barton H., Gray S., Lease H., Pilkington P. Integration of health into urban spatial planning through impact assessment: identifying governance and policy barriers and facilitators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2012, 32:187-194.
7. Cashmore M., Gwilliam R., Morgan R., Cobb D., Bond A. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2004, 22:295-310.
8. Directive 85/337/EEC of the council of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
9. 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.
10. Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
11. Fischer T.B., Matuzzi M., Nowacki J. The consideration of health in strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2010, 30:200-210.
12. Fischer T.B., Onyango V. Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2012, 30:253-263.
13. Grange K. Shaping acting space: in search of a new political awareness among local authority planners. Planning Theory 2012, 12:225-243.
14. Gray B. Framing of environmental disputes. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases 2003, 11-34. Island Press, Washington. R.J. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliott (Eds.).
15. Harris P.J., Haigh F. Including health in Environmental Impact Assessments: is an institutional approach useful for practice?. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2015, 33(2):135-141.
16. Harris P.J., Harris E., Thompson S., Harris-Roxas B., Kemp L. Human health and well being in environmental impact assessment in New South Wales, Australia: auditing health impacts within environmental assessments of major projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 310-318.
17. Healey P., Underwood J. Professional ideals and planning practice: a report on research into planners' ideas in practice in London Borough planning departments. Progress in planning 1978, 9:73-127.
18. Hilding-Rydevik T., Vohra S., Ruotsalainen A., Pettersson Å., Pearce N., Breeze C., Hrncarova M., Lieskovska Z., Paluchova P., Thomas L., Kemm J. Health Aspects in EIA. Improving the Implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment 2005, Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung, Vienna.
19. Kågström M., Hilding-Rydevik T., Sjöberg I. Human health frames in EIA - the case of Swedish road planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2013, 31:198-207.
20. Kørnøv L. Strategic environmental assessment as catalyst of healthier spatial planning: the Danish guidance and practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 29:60-65.
21. Kørnøv L., Thissen W.A.H. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2000, 18:191-200.
22. Landim S.N.T., Sánchez L.E. The contents and scope of environmental impact statements: how do they evolve over time?. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2012, 30:217-228.
23. Lawrence D.P. The need for EIA-theory building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1997, 17:79-107.
24. Lawrence D.P. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2000, 20:607-625.
25. Laws D., Rein M. Reframing practice. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society 2003, 172-206. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M.A. Hajer (Ed.).
26. Morgan R. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2012, 30:5-14.
27. Morgan R.K., Hart A., Freeman C., Coutts B., Colwill D., Hughes A. Practitioners, professional cultures, and perceptions of impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2012, 32:11-24.
28. Morrison-Saunders A., Bailey J. Practitioner perspectives on the role of science in environmental impact assessment. Environ. Manage. 2003, 31:683-695.
29. Noble B., Bronson J. Integrating human health into environmental impact assessment: case studies of Canada's northern mining resource sector. Arctic 2005, 58:395-405.
30. Noble B., Bronson J. Practitioner survey of the state of health integration in environmental assessment: the case of northern Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2006, 26:410-424.
31. Nowacki, J., T. Fischer & M. Martuzzi. 2010. Health and SEA: challenges and opportunities. In IAIA10 Conference Proceedings. The Role of Impact Assessment in Transitioning to the Green Economy. 30th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment. International Conference Centre Geneva, Switzerland.
32. Owens S., Rayner T., Bina O. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environment and Planning A 2004, 36:1943-1959.
33. Pope J., Bond A., Morrison-Saunders A., Retief F. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2013, 41:1-9.
34. Retief F. The evolution of environmental assessment debates: critical perspectives from South Africa. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2010, 12:375-397.
35. Richardson T. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2005, 25:341-365.
36. Robinson M., Bond A. Investigation of different stakeholders views of local resident involvement during environmental impact assessments in the UK. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2003, 05:45-82.
37. Schön D.A., Rein M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies 1994, Ashgate, New York.
38. SFS 1998:808 Miljöbalken [The Swedish Environmental Code]. Stockholm: Miljödepartementet [Ministry of Environment].
39. Socialstyrelsen The Swedish national board of health and welfare. Hälsa i miljökonsekvensbeskrivningar [Health in EIA] 2001, Ale Tryckteam, Bohus.
40. Steinemann A. Rethinking human health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2000, 20:627-645.
41. Tait M. Room for manoeuvre? An actor-network study of central-local relations in development plan making. Planning Theory & Practice 2002, 3:69-85.
42. Wallington T., Bina O., Thissen W. Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2007, 27:569-584.
43. Van Gorp B. The constructionist approach to framing: bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication 2007, 57:60-78.
44. Wegner A., Moore S.A., Bailey J. Consideration of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment in Western Australia: practitioner perceptions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2005, 25:143-162.
45. World Health Organisation Health and Safety Component of Environmental Impact Assessment. Report of a WHO Meeting. Environmental Health Series, No. 15 1987, WHO-Europe, Copenhagen.
46. Wilkins H. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2003, 23:401-414.
47. Vliegenthart R., van Zoonen L. Power to the frame: bringing sociology back to frame analysis. European Journal of Communication 2011, 26:101-115.
48. Wärnbäck A., Hilding-Rydevik T. Cumulative effects in Swedish EIA practice: difficulties and obstacles. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 29:107-115.