Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Good practices for environmental assessment

Chris Joseph, Thomas Gunton & Murray Rutherford

To cite this article: Chris Joseph, Thomas Gunton & Murray Rutherford (2015) Good practices
for environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33:4, 238-254, DOI:
10.1080/14615517.2015.1063811

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1063811

Published online: 18 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3183

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 2015
Vol. 33, No. 4, 238–254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1063811

Good practices for environmental assessment

Chris Joseph1, Thomas Gunton* and Murray Rutherford2
School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC Canada, V5A1S6
(Received 4 September 2014; accepted 15 June 2015)

Environmental assessment (EA) has emerged in the last five decades as one of the primary management tools that
governments use to protect the environment. However, despite substantial theoretical development and practical experience,
there are concerns that EA is not meeting its objectives. This article develops a set of good practices to improve EA.
An integrated list of proposed good practices is developed based on a literature review of impact assessment research and
related fields of study. The practices are then evaluated by surveying experts and practitioners involved in EA of tar sands
(also known as oil sands) development in Canada. In all, 74 practices grouped under 22 themes are recommended to improve
EA. Key unresolved issues in EA requiring future research are identified.
Keywords: environmental assessment; impact assessment; best practices; improving environmental assessment; project
evaluation; project appraisal

1. Introduction is an important aspiration of research on EA effectiveness

Environmental assessment (EA) has emerged in the last
five decades as one of the primary management tools for
protecting the environment. However, despite substantial
theoretical development and practical experience, there
are concerns that EA is not meeting its objectives of
protecting the environment and ensuring sustainability
(Jay et al. 2007; Noble 2009; Gibson & Hanna 2009).
To address these concerns and improve EA perform-
ance, scholars and practitioners have proposed various
best practices (e.g., Senecal et al. 1999; Wood 2003;
Gibson et al. 2005; Vanclay et al. 2015). While these
efforts have considerably advanced EA knowledge and
practice, there remain deficiencies in the best practices
literature that need to be addressed. First, there are key EA
design issues, such as the appropriate structure of EA
appeal processes, that are not sufficiently canvassed in the
existing literature. Second, much of the existing literature
is based mainly upon author observation and inference
without a clear explanation of how the practices were
derived and without sufficient evidence supporting the
practices. The principles published by the International
Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) (Senecal et al.
1999; Vanclay 2003; Andre et al. 2006; Vanclay et al.
2015) are notable exceptions in that there is a description
of how the practices were formulated and validated by
soliciting input from EA experts, but the IAIA publications
do not provide a transparent summary of the input received
and how it was used. Third, the best practice literature does
not adequately address contextual factors that may
influence when and how the proposed practices should
be applied in specific settings. Fourth, best practice
recommendations are based largely on the EA literature
and could be better informed by relevant literature in
related fields. Fifth, best practice recommendations have
not been sufficiently tested to verify links between
processes and desired outcomes. Establishing causal
connections between practices and substantive outcomes
(Sadler 1996; Cashmore et al. 2004).
Our objective in this article is to address some of these
deficiencies in best practice literature by reviewing,
extending, and validating recommended EA best practices
to produce a more comprehensive and empirically
grounded basis for improving EA. We begin by outlining
a methodology for developing best practices that
integrates recommended best practices from the EA
literature with related fields of study, and then test
proposed practices by surveying experts and practitioners
involved in EA of tar sands (also known as oil sands)
development in Canada. We then present 74 recommended
practices grouped under 22 themes that we term “good
practices” for EA. We use the term good practices instead
of best practices to reflect the limited amount of empirical
validation of practices with respect to outcomes, and the
likelihood of further refinement of the practices with
additional research (Bardach 2004; Vesely 2011). Finally,
we review limitations of our research and provide
recommendations for future best practices research.
2. Methods
Our research method was designed to help advance the
field of EA by exploring gaps in EA process guidance,
conducting additional testing and validation of good EA
practices, and integrating relevant guidance from related
fields.
The first step was to review existing literature on EA
best practices. Overviews of EA best practices are readily
available in EA books and reports, IAIA best practice
guidelines, and articles in EA journals (e.g., Senecal et al.
1999; Wood 2003; ICPGSIA 2003, Lawrence 2003;
Gibson et al. 2005; Andre et al. 2006; Noble 2010;
Vanclay et al. 2015). Generally, this literature identifies
best practices through a combination of literature review
and author judgement. We prepared an initial list of

*Corresponding author. Email: gunton@sfu.ca

q 2015 IAIA

recommended practices from the EA literature with
attention to how each practice was developed (i.e., author
assertion, expert panel, survey research, case study
findings, and/or other methods), the degree of rigour
involved, the number of sources supporting the practice,
and the level of consensus across authors and sources for
the practice.
Next we reviewed relevant literature in related fields
including: megaproject planning, environmental policy,
risk assessment, administrative law, public policy, and
planning. We then integrated relevant findings from this
additional literature review into our list of recommended
practices, again with attention to how the best practices
were developed and the level of support for each practice
across authors. Supplemental literature was located
through web searches (e.g., on appeal systems, cumulative
effects management, evaluation methods, best practices
for policy and planning) and by tracing best practice ideas
through the sources identified in bibliographies of
materials already reviewed. This list of practices was
then organized into common themes and integrated to
eliminate overlap and promote coherence.
The next step was to survey EA experts to test
practices on the compiled list. Due the large number of
practices it was not feasible to test them all in the survey.
Therefore we did not test those practices in the survey that
had a high level of consensus support in the literature we
reviewed. We defined high level of consensus as meaning
that the practice is recommended in the literature and not
explicitly criticized or opposed by any author. Practices
that did not meet this test were examined in the survey by
asking respondents to appraise the practice or rank it
relative to other options and to provide additional
commentary on the practice in open-ended questions.
The final step was to use the literature and survey results to
prepare a recommended list of good EA practices. Our
recommended list identifies the sources for each practice
and whether the practice was tested in our survey of
experts (Table 1).
The survey was conducted through an online
questionnaire sent to experts across Canada with extensive
knowledge and experience with the Alberta provincial and
Canadian federal EA processes as they apply to tar sands
development in Alberta. Tar sands development was used
as the context for the survey questions because it is one of
the most prominent types of development in Canada
subject to EA and it has involved provincial as well as
federal EA processes; therefore, it provides a good testing
ground for recommended EA practices (Joseph 2013).
Potential survey respondents were identified through an
iterative process of contacting relevant experts from
government agencies and non-government organizations,
EA researchers in Canada who had published on the topic of
tar sands EA, and people recommended by respondents
during previous rounds of contact. Invitations were initially
sent to 189 people, but some declined to participate and
some did not fully complete the questionnaire. In the end,
75 experts completed the confidential questionnaire.
Respondents ranged from across the federal, Alberta
provincial, and local governments as well as industry,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 239
consultancies, and Aboriginal, environmental and citizen
groups (Figure 1). Respondents had an average of
10.3 years of experience with the tar sands EA process.
Unfortunately, there was very limited participation from
two of the offical government agencies involved in tar sands
EA: only one staff member of the Alberta Energy Regulator
(formerly called the Energy Resources Conservation
Board) responded, and no employees of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency participated. The
limited participation from these two government agencies
was due to government decisions to restrict their agencies’
participation in external surveys. However, former employ-
ees of both agencies did participate in the survey.
3. Description of good practices
Based on the results of our literature review and survey we
identify 74 good practices grouped under 22 themes
(Table 1). This range of good practices reflects the multi-
faceted complexity of EA and the fact that the overall
success of EA is dependent on addressing a great many
factors. Deficiencies in any one dimension may undermine
the rest of the process.
A related and interesting feature of the recommended
practices is the breadth of the potential intellectual
foundation for EA. Through our literature review it
became apparent that the field of EA can benefit from the
guidance from a great many bodies of knowledge,
including megaproject planning, environmental policy,
risk assessment, administrative law, public policy, and
planning. Surprisingly, there has been little explicit cross-
fertilization between the EA literature and these other
related fields.
Another notable feature of our recommended practices
is that high-quality information – a critical element of
sound EA – is the product of many of the practices
(Figure 2). Essentially, the broader body of good practices
must be attended to in order for decision-makers to have
the information required for good decision-making.
4. Contentious issues
In this section, we present the results of our survey on
contentious issues in EA practice. For each practice, we
briefly explain the issue and then discuss the survey
results, including our interpretation of responses to
relevant open-ended questions.
4.1 Impact assessment studies
A fundamental question in designing EA is who should be
responsible for completing the impact assessment (IA)
studies to be used in the EA. Considerations affecting this
decision include the need for project designers to work
together with impact assessors to optimize mitigation
strategies and the need to minimize bias that may be
introduced by having the project proponent prepare the IA
(Hollick 1984; Wathern 1988; Nikiforuk 1997; Herring
2009). We tested five alternative models for allocating
 Table 1. Good practices in EA.a
240

Tested in Key references for good

Themes Good practices survey practices theme

Integration with broader Government manages development using a system of interdependent, hierarchical decision-making 12, 13, 16, 18, 31, 41, 44, 48, 69, 70,
planning and management including strategic policymaking, land use planning, tenuring, EA, and permitting. Broader issues are 71, 91, 92, 105, 118
system resolved prior to narrower project-specific issues
High-level policy is developed through stakeholder-inclusive strategic policymaking and land use Yes
C. Joseph et al.

planning, which itself may be developed through strategic EA, regional EA, and/or class EA. High-
level policy communicates government’s objectives, indicates where, when, and how development
may occur, sets priorities, identifies the values that will guide land and resource management, and
delineates acceptable levels of change in valued components
Tenure decision-making reflects high-level policy in terms of where and what type of development
may occur
EA examines whether specific projects are acceptable or not, based upon the direction provided in
high-level policy
Permitting follows from EA to legally implement EA recommendations and other government
regulations governing development of approved projects.
Initial review Proposal is subject to initial determination of potential acceptability, and if potentially acceptable, the 2, 16, 20, 21, 29, 32, 41, 44, 70, 106,
type of detailed review required, if any 130, 133
If the project is deemed potentially acceptable and requires detailed review, the proponent is
informed of concerns of government and stakeholders and next steps
Scoping If the proposal requires detailed review, scoping determines the nature of detailed review and focuses 2, 16, 20, 21, 22, 26, 29, 41, 43, 44,
review on key issues 48, 56, 58, 66, 69, 77, 79, 85, 96,
The scope of detailed review is formally established in terms of reference (TOR) prepared by the EA 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112,
review body which specify the necessary content of the application and acceptable methods 116, 118, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130,
Regardless of any focusing of review through scoping, EAs cover four essential topics: (1) project 132, 133, 134, 135, 140
justification, (2) potential impacts and planned mitigation (3) alternatives to the project and
alternative ways of completing the project, and which is the best performer, and (4) likelihood of
project success
Impact assessment studies IA is done by an independent assessor (separate from the review body and the proponent) with Yes 36, 59, 65, 90, 131
proponents paying.
There are strong communication links between the impact assessor and project designers to maximize
mitigation effectiveness
Legal and procedural incentives, including the use of accredited impact assessment staff, exist to
ensure accurate, high-quality assessments without bias
Scrutiny of application Applications are checked by the review body for consistency with the TOR in terms of content and 10, 24, 31, 36, 38, 61, 65, 71, 91,
methods, and content is scrutinized for quality and bias 106, 133
Reviewers have the legal authority to require proponents to address deficiencies
Once the application is deemed acceptable, the review body announces that the final application is
complete, and publishes the final version of the application
Final decision-making Final decision-making is conducted either by an independent body or elected officials based on Yes 11, 44, 54, 123, 133
recommendations from an independent body. If an independent body makes final decisions then
mechanisms such as legislatively-based clear decision-making criteria and stakeholder engagement
are in place to provide democratic accountability; if elected officials make final decisions they must
clearly justify any decisions that deviate from the recommendations from the independent body

(Continued)

Themes
Monitoring and enforcement
Process management
Resources and time
Methods of impact assessment
Consolidated review process managed by The EA consolidates all government reviews and decision-making on project proposals into one
independent review body
Mitigation and maximizing net benefits EA is focused on maximizing net benefits across all indicators of sustainability
Table 1. (continued).
Tested in Key references for good
Good practices survey practices theme
The decision statement clearly explains approval decisions and their rationale(s) based on explicit
reference to the decision criteria and to society’s objectives and values
Approval decisions are put on hold for a limited period of time to allow for appeals to be heard.
If appeals are found to have merit, then approvals are suspended until appeals are resolved
Approvals specify terms and conditions which: are clear and specific; describe allowable procedures
and maximum permitted impact outcomes; are supported by stakeholders, experts and empirical
evidence; are consistent with high-level policy; and are mandatory and backed by legal sanctions
EA is supported by compliance monitoring and enforcement, as well as effectiveness monitoring and 2, 11, 29, 32, 41, 54, 79, 91, 103,
requirements for remedial action if mitigation is found ineffective or if unanticipated impacts occur 108, 123, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
Monitoring is performed by an independent body that reports publicly 138, 140
Knowledge gained from monitoring and enforcement activities is recorded and transmitted to future
EAs
The effectiveness of EAs are enhanced through work planning, budgeting, delineating roles and 2, 29, 32, 43, 52, 79, 107, 115,
responsibilities, establishing timelines and milestones, and monitoring and reporting progress 133, 136
EA is regularly and independently audited for effectiveness with respect to domestic and international
standards.
Findings on improving process management are publicly communicated and incorporated into future
EAs
Review staff are regularly involved in training and capacity-building.
There is sufficient funding and staff, including leadership Yes 2, 32, 54, 73, 76, 87, 123, 138
Funding is sufficient enough to allow for EA consistent with good practices
EA staff have expertise in the process and the issues raised by the application. Staff for particular EAs
remain on the EAs until finished
The EA process is subject to legislated time limits that provide some certainty regarding the length of Yes
the process while providing sufficient flexibility and time to ensure adequate project review
Recommended methods of IA are identified and comprehensive guidelines for applying these 9, 20, 25, 27, 36, 37, 46, 49, 50, 53,
methods are provided 54, 56, 57, 63, 64, 66, 72, 73, 74, 75,
The methods used should be: (1) suited to the review context, (2) flexible and adaptable, 81, 82, 89, 91, 94, 97, 100, 103, 107,
(3) scientifically robust, (4) minimally reliant upon subjective inputs, (5) easy to understand, evaluate, 109, 115, 117, 120, 124, 126, 129,
and put to use, (6) capable of producing useful outputs, (7) highly accepted by users and stakeholders, 133, 136, 141
(8) cost-effective, and (9) participative
Reference class forecasting and cost-benefit analysis (including multiple account cost-benefit Yes
analysis) are highly recommended
Yes 32, 39, 41, 54, 70, 76, 103, 118,
single review 123, 125, 130
EA is led and managed by an independent review body at arm’s length from government. Yes
The independent review body has adequate resources and authority, and mechanisms are in place to
ensure accountability to the public
19, 42, 43, 44, 54, 75, 77, 91, 98,
Mitigation programs are designed to address harms earlier rather than later and are chosen based upon 114, 125, 123, 133, 134, 136, 139,
the following order of preference: avoidance, minimization, abatement, repair, or compensation 140, 141
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
(Continued)
241

Themes
Process description
Legal foundation
Structured decision procedures
Communication
Stakeholder participation
Expert involvement
Table 1. (continued).
242
Tested in Key references for good
Good practices survey practices theme
Mitigation is legally required, and compensation to negatively-impacted stakeholders is required Yes
when impacts can’t otherwise be mitigated. Compensation is based on explicit procedures for
determining when and how much compensation is provided
EA propels development to make an overall positive contribution, instead of just ensuring that
C. Joseph et al.
negative impacts of projects are reduced to an acceptable level.
The review process is fully and explicitly described in publicly-available documentation 1, 2, 16, 28, 29, 32, 39, 41, 43, 44,
Description clearly outlines purposes and objectives, roles, responsibilities, and authority of all 54, 76, 77, 105, 106, 115, 118, 123,
involved, and how stakeholders may participate 133, 134, 135
All key elements of the process are established in law. 1, 2, 14, 29, 30, 32, 38, 36, 39, 41,
Legal text is clear, specific, unambiguous, consistent, and distinguishes the EA process from other 43, 44, 54, 55, 70, 79, 86, 87, 123,
legal requirements and processes 133, 134, 135
Legal text uses mandatory language (e.g., “must” and “shall”) and minimizes discretion. Flexibility is
retained only where necessary to enable the process to be appropriately adapted to context
The purpose of EA is written into law and is to rationally inform decision-making and promote
sustainability and development in the public interest.
Major decision-making is structured and guided by clearly defined criteria that follow from high-level Yes 16, 38, 39, 41, 44, 54, 62, 69, 70, 77,
policy 79, 108, 123, 125, 127, 133, 134
There is a legal obligation to comply with the decision-making criteria.
Communication is clear, consistent, timely, precise, regular, and ongoing 16, 32, 37, 39, 54, 58, 107, 108, 113,
Communication supports the participation of all parties in the process; confidentiality provisions do 119, 133, 134
not inhibit participation
Documentation is publicly available, free and easy to access, and is tailored to the audience.
Communication is run through a ‘single window portal’
Stakeholders are provided with the genuine capacity to influence outcomes Yes 1, 5, 7, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29,
All stakeholder groups are given the opportunity to be involved, and involvement is extended to all 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45,
steps in the process 51, 54, 60, 66, 67, 75, 76, 77, 80, 83,
There are ample opportunities for learning 87, 91, 93, 96, 99, 102, 107, 108,
Power imbalances, including resource imbalances, among stakeholders are mitigated by provision of 112, 116, 123, 125, 129, 130, 132,
sufficient resources to allow stakeholders to effectively participate 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139,
Means of involvement, such as consensus-based stakeholder negotiation tables, are used to promote 141, 142
conflict resolution
Decision statements of the review body clearly record the views and evidence of all stakeholder
participants as well as the review body’s interpretation of stakeholder views and relevant evidence
Peer-reviewed evidence is given more weight, and all research done for EA is opened to public 16, 23, 33, 36, 37, 38, 56, 66, 75, 78,
scrutiny 68, 84, 86, 93, 111
Expert processes are formal, structured, and transparent. Experts are independent and qualified by the
EA review body for their expertise. A range of opinions are gathered. Process probes assumptions and
reasoning, examines areas of agreement and disagreement, and highlights strengths and weaknesses
in understanding. Results are documented and publicly reported
(Continued)
 Table 1. (continued).

Tested in Key references for good

Themes Good practices survey practices theme

Precautionary process Process is based on the precautionary principle to address uncertainty and risk Yes 3, 22, 38, 39, 43, 44, 47, 66, 91, 104,
Additionally, the process involves: (a) risk assessment, (b) assignment of liability, (c) demonstration 117, 119, 123, 125, 128, 130,
that uncertainties are likely to be benign, (d) active adaptive management, (e) caution with new 134, 140
technology, and (f) transparent risk communication.
Appeal mechanisms The appeal system is enshrined in the EA legislation 4, 6, 39, 41, 54, 77, 78, 79, 88, 121,
Appeals are allowed on major decisions for matters of both procedure and substance Yes 123, 133, 134
Standing is extended at least to proponents and others with direct material interests Yes
Instead of relying on the courts or the EA review body, consideration should be given to creating a Yes
special appellate body with expertise in EA to ensure that the appeal is heard by adjudicators with
sufficient expertise to assess issues of substance as well as issues of procedure
Requests for appeals must be approved by the appellate body as justified for appeal before an appeal
is formally heard and adjudicated. Written reasons for acceptance or rejection of an appeal are
provided
The appellate body should have the authority to send its decision on the appeal with Yes
recommendations back to the EA review body for reconsideration or to substitute its own decision in
place of that of the EA review body where the appellate body deems appropriate
Obligations to indigenous peoples met The EA process adheres to and promotes the principles in the UN Declaration on the Rights of 39, 54, 76, 95, 122, 123, 134,
Indigenous Peoples as well as all obligations to indigenous peoples established in the 136, 141
jurisdiction’s laws
The process and requirements for meeting obligations to indigenous peoples should be provided in
government policy.
Minimal public investment in projects Government focuses on its role as public safeguard Yes 8, 16, 38, 36, 37, 50
Projects are privately funded; government abstains from funding, subsidizing, or otherwise directly or
indirectly investing in development unless public investment is deemed absolutely necessary for
public interest reasons based on explicit and highly restrictive cost-benefit approval criteria
If public investment is approved, it is limited so that private partners provide the majority of the
capital
a
Practices in italics are identified as high priority for further research due to lack of agreement among respondents. References: (1) Ahammed and Harvey (2004), (2) Ahmad and Wood (2002), (3) Allen (2004), (4) Altshuler
and Luberoff (2003), (5) Andre et al. (2006), (6) Archer et al. (1999), (7) Arnstein (1969), (8) Ascher (1993), (9) Barget and Gouguet (2010), 10: Baxter et al. (2001), (11) BC Auditor General (2011), (12) Benevides et al.
(2008), (13) Blair and Carr (1981), (14) Boyd (2003), (15) Bradshaw (2003), (16) Bruzelius et al. (2002), (17) CAPP (2006), (18) CCME (2009), (19) CEARC (1998), (20) Chicken (1994), (21) Cocklin and Kelly (1992), (22)
Collingridge (1992), (23) Cooke (1991), (24) Creasey and Ross (2009), (25) Davis (1990), (26) de Bruijn and Leijten (2008), (27) Diez (2001), (28) Donnelly et al. (1998), (29) Doyle and Sadler (1996), (30) Droitsch et al.
(2008), (31) Duinker and Greig (2006), (32) EMMRPIWG (2008), (33) Failing et al. (2007), (34) Fiorino (1989), (35) Fiorino (1990), (36) Flyvbjerg (2007), (37) Flyvbjerg (2008), (38) Flyvbjerg et al. (2003), (39) Forbes et al.
(2012), (40) Frame et al. (2004), (41) Gibson (1993), (42) Gibson (2006), (43) Gibson and Walker (2001), (44) Gibson et al. (2005), (45) Gray (1989), (46): Green (1997), (47) Gregory et al. (2006), (48) Greig (2008), (49)
Gunton (1992), (50) Gunton (2003a), (51) Gunton (2003), (52) Gunton and Joseph (2007), (53) Gunton and Vertinsky (1990), (54) Gunton et al. (2004), (55) Gunton et al. (2005), (56) Hall (1980), (57) Hanley and Spash (1993),
(58) Haveman (1976), (59) Herring (2009), (60) Hessing et al. (2005), (61) Hicks (2011), (62) Hierlmeier (2008), (63) Hochschorner and Finnveden (2003), (64) Hollick (1981), (65) Hollick (1984), (66) ICPGSIA (2003), (67)
Irvin and Stansbury (2004), (68) Keeney (1992), (69) Kennett (1999), (70) Kennett (2006), (71) Kennett (2007), (72) Kinnaman (2011), (73) Knight (1990), (74) Kok et al. (2006), (75) Laird (1993), (76) Land-Murphy (2004),
(77) Lawrence (2003), (78) Leu et al. (1996a), (79) Leu et al. (1996b), (80) Linkov et al. (2006), (81) Lovallo and Kahneman (2003), (82) McAllister (1982), (83) McDaniels et al. (1999), (84) Morgan and Henrion (1990), (85)
Morris and Hough (1987), (86) Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (2003), (87) Morrison-Saunders et al. (2003), (88) Muldoon et al. (2009), (89) Nash et al. (1975), (90) Nikiforuk (1997), (91) Noble (2010), (92) OAGC (2009),
(93) Otway and Winterfeldt (1992), (94) Park et al. (2006), (95) Passelac-Ross and Potes (2007), (96) Priemus (2008), (97) Priemus et al. (2008), (98) Rajvanshi (2008), (99) Rickson et al. (1990), (100) Rosenhead (2005), (101)
Ross (2002), (102) Rowe and Frewer (2005), (103) Sadar (1996), (104) Sadler (1990) in Sadler (1990), (105) Sadler (1990), (106) Sadler (1996), (107) Samset (2003), (108) Senecal et al. (1999), (109) Shiftan and Shefer
(2009), (110) Siemiatycki (2010), (111) Sinnette (2004), (112) Slotterback (2008), (113) Sorel (2004), (114) Sosa and Keenan (2001), (115) Soumelis (1977), (116) Storey and Hamilton (2003), (117) Stough and Haynes
(1997), 118: Stratos (2008), (119) Tennøy et al. (2006), (120) Tiruta-Barna et al. (2007), (121) Tollefson (2003), (122) UN (2007), (123) Van Hinte et al. (2007), (124) Van Wee and Tavasszy (2008), (125) Vanclay (2003),
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

(126) Vickerman (2007), (127) Vlavianos (2007), (128) Walters (1986), (129) Warner and Preston (1974), (130) Warrack (1993), (131) Wathern (1988), (132) WCD (2000), (133) Wood (2003), (134) Wozniak (2007), (135)
Zeremariam and Quinn (2007), (136) Vanclay et al. (2015), (137) Spaling et al. (2011), (138) Marshall et al. (2005), (139) Bond et al. (2012), (140) Égré and Senécal (2003), (141) Esteves et al. (2012), (142) Morgan (2012).
243
244 C. Joseph et al.
Figure 1. Respondents as characterised by themselves.
responsibility for managing and paying for IA (Table 2).
Respondents strongly favoured using an independent
assessor, with 39% preferring that the proponent pay for
the independent assessor and 14% favouring the govern-
ment paying, for a total of 53%. In contrast, 30% supported
the current approach of relying on the project proponent.
Respondents supporting independent assessment
expressed concern about ensuring independence in
Figure 2. High-quality information as a function of good practice.
preparing the EA to minimize potential bias and did not
express concern about potential consequences of separ-
ating impact assessors from project designers (such as
impeding integration of project design with mitigation,
and impeding financial accountability by separating
funding of studies by the proponent from the independent
assessor undertaking the studies). Designing an indepen-
dent assessment system that addresses these issues
requires additional research.
4.2 Review body
Key issues associated with the design of the entity
responsible for overseeing and managing EA include the
degree of independence from government, efficiency of
the process, level of expertise involved, authority and
resources available, accountability to the public, and
‘siloing’ (or fragmentation) of information and decision-
making processes across government (Warrack 1993;
Sadar 1996; Vanclay 2003; Wood 2003; Kennett 2006;
Van Hinte et al. 2007). We identified three models for
managing the EA process from the literature (Table 3).
Respondents ranked the independent review model the
highest, citing its independence as the key benefit. The
main problem with the temporary review body model
according to respondents’ open-ended answers is lack of
continuity in staff, and the main problem with the
government department model is potential bias. Respon-
dents did not express any concerns regarding potential
 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 245

Table 2. Rankings of different models for who conducts and pays for impact assessment studies.

Impact assessment body and payee Mean rankinga SD Respondents who ranked first (%)

IA done by independent body with proponent paying 2 1.15 39%

IA done by independent body with government paying 2.8 1.21 14%
IA done by proponent’s consultants with proponent 3.1 1.74 30%
paying (self-assessment model)
IA done by government with proponent paying 3.3 1.1 7%
IA done by government with government paying 3.7 1.37 10%
a
Respondents ranked the five options from most preferred (1) to least preferred (5).

siloing (i.e., a disconnect between the review body and the
concerns and knowledge across arms of government) with
the independent review body option.
4.3 Final decision-maker
Another important issue in EA is who should make the
final decision. Key considerations include ensuring that the
EA process is democratically accountable while ensuring
that decision-makers have sufficient expertise and are
unbiased. In Canada, final decision-making responsibility
for major projects is typically assigned to elected officials
based on recommendations received from review panels
appointed by government. This model is intended to
maintain democratic accountability while utilizing the
advice of individual experts that have at least some degree
of independence (Gunton et al. 2004; Van Hinte et al.
2007). We evaluated four alternative models for final
decision-making in our survey, including the current
Canadian model of elected officials making final decisions
based on recommendations from independent review
bodies (Table 4). While the largest group of respondents
preferred the independent final decision-maker model
(47%), almost one-third of respondents (28%) preferred a
consensus-based stakeholder table and 26% preferred
elected officials guided by recommendations from either
an independent body or a stakeholder table. Although
many respondents favoured independence, some
respondents expressed concern that independent bodies
are not directly accountable to the general public. To some
degree, this concern for democratic accountability
can be addressed by other design options regarding
decision criteria and stakeholder engagement discussed
below. However, given the concern for democratic
accountability in the literature and among survey
respondents, more research on the role of elected officials
versus independent review bodies and ways of making
independent decision-makers more democratically
accountable is warranted.
4.4 Time
A common issue in EA is whether to impose time limits
for completing the EA process. The argument in favour of
a time limit is that it provides increased certainty for
project investors and may improve the overall efficiency
of the process, while the argument against a time limit is
that it may not allow sufficient opportunity for a fulsome
review (Van Hinte et al. 2007). Seventy-six percent of
respondents thought that a legal constraint on time was
either “very important” (20%), “important” (28%), or
“somewhat important” (28%); only 20% thought that a

Table 3. Survey results ranking different review body models.

Review body Mean rankinga SD Respondents who ranked firstb (%)

Independent review body 1.3 0.58 79%

Temporary review body drawn from government 2.3 0.66 10%
Government department with association to project 2.5 0.7 10%
a
Respondents ranked the three options from most preferred (1) to least preferred (3). bColumn doesn’t add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 4. Survey results ranking of different models of who conducts final decision-making.

Final decision-maker Mean rankinga SD Respondents who ranked firstb (%)

Independent body appointed by government 1.8 0.93 47%

Elected officials from governing party based on 2.5 1.09 20%
recommendations of independent body
Stakeholder table coming to consensus or near-consensus 2.6 1.3 28%
Elected officials from governing party based on 3 0.81 6%
recommendations of a stakeholder table
a
Respondents ranked the four options from most preferred (1) to least preferred (4). bColumn doesn’t add to 100% due to rounding.
246 C. Joseph et al.
constraint on time was ‘not important’. Many respondents
did indicate that efficiency must be balanced with ensuring
that sufficient time is available for a high-quality review.
Respondents commented that sufficient time must be
given to all parties involved, and that a process that limits
the time for government and stakeholders to scrutinize
applications is unfair given that proponents are typically
far less restricted in how long they have to assemble
their applications. One respondent wrote that, ‘it is more
important that the review be done correctly rather than
steward to some legal time commitment.’ Therefore, while
there is strong support for the concept of legal limits on the
length of the EA process, the time limits need to be
carefully designed to ensure fairness and sufficient length
and flexibility in their application to allow for adequate
project review.
4.5 Methods of impact assessment
Choosing appropriate methods for analysis is critical to the
success of IA. Two methods that receive special attention
in the megaproject literature are reference class forecast-
ing (RCF), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). RCF works by
comparing forecasts of the impacts of the project under
review to the realized impacts of a class of similar projects
(Lovallo & Kahneman 2003). Flyvbjerg (2007, p. 28)
explains that RCF ‘does not try to forecast the specific
uncertain events that will affect the particular project, but
instead places the project in a statistical distribution of
outcomes from this class of reference projects’. CBA is
based on welfare economics and identifies and compares
a project’s positive and negative impacts to arrive at a
discounted net present value. CBA is highly supported in
the field of project evaluation as the principal method for
examining the value of projects to society (e.g., Davis
1990) but is also the subject of much criticism (e.g.,
Atkinson & Mourato 2008). Currently, neither method
(RCF or CBA) is used in tar sands EA.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents felt that the
methods currently used to assess tar sands projects in
Canada are inappropriate, and respondents were highly
supportive of both RCF and CBA in EA. A total of 84% of
respondents agreed that RCF is very important (27%),
important (32%), or somewhat important (25%) in EAs,
and 91% agreed that CBA is very important (43%),
important (29%), or somewhat important (19%). However,
respondents’ comments indicated that support for CBA is
qualified. Many respondents were concerned that the
monetary value of economic benefits is easily measured
while social and environmental impacts are much harder to
monetize. Several respondents also noted that Aboriginal
Table 5. Level of importance of mitigation and compensation.
Planning tool Very important (%) Important (%) Somewhat important (%) Not important (%)
Legal requirement for proponents to mitigate 81
negative effects of projects
Stakeholder groups are compensated for negative 52
impacts that they incur
rights issues cannot be addressed through CBA. To help
address these concerns, it may be prudent to use a variant
of CBA such as multiple accounts analysis, which better
addresses impacts that cannot be easily monetized and
identifies the distribution of costs and benefits by
stakeholder group (Shaffer 2010). We acknowledge,
however, that while multiple accounts analysis may be
useful in identifying the impact of projects on Aboriginal
interests, additional measures will be required to address
Aboriginal rights in the EA process.
4.6 Mitigation and compensation
Mitigation has been used for many years as a tool to
promote sustainability in project development. According
to several authors, mitigation of adverse project impacts
should be mandatory, and if mitigation measures will not
work, developers should be required to compensate all
groups left worse off by a project to ensure that
externalized costs are included in the project assessment
(Gunton et al. 2004; Van Hinte et al. 2007; Wozniak
2007). However, Rajvanshi (2008) cautions that compen-
sation should be a last resort to address project harms
because the compensation may not be a sufficient
substitute for the original asset.
Respondents to our survey strongly supported a
requirement to mitigate and compensate for negative
impacts (Table 5). However, several respondents felt that
there should be limits on what harms must be mitigated
and when compensation should occur. Respondents thus
raised a key issue in mitigation: what minimum thresholds
must be passed for a negative impact to be harmful enough
to require mitigation or compensation? Respondents
offered numerous ideas, such as the need to compensate
for economic harms, but only if they are not temporary,
and that mitigation should be restricted to impacts
occurring within a certain geographical boundary, such
as the jurisdiction in which development occurs. There-
fore, while there is strong support for the principle of
compensation, additional research is required on defining
appropriate terms and conditions for providing
compensation.
4.7 Decision criteria and discretion
Another matter of debate is whether decision-makers
should be constrained by detailed decision criteria or
should have broad discretion. Some analysts (Gibson
1993; Van Hinte et al. 2007) argue that discretion should
be constrained by explicit criteria to reduce the role of
subjective bias of decision-makers and to ensure decisions
14 3 2
25 18 3
 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 247

are consistent and transparent. Explicit decision criteria Table 6. Survey results ranking different models of stakeholder
can also increase democratic accountability by requiring involvement.
independent experts to follow guidelines developed by
% of
elected officials. Other analysts (e.g., Wood 1995) note respondents
that discretion is required to address the diversity of Stakeholder involvement Mean who ranked
circumstances encountered in EA. model rankinga SD first
Respondents to our survey strongly favoured con-
Quasi-judicial process in 1.7 0.87 43%
straining discretion. Seventy-two percent and 61% of which stakeholders can
respondents felt that the discretion of elected and non- formally assess, submit
elected decision-makers, respectively, should be heavily evidence, and cross-examine
constrained by explicit and legally binding decision- witnesses
making rules. However, some respondents cautioned that Gather stakeholder input prior 2.3 0.74 13%
to decision-making
some discretion is necessary. As one respondent Shared decision-making in which 2.4 1.29 36%
commented, ‘highly constrained decision making is not government, proponents, and
decision making – it makes the decisions ahead of time in other stakeholders negotiate
setting the constraints. That can be appropriate for routine a decision on applications
(small) projects that are low risk . . . [but] major projects Notification and provision of 3.3 0.97 8%
information to stakeholders
require specific considerations and decisions.’
a
Respondents ranked the four options from most preferred (1) to least
preferred (4).
4.8 Stakeholder participation
Another basic principle in EA is that stakeholders should
participate in and have the capacity to influence the outcome commencement of a quasi-judicial process, thus achieving
of the process (Senecal et al. 1999). There are many models the potential benefits of both approaches. Given the lack of
of stakeholder participation (Beierle & Cayford 2002); these clear preference in the survey results, more research on
models can be grouped into three categories: information the merits of collaborative models versus quasi-judicial
sharing, consultation, and collaboration (Gunton et al. models is warranted.
2010). Information sharing informs stakeholders without
seeking their input; consultation seeks input from
stakeholders through an interactive process without formal 4.9 Precautionary practices
obligation to incorporate this input into the final decision; Effective EA processes need to adopt various strategies to
and collaboration engages stakeholders in an interactive manage the risks inherent in the development of large
process that ensures incorporation of stakeholders’ views projects. At a minimum the process should identify
into the decision by seeking stakeholder endorsement of sources of uncertainty, describe and analyse risk, develop
decisions through negotiation. We tested versions of all and implement strategies to reduce risk, monitor the
three models in the survey (Table 6). effectiveness of mitigation, and ensure that proponents
The quasi-judicial model, a variant of the consultation adjust procedures and activities if monitoring results are
model in which stakeholders may submit evidence and poor (Collingridge 1992; ICPGSIA 2003; Gibson et al.
cross-examine witnesses, received the highest ranking 2005). However, additional precautionary strategies might
from respondents. This is the model typically used in also be taken.
Canada for EA of large projects. The collaborative model One recommended strategy is to apply a form of the
was the first choice of almost as many respondents as the precautionary principle (Vanclay 2003). Another strategy
quasi-judicial model (36% vs 43%) but received an is to incorporate active adaptive management into the
average ranking slightly below that of the gathering process whereby uncertainties are actively probed (Gibson
stakeholder input model. The lower average ranking for et al. 2005; Van Hinte et al. 2007). A third strategy is to
the collaborative model relative to the quasi-judicial employ a trial-and-error approach to test new technologies
model by respondents is inconsistent with the trend in on small-scale pilot projects to prove their effectiveness
recent literature that favours collaborative models and prior to general application (Collingridge 1992). A fourth
concepts such as free, prior and informed consent on the strategy is to assign liability at the time of approval for
grounds that collaboration ensures a higher degree of unforeseen consequences. Respondents strongly supported
stakeholder engagement and is more likely to generate all of these strategies (Table 7).
decisions that meet the interests of all parties (Busenberg
1999; Susskind et al. 2003; Frame et al. 2004; Innis &
Booher 2010; Morgan 2012; Vanclay et al. 2015). Also, 4.10 Appeal mechanisms
the survey results may reflect higher familiarity of It is well accepted in the literature that stakeholders should
respondents with the quasi-judicial model or concerns have the right to appeal EA decisions (Gibson 1993;
about timeliness and efficiency. Finally, note that the Altshuler & Luberoff 2003; Wood 2003; Vanclay et al.
survey posed collaborative and quasi-judicial models as 2015). However, many of the details of the appeal process
either/or options when they could be used in conjunction remain unresolved. One issue is whether appeals should be
with each other by requiring collaboration prior to the limited to dealing with procedural issues (i.e., were all
248 C. Joseph et al.
Table 7. Respondents’ views of the importance of several precautionary practices.
Precautionary practice
Proponent is required to demonstrate beyond a reasonable
doubt that uncertainties are benign and that despite imperfect
knowledge there will be no serious consequences
Active adaptive management involving experimentation and
incorporating learning into future management decisions
Extra caution when new technology is proposed by allowing
only smaller projects at first until technology is proven and
requiring redundancy in systems so that proven technology
exists to back up new technologies
Specification, at time of approval, of who is liable for
unforeseen consequences, required mitigation measures, and
timelines for mitigation
procedural requirements carefully followed?) or should
consider matters of substance as well (i.e., was the logic,
reasoning, and interpretation of evidence correct?).
According to 61% of respondents, stakeholders should
be able to appeal EA decisions on matters of both
procedure and substance, though several respondents
noted that there still must be a test to ensure that appeals
are not groundless. Only 3% of respondents opposed
having an appeal process.
A second issue is defining who should have standing to
initiate an appeal. Forty-seven percent of respondents
thought that the right to appeal should be restricted to
parties with a direct pecuniary and/or property interest
impacted by the project but excluding the proponent, 34%
thought the right should be extended to the project
proponent, and 19% thought that any interested party
should have the right to appeal.
A third issue is who should hear appeals. Key
considerations are ensuring that the appeal is heard by a
party that has sufficient expertise in the substance of the
matters and is impartial (Gibson 1993; Lawrence 2003; Van
Hinte et al. 2007). Common options for who hears appeals
include: the EA review body that issued the decision, the
courts, or a specialized appeal body with expertise in EA.
Two-thirds of respondents felt that appeals should not be
heard by the original decision-maker. Comments pointed to
concerns regarding potential bias in self-review. We did not
ask respondents to rate the courts versus specialized EA
appeal options due to the lack of experience in Canada with
the latter. However, we note that while judges may have
expertise on questions of legal procedure, they lack
expertise on substantive scientific issues in EA and in
Canada at least have been reluctant to consider matters of
substance in appeals (Tollefson 2003). Consequently, a
specialized appeal body with expertise in EA may be
superior to relying exclusively on the courts to hear appeals.
Regardless of what option is chosen, respondents were
divided on what powers the appellate body should have.
Just over half (51%) felt that the appellate body should
send the decision back for reconsideration, 43% felt that
the appellate body should have authority to choose
whether to replace the decision or send it back for
reconsideration, and 6% felt that the appellate body
should have the authority to replace the decision. Clearly,
Very Somewhat Not
important (%) Important (%) important (%) important (%)
44 24 12 17
54 32 10 3
39 28 23 8
77 14 5 3
defining the powers of the appellate body requires further
investigation.
4.11 Public investment in projects
Governments sometimes invest in projects when private
markets undersupply or are unable to provide necessary
infrastructure or other public goods (Bruzelius et al. 2002;
Flyvbjerg et al. 2003). Governments may also have a
direct pecuniary interest in promoting project develop-
ment, particularly when the project generates royalties and
taxes (Gunton 2003b). Although government investment
in development may not have any direct impact on the
structure of the EA review process, such investment can be
an important factor affecting EA, as it may bias EA
decision-making or lead to the promotion of uneconomic
projects. Consequently, the megaproject literature strongly
recommends that governments minimize financial invol-
vement in projects and focus on their regulatory role of
public safeguard (Bruzelius et al. 2002; Gunton 2003a;
Flyvbjerg 2008).
When asked if they support government financial
involvement in large-scale project development, 61% of
respondents said that ‘it depends’, 22% said no, and 14%
said yes. The dominant rationale among supporters of
government financial involvement was the perception that
financial support may sometimes be required: 46% of
those who supported government involvement felt that
private developers have too little incentive to provide
public goods, and 31% of the same sub-group felt that
private developers are unwilling or unable to shoulder the
full costs of development. Many respondents pointed out
the need for impartial decision-making if government
becomes financially involved – 85% of those who said
government shouldn’t get financially involved felt that
public investment would bias EA decisions and 55% of
this same sub-group felt that government involvement
would subsidize uneconomic development.
4.12 Tenure decision-making and project review
A common issue in EA of resource development projects
is whether tenure decisions allocating access, entitlement,
and consent to use public land and natural resources should

take place within the EA process or be dealt with as a
separate process in advance of EA. The argument in
support of making tenure decisions in advance of EA is
that project applicants need certainty of tenure in order to
justify the cost of preparing an EA application and
participating in an EA process. The counter arguments are
that separation of tenure decision-making from the EA
review will result in tenure decisions being made without
full consideration of environmental consequences of
development, and that the granting of tenure may
introduce an expectation of development that could bias
the EA process (Kennett et al. 2006; Droitsch et al. 2008).
Fifty-six percent of respondents supported integration of
tenure and permitting decisions with EA as a single
process, 29% thought that tenure, EA decisions, and
permitting should occur in multiple decision-making steps,
and 14% were unsure. Several respondents commented
that granting tenure prior to EA introduces a bias in favour
of approval into EA decision-making. However, respon-
dents did not indicate how to ensure that project
proponents would have sufficient incentive to initiate an
EA application without having secure tenure rights.
Therefore integration of allocation of tenure rights with the
EA process is an area requiring further investigation.
5. Discussion
Our list of 74 good practices (Table 1) synthesizes what
was learned in the literature review and survey into a
cohesive body of good practices for effective EA. Our
research addressed some of the deficiencies in the existing
literature on EA best practices by incorporating findings
from other relevant fields of research and transparently
validating the more contentious issues with a survey of
experts. The results reveal a broad array of factors that a
good EA process needs to address if it is to fulfil the
objective of propelling sustainability. We acknowledge,
though, that the complexity and breadth of the good
practices poses a formidable challenge to those designing
and revising EA law, policy, and practice.
Further study of the causal connections between EA
practices and outcomes is needed, and there are good
reasons to expect that instituting these practices will
contribute to more effective assessments. Sadler’s (1996)
seminal international study of EA effectiveness identifies
three main types of effectiveness for EA – procedural,
transactive, and substantive – and some subsequent
researchers recognize normative effectiveness as an
additional dimension (Chanchitpricha & Bond 2013).
Procedural effectiveness involves conforming with ‘estab-
lished provisions and principles’ (Sadler 1996, 39). There
is a clear link between good practices and this form of
effectiveness. A comprehensive and detailed set of good
practices establishes procedural standards for practitioners
and other participants to follow as they undertake
assessments, and provides criteria for evaluators to use
in judging the quality of EA. Transactive effectiveness
emphasizes efficient use of time, money and other
resources (Sadler 1996). Two of the themes in our best
practices directly address transactive effectiveness
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 249
(‘process management’ and ‘resources and time’), and
several practices listed under other themes also foster more
efficient assessments. Substantive and normative effec-
tiveness are concerned with whether EAs achieve their
specified objectives and broader societal goals (Chanchit-
pricha & Bond 2013). Judgments about such matters will
vary with the perspectives of evaluators, including their
views about the proper goals and objectives for EA and its
role in decision-making (Morgan 2012). We relied on the
extensive accumulated experience and wisdom of our
survey respondents, along with that of previous authors of
EA best practices, to identify practices that EA experts
associated with effectiveness. We also note that our
recommended best practices target the factors that
Chanchitpricha and Bond (2013) identify as influencing
substantive effectiveness, including the regulatory frame-
work, the decision-making context, stakeholder and public
participation, and the quality of the impact assessment
report. Moreover, our best practices align well with the
‘effectiveness criteria’ developed by Hanna and Noble
(2015) from their Delphi survey of EA experts.
In addition to the need for further research linking
practices with EA outcomes, there are several other
limitations of our research that should be addressed in
future work. First, our survey results are based on the
responses of experts involved in tar sands EA, and these
responses may not be valid for all other contexts (Joseph
2013). This limitation is offset to some degree because we
drew our initial practices from the literature on EA, project
review, and planning in a variety of contexts, and we
formulated our recommended list of good practices in a
manner that provides flexibility to adapt to local
circumstances. Our list of good practices might be thought
of as principles that should be adapted and refined to
specific contexts (Fischer & Gazzola 2006; Runhaar &
Driessen 2007). However, given the contextual framing of
our expert survey, the practices may be best suited to the
assessment of large projects in jurisdictions with well-
functioning institutions. Future researchers should con-
tinue to advance EA theory by exploring the relationships
between good practices and different review contexts.
A second limitation is that while our survey did gather
data on respondent affiliations (e.g., industry, government,
Aboriginal group) our method did not allow us to
distinguish patterns in the data that might indicate biases
or preferences for certain practices by worldview or
position within the EA process. Our survey allowed people
to define their own labels to describe their affiliation(s),
and numerous respondents had multiple affiliations. This
meant that we were not able to determine patterns in
response data by respondent affiliation with confidence.
Finally, while we have attempted to develop a
comprehensive list of good practices for EA, a number
of issues remain unresolved. These priority issues for
future research include:
. integrating project design prepared by project
proponents with the impact assessment studies
prepared by independent assessors;
. achieving the appropriate balance between inde-
250 C. Joseph et al.
pendent decision-making authority by review panels
and democratic accountability by elected officials;
. evaluating the role of innovative conflict resolution
models such as collaborative, consensus-based
stakeholder negotiations and free and prior
informed consent in project review;
. designing time limit requirements that achieve an
appropriate balance between certainty, efficiency,
fairness, and flexibility;
. improving procedures for determining compen-
sation for negatively impacted stakeholders;
. determining the structure and authority of EA
appeal bodies;
. determining EA decision criteria that are specific
enough to achieve consistency in outcomes by
limiting unwarranted discretion while flexible
enough to adapt to the unique circumstances of
each application; and
. integrating tenure allocation decisions into the EA
process while providing sufficient certainty and
incentives for project developers to prepare a
project approval application without biasing EA
decisions.
6. Conclusion
In this article we review and extend the existing EA best
practice literature by synthesizing guidance from
additional relevant literature in other fields and by
validating more controversial practices through a survey
of EA experts and practitioners involved in tar sands EA in
Canada. Based on this research we identify 74 good
practices for EA.
Our findings indicate that EA is a complex,
interdependent system that requires implementation of
all of the good practices to function effectively but in a
manner that respects the unique context of the application.
We recommend further research evaluating the causal
connections between good practices and EA outcomes to
better understand the relationship between procedural and
substantive effectiveness, and on several priority areas that
remain unresolved. With additional research in these
areas, EA good practices can be further revised and refined
over time to help EA achieve the fundamental objective of
ensuring that development is sustainable.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council, Simon Fraser University (President’s PhD
Scholarship), Waterhouse Graduate Fellowship in Organizational
Change and Innovation, and Jake McDonald Memorial Scholar-
ship for financial assistance. We also thank the editor and two
anonymous reviewers for constructive suggestions.
Disclosure statement
None of the three authors have any conflicts of interest; this work
was completed as part of the first author’s PhD research (the
second and third authors were supervisors of the research).
Notes
1. Email: cjoseph@sfu.ca
2. Email: mbr@sfu.ca
References
Ahammed R, Harvey N. 2004. Evaluation of environmental
impact assessment procedures and practice in Bangladesh.
Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 22:63 – 78. doi:10.3152/
147154604781766102.
Ahmad B, Wood C. 2002. A comparative evaluation of the EIA
systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 22:213 – 234. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(02)
00004-5.
Allen C. 2004. Reducing uncertainty. Public Roads. 68:34 – 39.
Altshuler A, Luberoff D. 2003. Mega-projects: the changing
politics of urban public investment. Washington, DC and
Cambridge, MA: Brookings Institution Press and Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy.
Andre P, Enserink B, Connor D, Croal P. 2006. Public
participation international best practice principles. Fargo,
ND.
Archer K, Gibbons R, Knopff R, Pal LA. 1999. Parameters of
power: Canada’s political institutions. 2nd ed. Toronto: ITP
Nelson.
Arnstein SR. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann
Assoc. 35:216 – 224.
Ascher W. 1993. The ambiguous nature of forecasts in project
evaluation: diagnosing the over-optimism of rate-of-return
analysis. Int J Forecasting. 9:109 –115. doi:10.1016/0169-
2070(93)90058-U.
Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2008. Environmental cost-benefit
analysis. Annu Rev Environ Resourc. 33:317 – 344. doi:10.
1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927.
Bardach E. 2004. Presidential address – The extrapolation
problem: how can we learn from the experience of others?
J Pol Anal Manage. 23:205– 220. doi:10.1002/pam.20000.
Barget E, Gouguet J-J. 2010. Hosting mega-sporting events:
which decision-making rule? Int J Sport Finance.
5:141 –162.
Baxter W, Ross WA, Spaling H. 2001. Improving the practice of
cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assess Proj
Apprais. 19:253– 262. doi:10.3152/147154601781766916.
BC Auditor General. 2011. An audit of the environmental
assessment office’s oversight of certified projects.
Victoria, BC.
Beierle TC, Cayford J. 2002. Democracy in practice: public
participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future.
Benevides H, Kirchhoff D, Gibson R, Doelle M. 2008. Law and
policy options for strategic environmental assessment in
Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency.
Blair SR, Carr SG. 1981. Major Canadian projects, major
Canadian opportunities: a report by the Consultative Task
Force on Industrial and Regional Benefits from Major
Canadian Projects.
Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. 2012. Sustainability
assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais.
30:53 –62. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661974.
Boyd D. 2003. Unnatural law: rethinking Canadian environmen-
tal law and policy. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Bradshaw B. 2003. Questioning the credibility and capacity of
community-based resource management. Can Geogr.
47:137 – 150. doi:10.1111/1541-0064.t01-1-00001.
Bruzelius N, Flyvbjerg B, Rothengatter W. 2002. Big decisions,
big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects. Transp
Policy. 9:143 – 154. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00014-8.
Busenberg GJ. 1999. Collaborative and adversarial analysis in
environmental policy. Policy Sciences. 32:1– 11. doi:10.
1023/A:1004414605851.

CAPP. 2006. Industry practices: developing effective working
relationships with aboriginal communities. Calgary: Cana-
dian Association of Petroleum Producers; [cited 2009 July 6].
Available from: http://membernet.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=
NTV&dn=100984
Cashmore M, Gwilliam R, Morgan R, Cobb D, Bond A. 2004.
The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive pur-
poses, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement
of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess-
ment and Proj Apprais. 22:295 – 310. doi:10.3152/
147154604781765860.
CCME. 2009. Regional strategic environmental assessment in
Canada: principles and guidance. Winnipeg: Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment.
CEARC. 1998. Evaluating environmental impact assessment: an
action prospectus. Hull, QC: Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council.
Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2013. Conceptualising the effective-
ness of impact assessment processes. Enviro Impact
Assessment Rev. 43:65 – 72. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006.
Chicken JC. 1994. Managing risks and decisions in major
projects. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Cocklin C, Kelly B. 1992. Large-scale energy projects in New
Zealand: whither social impact assessment? Geoforum.
23:41 – 60. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(92)90035-3.
Collingridge D. 1992. The management of scale: big organiz-
ations, big decisions, big mistakes. New York: Routledge.
Cooke RM. 1991. Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective
probability in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Creasey R, Ross WA. 2009. The Cheviot Mine Project:
cumulative effects assessment lessons for professional
practice. In: Environmental impact assessment: practice
and participation. 2nd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University
Press; p. 158– 172.
Davis HC. 1990. Regional economic impact analysis and project
evaluation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia
Press.
de Bruijn H, Leijten M. 2008. Management characteristics of
mega-projects. In: Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van Wee B,
editors. Decision-making on mega-projects. Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar; p. 23 – 39.
Diez MA. 2001. New approaches to evaluating regional policy:
the potential of a theory-based approach. Greener Manage
Int. 2001:37 – 49. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2001.wi.00006.
Donnelly A, Dalal-Clayton B, Hughes R. 1998. A directory of
impact assessment guidelines. 2nd ed. International Institute
for Environment and Development.
Doyle D, Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in Canada:
frameworks, procedures & attributes of effectiveness. A
report in support of the International Study of the
Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Ottawa:
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Droitsch D, Kennett SA, Woynillowicz D. 2008. Curing
environmental dis-integration: a prescription for integrating
the government of Alberta’s strategic initiatives. Drayton
Valley/Canmore, AB: The Pembina Institute and The Water
Matters Society of Alberta.
Duinker PN, Greig LA. 2006. The impotence of cumulative
effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for
redeployment. Environ Manage. 37:153 – 161. doi:10.1007/
s00267-004-0240-5.
EMMRPIWG. 2008. Key factors for environmental assessment/
regulatory success in Canada’s mining and energy sectors.
Submission for the 2008 Energy and Mines Ministers’
Conference.
Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. 2012. Social impact
assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais.
30(1):34 – 42. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.660356.
Égré D, Senécal P. 2003. Social impact assessments of large
dams throughout the world: lessons learned over two
decades. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:215– 224.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 251
Failing L, Gregory R, Harstone M. 2007. Integrating science and
local knowledge in environmental risk management:
a decision-focused approach. Ecol Econ. 64:47– 60. doi:10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.010.
Fiorino DJ. 1989. Technical and democratic values in risk
analysis. Risk Anal. 9:293 – 299. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.
1989.tb00994.x.
Fiorino DJ. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk:
a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci, Technol Human
Values. 15:226– 243. doi:10.1177/016224399001500204.
Fischer TB, Gazzola P. 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria –
equally valid in all countries? The case of italy. Environ
Impact Assess Rev. 26:396 –409. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.
006.
Flyvbjerg B. 2007. Megaproject policy and planning: problems,
causes, cures. Aalborg: Aalborg University.
Flyvbjerg B. 2008. Public planning of mega-projects: over-
estimation of demand and underestimation of costs.
In: Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van Wee B, editors. Decision-
making on mega-projects. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar;
p. 120– 144.
Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. 2003. Megaprojects
and risk: an anatomy of ambition. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Forbes RS, Hazell S, Kneen J, Paterson J, Sinclair J. 2012.
Environmental assessment law for a healthy, secure and
sustainable Canada: a checklist for strong environmental
laws. Vancouver and Ottawa: West Coast Environmental
Law; [cited 2012 June 28]. Available from: http://wcel.org/
sites/default/files/publications/A%20Checklist%20for%
20Strong%20Environmental%20Laws%20February%
202012.pdf
Frame TM, Gunton TI, Day JC. 2004. The role of collaboration in
environmental management: an evaluation of land and
resource planning in British Columbia. J Environ Plann
Manage. 47:59– 82. doi:10.1080/0964056042000189808.
Gibson RB. 1993. Environmental assessment design: lessons
from the Canadian experience. Environ Prof. 15:12– 24.
Gibson RB. 2006. Sustainability assessment: basic components
of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais.
24:170 – 182. doi:10.3152/147154606781765147.
Gibson RB, Hanna KS. 2009. Progress and uncertainty: the
evolution of federal environmental assessment in Canada.
In: Environmental impact assessment: practice and partici-
pation. 2nd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press;
p. 18 – 36.
Gibson RB, Walker A. 2001. Assessing trade: an evaluation of
the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s analytic
framework for assessing the environmental effects of the
North American Free Trade Agreement. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 21:449 – 468. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(01)
00085-3.
Gibson RE, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G. 2005.
Sustainability assessment: criteria, processes and appli-
cations. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
Gray B. 1989. Collaboration finding common ground for
multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publi-
cations.
Green TL. 1997. Accounting for natural capital in BC: forestry
and conflict in the Slocan Valley. Victoria, BC: University of
Victoria.
Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai JL. 2006. Deconstructing adaptive
management: criteria for applications to environmental
management. Ecol Appl. 16:2411 – 2425. doi:10.1890/1051-
0761(2006)016[2411:DAMCFA]2.0.CO;2.
Greig LA. 2008. Refocusing cumulative effects assessment.
Proceedings of the IAIA 2008: Assessing and managing
cumulative environmental effects.
Gunton T, Vertinsky I. 1990. Methods of analysis for forest land
use allocation in British Columbia: options and recommen-
252 C. Joseph et al.
dations. Prepared for the British Columbia Round Table on
the Environment and the Economy. Victoria, BC.
Gunton TI. 1992. Evaluating land use tradeoffs: a review of
selected techniques. Environments. 21:53 –63.
Gunton TI. 2003a. Megaprojects and regional development:
pathologies in project planning. Reg Stud. 37:505 –519.
doi:10.1080/0034340032000089068.
Gunton TI. 2003b. Natural resources and regional development:
An assessment of dependency and comparative advantage
paradigms. Econ Geogr. 79:67 – 94. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
8287.2003.tb00202.x.
Gunton TI, Day JC, Calbick KS, Johnsen S, Joseph C, McNab J,
Peter T-D, Silcox K, Van Hinte T. 2004. A review of offshore
oil and gas development in British Columbia. Burnaby, BC.
Gunton TI, Day JC, Van Hinte T. 2005. Managing impacts of
major projects: an analysis of the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline
Project. Prepared for Coastal First Nations. Burnaby, BC.
Gunton TI, Joseph C. 2007. Toward a national sustainable
development strategy for Canada: putting Canada on the path
to sustainability within a generation. Vancouver: David
Suzuki Foundation. Available from: http://www.davidsu-
zuki.org/files/SWAG/NSDS-Rpt-full-Eng.pdf
Gunton TI, Rutherford MB, Dickinson M. 2010. Stakeholder
analysis in marine planning. Environments. 37:95– 110.
Hall P. 1980. Great planning disasters. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Hanley N, Spash CL. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis and the
environment. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Hanna K, Noble BF. 2015. Using a Delphi study to identify
effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment. Impact
Assess Proj Apprais. 33:116– 125. doi:10.1080/14615517.
2014.992672.
Haveman RH. 1976. Policy analysis and the Congress: an
economist’s view. Policy Anal. 2:235 – 250.
Herring RJ. 2009. The Canadian federal EIA system.
In: Environmental impact assessment: practice and partici-
pation. 2nd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press;
p. 281– 297.
Hessing M, Howlett M, Summerville T. 2005. Canadian natural
resource and environmental policy: political economy and
public policy. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Hicks TD. 2011. Exploring the use of arguments in impact
assessment: a case for impact significance arguments.
Victoria, BC: Royal Roads University.
Hierlmeier JL. 2008. “The public interest”: can it provide
guidance for the ERCB and NRCB? J Environ Law Pract.
18:279 – 311.
Hochschorner E, Finnveden G. 2003. Evaluation of two
simplified life cycle assessment methods. Int J LCA.
8:119 – 128. doi:10.1007/BF02978456.
Hollick M. 1981. Role of quantitative decision-making methods
in environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage.
12:65 – 78.
Hollick M. 1984. Who should prepare environmental impact
assessments? Environ Manage. 8:191 – 196. doi:10.1007/
BF01866960.
ICPGSIA. 2003. Principles and guidelines for social impact
assessment in the USA: the interorganizational committee on
principles and guidelines for social impact assessment.
Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:231 – 250. doi:10.3152/
147154603781766293.
Innis JE, Booher DE. 2010. Planning with complexity: an
introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy.
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Irvin RA, Stansbury J. 2004. Citizen participation in decision
making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Rev.
64:55 – 65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x.
Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C. 2007. Environmental impact
assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess
Rev. 27:287 – 300. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001.
Joseph CTRB. 2013. Megaproject review in the megaprogram
context: examining Alberta bitumen development. Burnaby,
BC: Simon Fraser University.
Keeney RL. 1992. Value focused thinking: a path to creative
decision-making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Kennett SA. 1999. Towards a new paradigm for cumulative
effects management. Calgary: Canadian Institute for
Resources Law.
Kennett SA. 2006. Integrated landscape management in Canada:
getting from here to there. Calgary: Canadian Institute of
Resources Law.
Kennett SA. 2007. Closing the performance gap: the challenge
for cumulative effects management in Alberta’s Athabasca
oil sands region. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources
Law.
Kennett SA, Alexander S, Duke D, Passelac-Ross MM, Quinn
M, Stelfox B, Tyler M-E, Vlavianos N. 2006. Managing
Alberta’s energy futures at the landscape scale. Calgary:
Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and
Economy.
Kinnaman TC. 2011. The economic impact of shale gas
extraction: a review of existing studies. Ecol Econ.
70:1243 – 1249. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.005.
Knight N. 1990. Mega-project planning and economic welfare: a
case study of British Columbia’s North East Coal Project.
Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
Kok R, Benders RMJ, Moll HC. 2006. Measuring the
environmental load of household consumption using
some methods based on input-output energy analysis:
a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy
Policy. 34:2744 – 2761. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.04.006.
Laird FN. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and
technological decision making. Sci, Technol Human Values.
18:341 – 361. doi:10.1177/016224399301800305.
Land-Murphy B. 2004. Understanding Aboriginal participation
in northern environmental assessments: the case of the Joint
Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Burnaby, BC:
Simon Fraser University.
Lawrence DP. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: practical
solutions to recurrent problems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Leu WS, Williams WP, Bark AW. 1996a. Development of an
environmental impact assessment evaluation model and its
application: Taiwan case study. Environ Impact Assess Rev.
16:115 – 133. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00107-7.
Leu WS, Williams WP, Bark AW. 1996b. Quality control
mechanisms and environmental impact assessment effec-
tiveness with special reference to the UK. Proj Apprais.
11:2 –12. doi:10.1080/02688867.1996.9727013.
Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T,
Ferguson E. 2006. From comparative risk assessment to
multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management:
recent developments and applications. Environ Int.
32:1072 – 1093. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.013.
Lovallo D, Kahneman D. 2003. Delusions of success. Harvard
Business Rev. 07;81 p. 56 –63.
Marshall R, Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2005. International
principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assess
Proj Apprais. 23:175 – 181. doi:10.3152/1471546057817
65490.
McAllister DM. 1982. Evaluation in environmental planning.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McDaniels TL, Gregory R, Fields D. 1999. Democratizing risk
management: successful public involvement in local water
management decisions. Risk Anal. 19:497– 510.
Morgan MG, Henrion M. 1990. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing
with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of
the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30:5 – 14. doi:10.1080/
14615517.2012.661557.
Morris PWG, Hough GH. 1987. The anatomy of major projects: a
study of the reality of project management. Toronto, ON:
John Wiley & Sons.
Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. 2003. Practitioner perspectives
on the role of science in environmental impact assessment.
Environ Manage. 31:683 – 695. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-
2709-z.
Morrison-Saunders A, Baker J, Arts J. 2003. Lessons from
practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assess Proj
Apprais. 21:43– 56. doi:10.3152/147154603781766527.
Muldoon P, Lucas AR, Gibson R, Pickfield P. 2009. An
Introduction to environmental law and policy in Canada.
Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.
Nash C, Pearce D, Stanley J. 1975. Criteria for evaluating project
evaluation techniques. J Am Inst Planners. 41:83 – 89. doi:10.
1080/01944367508977522.
Nikiforuk A. 1997. “The nasty game”: the failure of
environmental assessment in Canada. Toronto: Walter &
Duncan Gordon Foundation.
Noble B. 2010. Introduction to environmental impact assess-
ment: a guide to principles and practice. Don Mills, ON:
Oxford University Press.
Noble BF. 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic
environmental assessment systems and practices in Canada.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29:66 – 75. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.
2008.05.004.
OAGC. 2009. Report of the commissioner of the environment
and sustainable development to the House of Commons.
Chapter 1: Applying the Canadian Environmental Assess-
ment Act, p. 33.
Otway H, Winterfeldt D. 1992. Expert judgment in risk analysis
and management: process, context, and pitfalls. Risk Anal.
12:83 – 93. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01310.x.
Park PJ, Tahara K, Jeong IT, Lee KM. 2006. Comparison of four
methods for integrating environmental and economic aspects
in the end-of-life stage of a washing machine. Resour,
Conserv Recycl. 48:71– 85. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.
01.001.
Passelac-Ross MM, Potes V. 2007. Crown consultation with
Aboriginal peoples in oil sands development: is it adequate,
is it legal? Calgary.
Priemus H. 2008. How to improve the early stages of decision-
making on mega-projects. In: Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van
Wee B, editors. Decision-making on mega-projects. North-
ampton, MA: Edward Elgar; p. 105– 119.
Priemus H, Flyvbjerg B, Van Wee B, editors. 2008. Decision-
making on mega-projects. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Rajvanshi A. 2008. Mitigation and compensation in environ-
mental assessment. In: Fischer TB, Gazzola P, Jha-Thakur U,
Belčáková I, Aschemann R, editors. Environmental assess-
ment lecturer’s handbook. Bratislava: Slovak University of
Technology; p. 167– 198.
Rickson RE, Western JS, Burdge RJ. 1990. Social
impact assessment: knowledge and development. Environ
Impact Assess Rev. 10:1 – 10. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(90)
90002-H.
Rosenhead J. 2005. Problem structuring methods as an aid to
multiple-stakeholder evaluation. In: Miller D, Potassini D,
editors. Beyond benefit cost analysis-accounting for non-
market values in planning evaluation. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate; p. 163– 171.
Ross MM. 2002. Legal and institutional responses to conflicts
involving the oil and gas and forestry sectors. Calgary:
Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
Rowe G, Frewer LJ. 2005. A typology of public engagement
mechanisms. Sci, Technol Human Values. 30:251 –290.
doi:10.1177/0162243904271724.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 253
Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ. 2007. What makes strategic
environmental assessment successful environmental assess-
ment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to
decision-making. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 25:2– 14.
doi:10.3152/146155107X190613.
Sadar MH. 1996. Environmental impact assessment. 2nd ed.
Ottawa, ON: Carleton University Press.
Sadler B. 1990. An evaluation of the Beaufort Sea Environmental
Assessment Panel Review. Ottawa: Federal Environmental
Assessment Review Office.
Sadler B. 1996. International Study of the Effectiveness of
Environmental Assessment: final report – Environmental
assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to
improve performance. Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency, International Association for Impact Assessment,
Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Samset K. 2003. Project evaluation: making investments
succeed. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press.
Senecal P, Goldsmith B, Conover S, Sadler B, Brown K. 1999.
Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice.
Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment
and Institute of Environmental Assessment.
Shaffer M. 2010. Multiple account benefit-cost analysis: a
practical guide for the systematic evaluation of project and
policy alternatives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Shiftan Y, Shefer D. 2009. Evaluating the impact of transport
projects: lessons for other disciplines. Eval Program Plann.
32:311 – 314. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.08.003.
Siemiatycki M. 2010. Managing optimism biases in the delivery
of large-infrastructure projects: a corporate performance
benchmarking approach. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res.
10:30 –41.
Sinnette J. 2004. Accounting for megaproject dollars. Public
Roads. 68:40 – 47.
Slotterback CS. 2008. Stakeholder involvement in NEPA scoping
processes: evaluating practices and effects in transportation
agencies. J Environ Plann Manage. 51:663 –678. doi:10.
1080/09640560802211060.
Sorel T. 2004. Great expectations. Public Roads. 68:10– 15.
Sosa I, Keenan K. 2001. Impact benefit agreements between
Aboriginal communities and mining companies: their use in
Canada. Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Association,
Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia,
CooperAcción; [cited 2008 Mar 9]. Available from: http://
cela.ca/uploads/f8e04c51a8e04041f6f7faa046b03a7c/
IBAeng.pdf
Soumelis CG. 1977. Project evaluation methodologies and
techniques. Paris: UNESCO.
Spaling H, Montes J, Sinclair J. 2011. Best practices for
promoting participation and learning for sustainability:
lessons from community-based environmental assessment
in Kenya and Tanzania. J Env Assmt Pol. Mgmt.
13:343 – 366. doi:10.1142/S1464333211003924.
Storey K, Hamilton LC. 2003. Planning for the impacts of
megaprojects: two North American examples. In: Rasmussen
RO, Koroleva NE, editors. Social and environmental impacts
in the north: methods in evaluation of socio-economic and
environmental consequences of mining and energy pro-
duction in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic. Dordrecht: Springer;
p. 281– 302.
Stough RR, Haynes KE. 1997. Megaproject impact assessment.
In: Chatterji M, editor. Regional science: perspectives for the
future. New York: St Martin’s Press; p. 384– 398.
Stratos. 2008. Improvements to the performance of the federal
regulatory system: issues and research scoping workshop.
Ottawa.
Susskind L, van der Wansem M, Ciccareli A. 2003. Mediating
land use disputes in the United States: pros and cons.
Environments 31, p. 39 – 58.
Tennøy A, Kværnner J, Gjerstad KI. 2006. Uncertainty in
environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for
254 C. Joseph et al.
better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess
Project Appraisal. 24:45 – 56.
Tiruta-Barna L, Benetto E, Perrodin Y. 2007. Environmental
impact and risk assessment of mineral wastes reuse
strategies: review and critical analysis of approaches and
applications. Resour Conserv Recycl. 50:351 –379. doi:10.
1016/j.resconrec.2007.01.009.
Tollefson C. 2003. Public participation and judicial review. In:
Hughes EL, Lucas AR, Tilleman WA, editors. Environmen-
tal law and policy. 3rd ed. Toronto: Emond Montgomery
Publications; p. 255– 300.
UN. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
Van Hinte T, Gunton TI, Day JC. 2007. Evaluation of the
assessment process for major projects: a case study of oil and
gas pipelines in Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais.
25:123 – 137. doi:10.3152/146155107X204491.
Van Wee B, Tavasszy LA. 2008. Ex-ante evaluation of mega-
projects: methodological issues and cost-benefit analysis. In:
Priemus H, Flyvberg B, van Wee B, editors. Decision-
making on mega-projects. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar;
p. 40 – 65.
Vanclay F. 2003. International principles for social impact
assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:5– 12. doi:10.
3152/147154603781766491.
Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks D. 2015. Social
impact assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the
social impacts of projects. Fargo, ND: International
Association for Impact Assessment. Available from: http://
www.socialimpactassessment.com/documents/IAIA%20
2015%20Social%20Impact%20Assessment%20guidance%
20document.pdf
Vesely A. 2011. Theory and methodology of best practice
research: a critical review of the current state. Cent Eur J
Public Pol. 5:98– 117.
Vickerman R. 2007. Cost– benefit analysis and large-scale
infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges.
Environ Plann B. 34:598– 610. doi:10.1068/b32112.
Vlavianos N. 2007. The legislative and regulatory framework for
oil sands development in Alberta: a detailed review and
analysis. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
Walters C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Warner ML, Preston EH. 1974. A review of environmental
impact assessment methodologies. Washington, DC: Pre-
pared for US Environmental Protection Agency.
Warrack A. 1993. Megaproject decision making: lessons and
strategies. Edmonton, AB: Western Centre for Economic
Research, Faculty of Business, University of Alberta.
Wathern P, editor. 1988. Environmental impact assessment:
theory and practice. Routledge.
WCD. 2000. Dams and development: a new framework for
decision-making. London: The Report of the World
Commission on Dams.
Wood C. 1995. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative
review. New York: Wiley.
Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative
review. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wozniak K. 2007. Evaluating the regulatory review and approval
process for major projects: a case study of the Mackenzie Gas
Project. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
Zeremariam TK, Quinn N. 2007. An evaluation of environmental
impact assessment in Eritrea. Impact Assess Project
Appraisal. 25(1):53 – 63. doi:10.3152/146155107X190604.