Cumulative effects in Swedish EIA practice — difficulties and obstacles

Wärnbäck, Antoienette; Hilding-Rydevik, Tuija

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.05.001

Cited by 47 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with earlier findings of the vague role of CE in Swedish EIA/SEA practice (Wärnbäck and Hilding-Rydevik, 2009). Partly, this can be traced to the term neither being used in the national legislation, nor being in common use in the Swedish language.…”

Section: Conception Of Cumulative Effectssupporting

confidence: 90%

Planners’ views on cumulative effects. A focus-group study concerning transport infrastructure planning in Sweden

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Conception Of Cumulative Effectssupporting

confidence: 90%

Planners’ views on cumulative effects. A focus-group study concerning transport infrastructure planning in Sweden

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In our study, the discussion of cumulative effects took place only in relation to how vibrations and noise could alter the experiences of noise. Both of these findings agree with the results from another Swedish study, which indicated that the consideration of cumulative effects is often lacking in EIAs (Wärnbäck & Hilding-Rydevik 2009). Figure 2 demonstrates whether the health impacts of the determinants are described in a clear manner (dark grey).…”

Section: Swedensupporting

confidence: 82%

Human health frames in EIA – the case of Swedish road planning

Kågström

Hilding-Rydevik

Sjöberg

2013

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How human health is framed provides boundaries for choices in practice and bias for certain actions in health assessments in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This study examines health frames in legislation and policies of importance for EIA in Swedish road planning and their implications for practice. The emphasis is on different approaches, such as promotion of health and prevention of ill-health. Indicators of the choices in practice for which the health frames exert bias are further analysed through a review of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for road planning and comparison with a similar study conducted about 10 years ago. The indicators studied are: health determinants included, health impacts assessed, and aspects of the affected population concerned in the EISs. There are fundamentally different health frames in Swedish legislation and policies, but this range is not yet reflected in EISs, which mainly focus on environmental health rather than on broader health determinants and health equity. The results indicate that this situation becomes a dilemma for EIA practitioners and a challenge for the field.

show abstract

“…In this literature it is presupposed that these understandings are important for action, but there exists a gap in knowledge about just how these different understandings are acted out in practice. Wärnbäck and Hilding-Rydevik (2009) have, however, connected practitioners' knowledge and attitudes concerning the handling of cumulative effects in EA, to their will to act, claiming that the attitudes must be strengthen in order to change practice. They also identified external hindrances for improved practice, including time and financial constraints, and support and demands from other practitioners to address cumulative effects.…”

Section: Research Needs: a Knowledge Gap And A Need For New Conceptuamentioning

confidence: 96%

“…There are, nevertheless, indications that certain practitioners have the possibility to be more influential, especially those working as reviewers and regulators (Hilding-Rydevik et al, 2005, Landim and Sánchez, 2012, Wärnbäck and Hilding-Rydevik, 2009). Apart from Landim and Sánchez (2012), the literature does not theorise how practitioners' understandings of EA, of the issues at stake, and of their and others' responsibilities, or their actions, shape their possibilities of influencing environmental assessment processes.…”

Section: Research Needs: a Knowledge Gap And A Need For New Conceptuamentioning

confidence: 96%