Decision-making frameworks for controversial public decision processes: A comparative analysis with a case study

D

3

3

3

3

4

4

DECISION

Abstrac

1. INTRO

2. ELEME

3. THREE

COMPA

.1. Objecti

.2. Princip

.3. Operati

.4. A comp

4. CASE S

.1. Alquev

.2. Critical

5. CONCL

Notes

REFER

N-MAKING

A

ct

ODUCTION

ENTS OF T

E DECISIO

ARATIVE

ives and app

les and feat

ional metho

parative ana

STUDY

va Project br

l analysis of

LUSIONS

RENCES

G FRAME

COMPAR

N

THE DECIS

N-MAKING

ANALYSI

plicability

tures

odologies

alysis

rief descript

f the evalua

EWORKS

RATIVE AN

SION-MAK

G FRAMEW

S

tion

ation proces

FOR CON

DE

NALYSIS

KING PROC

WORKS A

s

NTROVER

ECISION

WITH A

Vasc

WP

CESS

ND A

RSIAL PUB

PROCESS

CASE ST

co B. Gonça

P n.º 2012

3

3

4

5

6

7

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

BLIC

SES:

UDY

♣ alves

2/03

3

3

4

5

6

7

11

13

14

15

20

22

23

DE Abstr Earlie techn There proje new d analy issues proce of th metho metho practi Key w JEL CISION-MA ract er approache nical and ec efore, they h cts with env decision-mak yse similitud s and opera ess. We also he Alqueva odological odologies fo ices. words: Dec classificatio AKING FR es and most conomic con have failed t vironmental i king framew des and diffe ational imple present a cas dam mult frameworks or the impro cision-making on: L38; O22 AMEWORK A COM current prac ncerns and to account f impacts. In t works for the erences, rega ementation, se study, wit tipurpose pr presented. ovement of g process, str 2 KS FOR CO MPARATIV ctices of pro do not inco for sustainab this paper w e assessment arding their aiming to r th the critical roject based The aim the evaluat rategy, susta ONTROVER VE ANALY oject evaluat orporate env bility concern we develop a of the sustai theoretical reveal the m l analysis of d on the c is to illustr ion processe ainability, Al RSIAL PUB YSIS WITH A

ion are still vironmental ns in the ev comparative inability of t base, object main issues the ex-post e comparative

rate the rel es vis à vis queva projec BLIC DECI PROCES A CASE ST driven main or social i valuation of e analysis of these project tives, overar of the evalu evaluation pr analysis o levance of s more tradi ct SION SSES: TUDY nly by issues. major f three ts. We rching uation rocess of the these itional

1

Many Diffe uncer econo proce asses possi have instru proje frame theor the m Alque frame impro makin decis study evalu 2 Theo consi and d theor

1. INTRO

y major pro erent develop rtainties are t Earlier app omic concer ess continue sment result ble negative failed to acc This has t uments have ct evaluation In this p eworks for s retical base, o main issues of We also pr eva multipu eworks pres ovement of t The paper ng process, ion-making y that illustra uation. Finall 2. ELEMEN retical contri ider here the developed by ry of plannin

ODUCTION

ojects requir pment option typical featur proaches and rns and do s to be clos t excluded. e environmen count for sust

to be chang e been recen n and move t paper we d sustainable p objectives, o f the evaluat resent a case urpose proje ented. The the assessmen is structured including m frameworks ates the appl ly, Section 5 NTS OF TH ibutions to d ories around y Simon (196 g.

N

re rather len ns and strateg res of the de d most curre not incorpo sed to multip Conflicts of ntal impacts tainability co ged in orde ntly identifie towards susta develop a co projects. We overarching i ion process. e study, with ect based o aim is to i nt processes d as follows main decisio selected for licability and concludes. HE DECISIO decision mak d organizatio 60, 1976) an ngthy and c gic issues, m ecision proce ent practices orate environ ple interests f value, ofte s, are a relev oncerns. er to enable ed by researc ainability-ori omparative e analyse sim issues and op h the critical on the comp illustrate the vis à vis mo s. Section 2 on approach r the compar d the relevan ON-MAKIN

king have com onal behavior nd Mintzberg controversial multiple intere sses of those s are still dr nmental or , and certain en linked w vant conseq e sound and chers to bet iented object analysis of militudes an perational m l analysis of parative ana e relevance ore traditiona refers the m hes and devi

rative analys nce of those NG PROCE me from diff r, founded th g (1976) with l decision m ests, environ e projects. iven mainly social issues n alternative ith the unce uence. Ther d sustainable ter guide on tives. f three new d difference ethodologies f the evaluati alysis of th of these fra al practices. main elemen ices. Section is. Section 4 frameworks SS ferent academ hrough work h managemen making proc nmental issue y by technica s. The evalu es and criter ertainty relat refore, evalu e decisions. n how to pe w decision-m es, regarding s, aiming to r ion process he methodol ameworks fo nts of the de n 3 describe 4 presents the for major p mic disciplin k by Weber ( ent science an cesses. es and al and uation ria for ted to uations New erform making g their reveal of the ogical or the ecision es the e case project ne. We (1947) nd the

Resea set ob makin delibe set p altern econo unsta of exp and s transp Adap studie secon indica intere Mem by mu differ conte of po and D

3

We c Priem Partid

arch has yie bjectives, an ng as techno erative and “ According priorities, lis native that o omic model able environm According perimentatio should lead parency and ptive Manage The most es) are cost-nd paradigm. ators / indice Sustainabil ests and also mon et al. 20 ultiple possib Manageme rent stages a extual condit ossible cours Dalkmann, 20

3. THREE

ANALY

consider the f mus (2010), dario (2009) lded differen nd two main ocentric, sequ “incremental to the techn st all decis optimizes th ing, is very ments with m to the delibe on, learning a to a satisfac d pluralism ement proces applied dev -benefit anal . However, a es, product - lity issues a o by the de 11). Thus, a ble trends, an ent science c

and step lin tions and pro es of action; 001).

E DECISIO

YSIS

following th the propose and the rive

nt analytical n approaches uential or “r ”. nocentric par ion alternat he objectives y demanding many stakeho erative parad and continuo ctory decisio in the form sses also fit i ices of deci lysis in the a variety of s related and i are heavily sign of insti deliberative nd therefore onsiders that nked togethe oblems requir ; choosing a

ON-MAKIN

hree decision ed approach r basin frame frameworks s may be si rational” and radigm, deci tives, evalua s. Decision, g on inform olders and ins

digm, decisio ous improvem

on. Decision mulation of p

in this paradi ision (in eco first and int sustainability integrated as influenced b itutional arr e process see to the analys t decision-m er in a syste ring decision course of ac

NG FRAME

n-making fram h of Strateg ework by Vi s for enablin ingled out: m d models tha sion-making ate their co which is b mation, time sufficient inf on-making s ment of polic n process res policies but igm (William onomics, ma tegrated and y assessment ssessment too by ideology angements ( ems better su sis of enviro making must ematic way. n; the definit ction among

EWORKS

meworks: th ic Environm ideira et al. (2 ng manageme models that at describe de g should clar onsequences based on ex and resourc formation. hould be a s cies and man sponds bette it makes p ms, 2011). anagement a multi-criter tools may b ols (Ness, B. and econom (Kim, 2010; uited to syst nmental issu be seen as a These inclu ion, develop g the possible

AND A CO

e mega-proje mental Asses 2007). ent to achiev consider de ecision mak rify objective and choos xpert opinion ces, especia systematic pr nagement pra er to concern planning dif and environm ria analysis be applied, su . et al, 2007) omic and po Davidson, tems charact ues. a policy proc ude searchin pment and an e options (N

OMPARAT

ects framew ssment (SEA ve the ecision ing as es and se the n and ally in rocess actices ns for fficult.  mental in the uch as . olitical 2011; erized cess of ng for nalysis Nilsson

TIVE

ork of A) by

3.1. All th evalu Priem proje that t contr envir Partid Direc strate shoul based that it which basin obtain then found about gover proje imple secto frame multi uncer Objective hree framew uation. mus (2010), cts, notes tha this is strong ribute to deal The SEA ronmental iss dário consid ctive, and cu egic-based in ld better ada d and sustain t must fulfill The river b h aimed mai n planning a

ned from the developed o d in case ana t relevant iss rnance proce ct also provi ementing the Although t rs, water r eworks appl idimensional rtainty and es and appli works arise to referring to at there are r gly due to in l with these a framework sues at all le ders that the

urrent frame nstrument ap apt to the ac nability–orien l and a gener basin framew inly at “impr nd managem e analyses of on the groun alysis. Some sues, incomp esses or late ided a struct ese processes they appeare esources) an ly equally to l impacts multiple in icability o address the o major tra recurring pro nstitutional f and other pro k (Partidari vels of decis European D eworks and p pplied to com tual policy a nted SEA me ral format tha work is based roving the u ment” (Antun f five cases o ds of contex e common pa plete and arb

involvement tured procedu s. ed linked to nd decision o the analys (environmen nterests, and e shortcomin ansportation oblems of cos factors. With oblems in the o, 2009) c sion-making Directive 200 practices of mplex decisio and planning ethodology w at it must ass d on the unde understanding nes et al, 20 of European xt, participati atterns emer bitrary assess nt of those co ure to achiev o different a n levels (pl sis and eval ntal, econo d therefore t ngs of curren infrastructur st overruns a h mega-proj e decision-m considers st (policies, pl 01/42/EC, c f SEA1 hav on making p g processes. was develope sume. ertaking of th g of evaluati 009, p.931 past river ba ion, informa rged namely sments, conf oncerned in t ve integrated areas of activ ans, program luation of la omic, social to the analy nt decision p re projects and demand s ects framew aking proces trategic dec lans, program ommonly kn e not worke processes and

For this pur ed, including

he ADVISOR ion processe

It is based asin governa ation and ass the bad qua flict arising f the processe d evaluation vity (infrastr ms and pro arge investm l,...), involv ysis of the practices in p and other m shortfalls an work he inten ss. cisions invo mmes or proj nown as the ed as an eff d argues tha rpose, a stra g a set of fun R research pr es, as part of d on the diag ance processe sessment act ality of know from exclusi es. The ADV for designin tructures, str ojects), the ment projects ving compl project mega-nd also nds to olving jects). e SEA fective at they ategic-nctions roject2 f river gnosis es and ivities wledge ionary VISOR ng and rategic three s with lexity,

3.2. The b defin stake to gu mark streng flexib of ph the sh asses enabl persp linkag sustai activi proce that delibe conte devel conte reliab transp and s Decis only Principles basic idea of ned, in an in holders and uarantee flexi kets, politics gths the dem In order bility"(Priem hases and step

Concerning haping and sment. SEA ling dialogu pectives, whe ges between inability asse In order to ities to enabl Regarding edure of new it should e erative appro ext dependen Guimarães loped as a q ext where “e ble, as well

parent assess A set of gu steps for the sion Processe Thus, all th differ by the and feature f the mega-p ntegrated wa citizens are ibility and ad and techno mocratic dime to deal w mus, 2010, p. ps g SEA, Parti the design o A major key ues towards en considerin n the social, essments. o form a mor le a strategic the river ba w plans and p evolve into oach" (Vide nt evaluation -Pereira and quality assur evaluation pr as socially sment, social uidelines incl operational es” (IDDP´s) hree framewo eir focus of co es projects fram ay, as a "kn involved" (P daptivity as logies3. This ensions of th with project' 1030), the de dario (2009, of strategies y role is "fa mutual un ng developm physical-ec re systematic performanc asin framew projects is cr “a new, mu ira et al., 20 procedure is Corral-Quin rance proces rocedures en y robust". F lly robust kn luding a stru implementa ) was also pr orks present oncern. mework is th nowledge-int Priemus, 201 long as poss s would "im he decision-m 's issues a ecision-mak pp. 4-5) loo " with a fle acilitating de nderstanding, ment options" cological and c SEA proce e is suggeste work, the und

ritical for the multi-dimensi 007 in Antun s required. ntana (2009, s, in an incl nsure that ou our principl nowledge and uctured proce ation of this rovided (Vid principles a

hat the decisi tensive learn 10, p.1024 sible in order mprove the q making proce and to "cre ing process s oks at a frame xible proces ecision-maki , ensuring a . SEA should d economic ess a general ed. derlying hyp e outcome o onal and m nes et al, 20 p.940) cons lusionary fas utcomes are les are prop d extended p ess and the d approach, c deira et al., 20 and features t ion-making p ning process Options shou r to cope wit quality of th ss" (Priemus eate structu should be de ework that "p ss of strategi ing by invo a long-term d also "aim t systems" wi l format of a pothesis is th f river basin multi-stakeho 09, p.933). A

ider that this shion embed technically posed4: inclu eer review. description of alled “Integr 007). that are essen

process shou s, in which ould be maint ith uncertaint he outcome s, 2010, p.10 ure and inc eveloped into proactively a ies formatio olving key a m and large to ensure the ith integrate a set of conn

hat the evalu n managemen older particip An integrate s approach m dded in the and scientif usive govern f the general rated Delibe ntially simila uld be many tained ties in and it 024 crease o a set assists on and actors, scale inter-ed and nected uation nt and patory ed and may be social fically nance, l tasks erative ar and

All o evalu be giv and k flexib better impo throu strate frame ensur 3.3. In thi Mega The p (2010 of them cons uation of mul ven to the co knowledge) bility and ad r quality of t Regarding rtance of en ughout the d egic issues, ework highli re the quality Operatio is section ope a-projects fr problems wh 0) are listed i Source: – Abse analy – Lack – Abse – Amb proje – Flaw – Que Bene – Con sider decisio ltiple dimens ontent of the and to stak daptability to he results to the focus nsuring a flex decision-mak environmen ights the ne y of the evalu nal methodo erational me ramework

hich often occ in Table 1. T : Priemus (201 ence of an ysis; k of alternativ ence of a func biguities abou ect; wed process ar stions regardi efit Analysis; tested informa on-making as sions of anal e decision pr keholder par deal with un be obtained. of the con xible approa king process ntal prioriti eed to consid uation proces ologies thodologies cur in the de Table 1 - M 0) L adequate pr ves; ctional program ut the scope rchitecture; ing the Social

ation;

s the result lysis. All the rocess (in ter rticipation. T uncertainties . ncern, the m ach to better s. The SEA ies and lon der integrate ss.

for the decis

ecision-makin Mega-project List of problem roblem mme; of the l Cost-– Pro – Na – Ch – Po inc – Ch leg – Pri of a phased e models refe rms of quant They also co and institutio mega-project deal with un A framework ng-term sus ed deliberati sion framewo ng on mega-p ts problems ms oblems with l ature of the tec hanging marke olitical di consistencies; hanging stand gislation; ioritization of d process inv er that carefu tity and qual

onsider the onal changes ts framewor ncertainties o k has a stro stainability. ive decision

orks are pres

projects, acc and acquisitio chnology; ets; scontinuity dards and ch f mega-project volving integ ul attention s lity of inform need of ass s so as to as rk highlight of multiple n ong concern The river processes a sented. cording to Pr on; and hanging ts grated should mation suring sure a ts the nature n with basin and to riemus

To de Sou “Prob proce of a s meet proce of the the e mana poten evalu misin (2008 the p prepa Issue infra 2 3 4

eal with them

urce Priemus (20 blem analysi ess should be set of several A “functio should be p edures (progr e “right” sco establishmen agement of t ntial private p Ongoing im uation of eco nformation a 8)), agreeme project”, is t aration of the es relative to astructural pr 1. Problem an 2. Functional 3. Preparation 4. Operation o m the decisio Table 2 010)

is” deals wit egin with a b l potential di nal program prepared. Th ramme, min ope of the pr nt of a pro the knowled players). mprovement onomic, soci mong differe ents should b the elaborati e project unti o land acqui rojects and sh Decision ph nalysis programme n and realization of the project n-making pr 2 - Mega-pro h the existin broad and pa fferent solut mme” of requ hese are a w nimum perfor roject, which cess archite dge and prefe

in social co ial and envi ent players ( be reached in ion of the t il it is ready f isition and to hould be pro hases n of the project rocess should ojects decisi ng problem a articipated pr tions for the p uirements an well-organize rmance crite h will allow ecture that ferences of t ost-benefit a ironmental e (“contested i n advance. N technical, op for execution o the choice operly weigh – D – P – P – S – P – S – N – L – C – D – D i – D d be structure ion-making and whom it roblem analy problem or p nd criteria th ed programm eria, public v to consider defines the the stakehold analysis shou effects. Fina nformation” Next phase, “ perational an n. e of technolo hted. To deal

Do not start wit Project alternat Programme of r Scope of the pr Process architec Social Cost-Ben Negotiated info Land Acquisitio Choice of techn Deal with chang Deal with inconsistencies Deal with chang

ed in four ph process

t affects. The ysis and with project altern at the decisi me of conditi values, etc.), all available conditions ders (public, uld also be c ally, and to , following L “preparation nd economic

ogy are often with uncerta Steps th a solution ives requirements oject cture nefit Analysis ormation on nology ging markets political disc ging standards hases (Table e decision-m h the identifi natives. ion process h ions for tend , the identifi e alternative for a cons , local autho considered f counter pot Leijten and B and realizat c aspects an n very relev ainties linked continuity an and legislation 2). making cation has to dering cation s, and sistent orities, for the tential Bruijn ion of nd the vant in d with nd

chan techn polit cons play of inv a sust SEA To en be de nging market niques shou tical discont sensus, relev ers and the e After the re vestment and tainable solu framework nable a strate eveloped thro Methodolo – Establi differe – Build develo – Identif genera relevan – Analys trends. – Condu provide – Analys – Prioriti and exp – Produc opportu – Propos – Strong assessm Source: Parti ts and their uld be applie tinuity, chan vant informa existing dilem ealization of d maintenanc ution. k egic perform ough a gener Table 3 ogical activiti ish a framew nt perspective a strategic re pment objecti fy Critical F ating clusters nt environmen se trends, not What matters uct sectoral st e information se strategies an ise and explor

ploring oppor ce as many iss unities created se guidelines t ly support th ment, monitor dario (2009) potential im ed and optio nging stand ation should mmas discus f the project, ce activities mance the Str ral format of 3 - SEA stra ies work of insti es. eference fram ives and creati actors for D based on the ntal factors (EF

moments. Th s is a dynamic udies that pe to the decisio nd assess strat re plausible o rtunities. sues notes, com d by decision that drive poss he strategy lif ring – integrat mpacts on the ons maintain dards and le d be consiste sed. the operatio and a life cy rategic Envir a set of the f ategic-based itutional gove mework (SRF ing an assessm Decision-Maki fundamental EF) and the ma he strategic co c analysis, not erform an ana on-maker. tegic options options that en mments and s windows. sible pathway fe-cycle with ting in the stra

e analysis of ned to safegu egislation an ently passed n may start. ycle analysis ronmental As following co d methodolo ernance and F) - working ment benchma ing (CFD) – strategic issu acropolicy fram ontext is ident t a static analy alysis of the for different f nable choice, short reports a

ys, avoid the m a follow-up ategic process f costs and b uard flexibil nd with and d on to the In this last p may be imp ssessment (S nnected activ gy participation for a sustain ark. – priorities s ues (SI) for d mework defin tified, based o ysis. CFD, and the future scenario foreseeing an as necessary, d mitigation para process that of decision-m benefits, ade lity. To deal d lack of p public and phase combin portant to asc SEA) process vities (Table n, and recogn nable future setting exerc development, ned by the SRF on an analysis e assessment os. nd avoiding ri depending on adigm. ensures: desi making. equate l with public to all nation certain s must e 3). nise and cise, the F. s of , to isks the ign,

A me three objec struct institu accor throu sustai phase (plan for go follow asses metho highl and s togeth by th were which flexib River The proce decis (Vide open ethodologica decision pha In the first ctives are ide ture and focu utional gove In the seco rdance with t ugh scenarios inability opp e must also b In the last nning, monito ood governan We may li wing way: th sment and th In a recent odology in lights its rele

Based on th sustainability her. In the st he decision-m clear and ea h adopted an bility" in the r basin fram ADVISOR edure (Table ion processe eira et al., 20 and constru al guidance f ases (Partida one - design entified. The us of the str ernance and p ond phase - the selected C s developme portunities an be prepared. t phase – fo oring, manag nce over the ink the meth he three first he last activit t paper, Parti the study o vance and ap he experienc y approach, w tudy, the SE makers and o asy to comm n approach t decision-ma mework project pro 4) to achiev es, called “I 007). This p uctive dialog for Strategic ario, 2007). n - the objec Critical Fac rategic analy participation analysis and CFD and est ent and optio nd risks must ollow-up - t gement and a subsequent hodological activities to ty to the follo idario and C of the locati pplicability i ce with this c

where all asp EA applicatio

ther stakeho municate to p that had not aking process ovided a set ve integrated Integrated D procedure is gues between Environmen ct of assessm ctors for Dec ysis and asse

must also be d assessment tablished lev ons identific t also be asse the objectiv assessment) years. activities in the design p ow-up phase Coutinho (201 ion of the in mega-proj case, they hi pects of the on was highl lders involve politicians an been prescri s. t of guideli evaluation f Deliberative characterize n the interes ntal Assessm

ment (the und cision-Makin ssment must e established t - the techn vel of detail a cation and as essed. Finally e is to deve and the inst

n Table 3 to phase, the nex

e. 11) present a Lisbon new ect decision-ghlight the i multiple dim ly focused on ed5. This also nd to the gen ibed, showed ines includi for designing Decision Pr ed by particip sted parties,

ment was also

derlying strat ng (CFD) tha t be selected d. nical studies and scope. Tr ssessment. E y, guidelines elop a follo titutional adj these decis xt six activiti an example o w internation -making. mportance o mensions inv n the critical o contributed neral public. d the import ng a structu g and implem rocesses” (ID patory proce as opposed o developed

tegy) and the at will provid d. A framewo

are perform rends are ana Environmenta s for the follo

ow-up progr justments req sion phases ties to analys of the use of nal airport, w of using a str volved are br l factors iden d to outcome Finally, this tance of "allo tured step-b menting river DDP´s) (Tab esses that pro to the tradi d, with e SEA de the ork of med in alysed al and ow-up amme quired in the sis and f SEA which rategic rought ntified es that s case, owing y-step r basin ble 4) omote itional

mech decis Clear respo event achie and t decis partic accou and t identi and p and c cover and C 3.4. The t relate hanisms, mai ion-makers ( Tas 1 2 3 3b 4 5 6 7 Sourc r rules should onsabilities f ts (such as eved and exp tools to fulfi

ion events s cipants to be Some diffe unt for multi to ensure th ification of f policy analys A structure criteria shoul r the quality Corral-Quinta A compara table below es to them th inly characte (Videira et a Table 4 sk Descrip a b – Set up – Define – Choos – Decid – Establ – Plan e – Implem – Evalu ce: Videira et a d be defined for the plann

workshops pected outco ll the define should be pr involved. Th erent delibera iple values, hat the outco

future option sis for the eva ed and in-dep ld be defined of informati ana, 2009). ative analys (Table 5) co e methodolo erized by on l, 2006). – General ta tion p organization e goals se and design de representati lish and imple event(s) and re

ment ate process an l., 2007

beforehand, ning and imp or group m mes should d goals shou epared, inclu he process is ative method uncertainty omes are fit ns, participate

aluation of m pth quality a d on a case-b

ion used and

is

onsiders the t ogical stages

ne-way infor

asks for per

nal scheme

tools ion and partici ement an infor esources nd results , accounting plementation meetings) to be debated uld be select uding a bud s then implem ds should be in informati t for use. S ed modeling management assurance pro by-case basis d methodolog three typical of the decisi rmation flow rforming an ipation proces rmation qualit for organiza of IDPPs. T be develop and decided ted. A detail get of the ac mented and e considered f ion and asym Scenario wor g for problem alternatives ocess of eva s. This set o gies or tools l broad phase ion framewo ws between th IDPP ss ty assurance p ation, represe The sequence ped, delibera at an early ed workplan ctivities to b evaluated wit for the differ mmetries bet rkshops, for m definition, (Antunes et luation with f attributes a deployed (G es of the dec rks presented the public an protocol entation issue e of activitie ation goals stage. Proce n of the indiv be carried ou th its results rent tasks to tween indivi instance, fo model conce al., 2009). a set of attr and criteria s Guimarães-P cision proces d above. nd the es and es and to be edures vidual ut and . try to iduals, or the eption ributes should Pereira ss and

The c persp and o Source Decis Desig Prepa projec Imple of the follow comparative pectives, they overarching i e: Priemus (20 sion phases gn aration of the ct ementation e project and w-up analysis of t y are essentia issues but als

Table 10), Partidario Mega-Proj Problem ana – Do not sta – Project alt Functional p – Programm Requirem – Scope – Process ar – Social C analysis – Negotiate – Land Acq – Choice of – Deal w markets – Deal w discontinu – Deal w legislation – Realizatio – Operation the decision-ally very clo so in their op

e 5 - A comp

(2009) and Vid

ects Framew alysis art with a solu

ternatives programme me ents rchitecture Cost - Ben ed information quisition f technology with chang with polit uity with chang n on of the proje n -making fram ose together, perational me parative ana deira et al. (200 D work SE ution of nefit n – Fram instit and p – Strat frame – Critic Deci ging tical ging – Anal – Secto – Strat asses – Optio oppo – Issue and s – Guid possi ect – Follo meworks sho not only in ethodologies alysis of the 7) (adapted) Decision stage EA Framewo mework tutional gove participation egic re ework; cal Factors sion-Making yse trends oral studies egic ssment ons risks ortunities es notes, com short reports delines (to ible pathways ow-up process

ows that, desp terms of thei . frameworks es ork R of ernance ference s for – Se sc – D – Ch – D pa – E an as options and mments drive ) – P re s – Im – E re

pite their dif ir basic obje s River Basin Fr et up or cheme Define goals Choose and des Decide represe articipation pr Establish and n informati ssurance proto Plan even esources mplement Evaluate pro esults fferent ectives ramework rganizational sign tools entation and rocess implement on quality ocol t(s) and ocess and

The t under gover and f evalu conce scope study strate proce differ for tr frame altern also o neces order There instea

4. C

In thi Proje frame tradit that w conce three framew r different fo rnance and p for the relat uation of alte Differences ern. So, in the e of the proj y a broad ra egic analysis esses and con

In the pre rent nature (m ransport infr ework consi native strateg of the prepar We may al ssary to reco r to better in efore, decisi ad use variou

CASE STU

is section, th ect is present eworks pres tional practic were underta This analys erning the p works have o forms. In the participation, tionships wi rnative polic s in the form design phas ject, which i ange of proj and of using nsiders also t eparation ph market, polit frastructure p iders the ne gic choices w ration of the

lso see from oncile “ratio ntegrate mu on-making s us techniques

UDY

he ex-post an ted, as a case sented for th

ces. This ana aken for the p sis was perfo public decisio operational m e design pha with require ith stakehold cy options. m of presenta

se, the mega is linked to t ject alternat g key decisio the implemen hase, the m tical, legal) a projects (lan eed for an with a long t follow-up. m this compar onal”-type an ultiple intere should not b s and method nalysis of the e study. The he improvem alysis will al project. ormed based on process a methodologie ase, the estab

ements for in ders, and in ation of thes a-projects fr the problem tives. The S on factors. Th ntation of an mega-projects and also som nd acquisitio adequate pr term vision a

arative analys nalysis and ests and valu

be restricted ds. e evaluation p aim is to illu ment of the lso contribut d on an exten adopted and es that share blishment of nformation an the prepara se stages hav ramework al analysis an SEA framew he river basi n information s framework me particular on and choi reparation o and meets th sis that, in m deliberative ues, multidis to limited p process of th ustrate the re e assessment te to identify nsive review d other relev

the same key f a framewo nd assessmen ation phase, ve to do with so considers d to the nee work conside n framework n quality assu k addresses issues which ce of techno of the asses he need of co major project and particip sciplinarity perspectives he Alqueva D levance of th t of projects y the limitati of the offic vant sources ey stages, alth ork of institu ent tools to be the analysi h specific foc s the issue o ed to conside ers the need

k uses delibe urance proto s uncertainti h are very re ology). The ssment studi ommunicatio ts, it will oft pative analy and uncerta and method Dam Multipu he methodol s vis à vis ions of the s cial documen about the p hough utional e used is and cus of of the er and d of a erative col. ies of levant SEA ies of on and ften be ysis in inties. ds, but urpose ogical more tudies ntation project

(SEIA Susta 4.1. Alque Alent water depre includ and o durin proje Portu Guad 4000 adduc subm some Europ the a creati Infrae the la sever lake r At pr expec A, 1995a, b, ainable Alent Alqueva p eva is a mu tejo region i r supply for i Initially co essed region ded a substan The evalua of a great po ng the last 40 The first st ct. Since the ugal and Spai The Alque diana. Alquev hm3 and a f cting system The Alquev mersion of a v e important e

pe, and other The dam’s approval of a ion of a p estruturas de Finally, in ake began to ral environm reached the m resent, the c cted to last u c; HP, Tract tejo, 2005). project brie ultipurpose p in the south irrigation (11 onceived as n and respon ntial energy ation and dec olitical and s 0 years. tudies were e Guadiana r in about the u eva Dam is t va is the larg full storage l m for water su va project ha very large ar ecological v r impacts rel construction an “Integrate public mana e Alqueva (D the 8th of F o fulfill. In mental NGOs maximum wa ompletion p until 2013. tebel, SEIA, ef descriptio project that w of Portugal, 10 000 ha), p a simple irr nding to pe component a cision proces strategic rele carried out river springs use of water the main inf gest artificial level at 152 upply and an as very impo rea implies t alues and ha ated to the q n works beg ed Environm agement en Development February of 2 May 2004 t have defend ater level. hase of inve 1992, IPAM n was conceiv , by means o population an rigation proj erceived nee after the 197 ss of the Alq evance at na in the 1960 in Spain, it r. This agreem frastructure o lake in Euro m. The proj irrigation sy ortant negati the need to r abitats in on quality of wat gan in 1995, mental Impac ntity, EDIA and Infrastru 2002, the do the Hydroele ded a phased estments in t MB, 1995; Vi ed as a part of setting up nd industry ( ect to assist ds in the re 70s oil crisis. queva Projec tional level,

s for the tec was necessa ment was lat of the proje ope (250 km2 ject also incl ystem (EDIA ive environm re-locate wh ne of the mo

ter for irrigat co-financed ct Study of – Empres ucture Comp oors of the A ectric Centra flooding of the irrigation deira et al., 2 t of the Irrig p a strategic EDIA, 2012) t a predomin egion for se ct was very l and was stu

chnical chara ary to establi er renegotiat ct and is loc 2 ) and has a t ludes a hydr A, 2012). mental and so ole commun ost ecologica tion. by the Euro the Alqueva sa de Dese pany of Alqu Alqueva Dam al was inaug the reservoir n system is 2002; Platfor gation Plan water reserv ). nantly agricu everal decad

long and com udied and de acterization ish a deal be ted in 1998. cated on the total capacity roelectric pla ocial impacts nities and inc ally rich val

opean Union a Project” an envolvimento ueva). m were close gurated. Alth r area, in 20 taking place rm for of the ve for ultural des, it mplex ebated of the etween e river y over ant, an s. The cludes lley in , after nd the o das ed and hough 10 the e. It is

In ad as a t big co More proje of th maint are al 4.2. The c phase the fr Fram The a follow value consu but b (1995 Europ not th Gove ddition to its tourist facilit orporations i e recent studi ct, induced a he business s tenance strat lso being a fo Critical a critical analy es and the m rameworks p Decision p Design Preparation Implement and follow mework of in assessment o w a process o es. Main stu

ultants. The projec efore the com 5), and not g pean Union's he results of ernment. importance ty and many in and aroun ies have bee after its com sector and e tegy for the focus of conc analysis of th ysis of the e main decision presented, wi phases n of the projec tation of the p w-up nstitutional of the Alque of explicit an udies on the t was approv mpletion of t giving rise t s interventio f scientific an for agricultu y planning ap d the lake. n concerned mpletion in ag employment irrigation ne cern (EDIA, he evaluatio evaluation p stages, com th the follow Dec – – ct – – project – governance eva project h nd regulated e project we

ved after the the more com to the evalu

n in the proc nd technical

ure and energ pplications h

d with the ana griculture, en in the regio etwork and o 2012). on process process of A mmon and spe wing sequenc

cision stages

Framework o participation Scope and pro

Options analy Uncertainty a Realization o follow-up and partici had a very steps, with c ere initiativ e elaboration mprehensive uation of new cess of analy analysis tha

gy, the proje have been sub

alysis of the nergy and tou on. The ana

of its integra Alqueva proj ecific, of the ce: of institutiona oblem analysi

ysis and asses analysis of the projec ipation informal and criteria, proc e of the go of the "Glob e "Integrated w alternative ysis and its c at precipitate

ect has been bmitted to lo developmen urism and in lysis of the ation with en ect is structu e operational al governance is sment ct, operation d iterative n cedures and g overnment a bal Assessm Environmen es. It seems co-financing ed the politic promoted h ocal authorit nt dynamics n the consolid managemen nergy and to tured by the l methodolog and and nature and d generally acc and conducte ment Study" ( ntal Impact S to have bee of the proje cal decision eavily ties by of the dation nt and ourism three gies of id not cepted ed by (1992) Study" en the ct and of the

Politi comp scena econo of dev In the proje agree estab stake scena would proje some and t sustai Scop The e After propo consi on th impac gener envir negat analy (EIA) modi benef ical forces a pensation me arios and im omic interest velopment fo e context of c ct, and as ements on t lished. The holders and arios and im d also be imp The establ ct like this etimes diverg to implemen inable develo e and probl evaluation p r an initial stu osed in the idered the im he storage lev cts, and less rally positive ronmental im tive environm The "Integ ysis and fulf ), in applica fications. It b The great c fits of altern and public o easures in p mpacts. Som ts (in the co for the people

complex dec recommend the methodo systematic general pub mpacts, shou portant, as re ishment of one, which gent interests nt an effectiv opment of th lem analysis process cons udy which co surrounding mpacts of sev vel of the da attention to e impacts on mpacts. This mental impac grated Enviro filled the ne ation of EU D basically ass controversy w natives to the opinion wer public hearin me authors a nstruction in e allegedly b cisions and un ded in the ology and o implementat blic, and for uld also be ecommended deliberative h has a vas s and values ve participat he region. isted of sev onsidered on g area, the " veral differen am. But it h important en n regional dev

led the gov cts were cons onmental Im ew Portugue Directive. H sumed that th was about th e project, wit re involved ngs at a lat also state tha

ndustry, land benefitted (Ve uncertain kno different de on evaluatio tion of devi r collecting i considered. d in the river type proces st territorial s. These pro tive governa veral studies nly the impac "Global Asse nt variants of ad a very str nvironmenta velopment b vernment to sidered and m mpact Study" ese legislatio However, this he option wa he alternative th other stor mainly to d te stage and at the dam d owners, etc eiga et al., 20 owledge, such ecision-maki on procedure

ices for con inputs, partic Information r basin decisi sses would impact and ocesses woul ance that con

that have e cts of Alquev essment Stu f the project a rong emphas l impacts. Th but without in approve the monitored. was the mo on on Envir s study did n s Alqueva at es considered rage levels a discuss nega d not in the satisfies str c.) disregard 008). h as in the ca ing framewo es to be ad nsultation an cularly in th n quality as on framewor be importan d potential b d allow to a ntributes to expanded its va dam and h udy" was lar alternatives d sis on econo he results of ntegrating pr project on ost thorough onmental Im not suggest t a full storag d in the proje nd other geo ative impact e developme rong politica ding the real

ase of the Al orks, institu dopted shou nd concertati he developm surance pro rk. nt, especially beneficiaries achieve cons an integrate scope over hydroelectric rger in scop defined depe omic and fin f the study in roperly the c condition th h in environm mpact Asses any major p ge level of 15

ect. The cos ographical op ts and ent of al and needs lqueva utional uld be ion of ent of tocols y in a s with sensus ed and time. c plant pe and ending nancial ndicate cost of hat the mental sment project 52 m. ts and ptions

and w studie the c long econo The i not s occup the co strate frame Europ forec Optio The differ const 110 t high assum Thus demo proje was p envir and envir know recom Alque with integra ed. This issu onstruction term and the omic losses a important tou studied, mor pation of far ountryside. Alqueva ha egic developm eworks. The pean Union asting. ons analysis “Global As rent irrigati truction of th thousand hec uncertainty ming the ava , the strateg onstrated. The "Integr ct was alrea put on the ronmental im managemen ronmental im wledge. The prepa mmended by eva problem ated analysis ue is referred of a network e possibility t

and the ecolo urist occupan reover invol rmland and w ad not, there ment visions e basic natu seems to hav s and assessm ssessment S on areas a he Alqueva d ctares. It was in many va ilability of fi gic water re rated Study" ady taken an implementat mpacts. The nt of the pr mpacts such aration of t y the differe m analysis. s with the e d many time k of smaller to downscale ogical impac ncy for the A lving risks n waste water t

efore, a prosp s for the regi ure of policy ve acted as a ment tudy”, evalu and hydroel dam at a full s assumed tha ariables, whi inancing for eserve and started when d did not su tion of com project resu roject in th as the qualit the assessm ent framewo environmenta s in the pub r dams, cons e irrigation. T cts of the proj Alqueva area not anticipa treatment, w pective study ion, as is rec y decision a an obstacle a uated sever lectric varia l storage leve at benefits o ch is comm the high inv regional de

n the govern uggest any m mpensation a

ults were con he context ty of water a ment studies orks, was al al and socia lic statement sidering real This would m ject. (currently 3 ated, as the with a greater y, with the d ommended b and the avai against a mu al technical ants. The a el of 152 me utweighed c mon in water vestment and evelopment nmental decis major project and mitigatio nsidered depe of great in and of soils of strateg lso condition al dimension ts from NGO water needs minimize inv 0 approved p construction r impact in s discussion of by the mega-ilability of ltidimension ly feasible alternative s eters, aimed a osts, but in a resources p operating co of Alentejo sion to imple t modificatio on measures endable of th ncertainty co and also of gic developm ned by the ns have not O’s, that def s in the sho vestment cos projects), wa n of new a sensitive area f broad altern -projects and funding from nal assessmen alternatives selected wa at the irrigat a context of a planning, and osts of the pr was not c ement the Al ons. The emp s to minimis he implemen oncerning s important la ment option limited sco t been fended rt and ts and as also access, as and native d SEA m the nt and with as the tion of a very d also roject. clearly lqueva phasis se the ntation everal ack of ns, as ope of

In th espec gener consi Howe plura recom more strate fieldw tempo by th issues prom the pr the p ecolo contr Unce The envir such agricu evolu dema the dr signif not sp he studies of cially the Co rally happen idered were a

ever, the eva ality of envir mmended by Information than on the egic solution work was do oral compon The quality he river basin s and more b The forma moted through roject. The m project and i ogical flows ributed to the ertainty ana studies of ronmental im as the irrig ultural polic ution of agr and, and env raining of fer The relativ ficance of im pecify the de f Alqueva, t st Analysis B s in such stu also applied aluation does ronmental va the differen n collected w e conditionin ns adopted. S one in a shor nent. y of the info n framework background i l participatio h the "Integr most discusse its relevance s and socio e implementa lysis Alqueva p mpacts identi gation plan d cy in the Eu ricultural pr vironmental i rtilizing and ve importanc mpacts with egree of unce the methods Benefit and e udies. Some f (such as mu s not reflect alues, econom t framework was based lar ng factors (c Some additio rt period and ormation was k. A greater e information i on process in rated Study" ed issues we e, impacts on o-economic ation of mitig rovide infor fied for the design, tech uropean Uni ices, water impacts such pesticides. ce of the imp a "common ertainty or ig s of technica environment formal meth ulticriteria an an "integrat mic and soc ks.

rgely on the causes), pres onal and mor

d most of th s not accoun effort to eva is required. n Alqueva c with barely ere the irrigat n fauna, wa impacts (I gation and m rmation abo project. Muc hnologies an

ion, the acc consumptio h as the qual pacts were d scale" asses gnorance asso al and econ tal impact as hods for comp

nalysis in the ted perspecti cial impacts current situa sures and re re recent dat he data collec nted for in th aluate econom consisted of no impact o tion plan, asp ater quality i IPAMB, 19 monitoring pr out econom ch of this in d cultural s cession of fa ons, the evo lity of the w defined in ter ssment, and ociated with nomic assess sessments, w paring the va e “Global As ive", dealing and territori

ation and the esponses and ta were also cted do not he process, as mic, social a some public on the develo pects related impacts, det 995). Howev ograms. my and the nformation is ystems in th armers to irr olution of en

ater for irrig

rms of the m the informat the different sment of im were conduct arious altern ssessment Stu g with uncert ial cohesion, e impacts obs d the definiti collected, b have a signi s is recomm and environm c hearings m opment optio d with the sco termination o ver, particip most signi s highly unce he context o rrigated area energy price gation, affect magnitude an tion generate t impacts. mpacts, ted, as natives udy”). tainty, , as is served ion of but the ificant mended mental mainly ons of ope of of the pation ificant ertain, of the as, the s and ted by nd the ed did

There appro an ob Alque inten and r Reali Given some desig good more efore, these opriate envir bstacle to the In conclus eva should h sities, with a referring also ization of th n the particu e activities an gn, implemen agricultural sensitive ec studies ackn ronmental ma e decision-ma sion, and as have been ch a knowledge o to their deg he project, o ular characte nd impacts), ntation and m practices an osystems). nowledged th anagement o aking proces recommend haracterized base as com grees of uncer peration an eristics of th it would be management nd in monito

hat the existi of the projec ss. ded by the in terms of mplete as pos rtainty and ig nd follow-up he project (p desirable to of the projec oring the evo

ing knowledg ct. However, mega-projec their spatial sible, based gnorance. phasing of a be able to in ct, in spatial olution of res ge was still i this was not

ct framework and tempora on existing s ctivities, inte ntroduce som planning, in sources (wat insufficient t considered k, the impa al scales and scientific evi teractive natu me flexibility n the promot ter quality co for an d to be cts of d their idence ure of in the tion of ontrol,

5. C

In thi very r decis with m the an consi invol impo decis envir need evalu desig with stake evalu analy frame river consi In th differ adequ Multi limita The p natur

ONCLUSI

is article we relevant to th Although t ion, the three multidimens nalysis of the

All three m ider decision lving the inte They only rtance of en ion-making ronmental pr to consider uation proces The operat gn phase, a fr requirements holders. In uated. Howev In the desi ysis and the

ework consid basin frame iders also the

he preparatio rent nature uate preparat The case st ipurpose Pro ations of the process of an re and did no

IONS

develop a c he assessmen they appeare e framework sional impact e sustain models prese n-making as t egrated evalu differ by the nsuring a fle process. Th riorities and l r integrated ss. tional metho framework o s for informa the prepara ver, there are ign phase, th need to con ders the need ework uses d e implementa on phase, th (market, po tion of the as tudy, with th oject accordin studies that nalysis and e ot follow a pr comparative nt of the sust ed linked to ks apply to th ts and involv ent principles the result of uation of mul eir focus of exible appro he SEA fram long-term su deliberative odologies of f institutiona ation and ass ation phase, e also some s he mega-proj nsider and st d of a strateg deliberative p ation of an in he mega-proj litical, legal ssessment stu he ex-post an ng to the met have been de evaluation of rocess of exp analysis of t tainability of different are he evaluation ving uncertai s and feature f a participate ltiple dimens concern. Th oach to bette mework has ustainability. decision pr f the framew al governanc sessment too alternative specific issue jects framew tudy a broad gic analysis processes thr nformation q ojects framew l). The SEA udies of alter nalysis of th thodological eveloped for f the Alquev plicit and reg

three decisio f investment eas of activit n of large and

inty and mult

es that are es ed process w sions of analy he mega-proj er deal with s a strong c The river b rocesses and works share ce and partic ols to be used policy opti es. work conside d range of p and of using roughout the quality assura work also a A framework rnative strate he evaluation l frameworks r this project. a project had gulated steps n-making fra projects. ty and with d d complex in tiple interest ssentially sim with different ysis. ects framew h uncertaintie concern with asin framew d to ensure t the same k cipation shou d and for the ons should

ers the impor project altern g key factors e different de ance protocol addresses the k highlights egic options. n process of s presented, a . d a very info s, with criteri ameworks th different lev nvestment pr ts, and theref milar. All of t phases and work highligh es throughou h strategic i work highligh the quality o key stages. I uld be establ relationship be analysed rtance of pro natives. The s of decision ecision stage l. e uncertaint the need f the Alqueva also brings o

ormal and ite ia, procedure hat are vels of rojects fore to f them steps, hts the ut the issues, hts the of the In the lished, s with d and oblem e SEA n. The es and ies of for an a Dam out the erative es and

gener inform frame basin like th major sugge This studie strate demo also impac uncer proje partic phase affect makin studie devel rally accepte mation qual eworks, wer n framework, his, with gre A strategic r visions for est how even is recommen es of the proj The limitat egic develop onstrated. In Finally, an be necessary cts. It shoul rtainty and ig So, we ma ct have been cipation and e, the acces

ted the devel It therefore ng framewor es develope lopment of e ed values. Th lity assuran re not establ , have not be eat territorial c investment r the project, nts – econom nded by the ject. tions of the s pment option addition, the n uncertainty y with a kn ld be based gnorance of t ay conclude n observed also in the s to inform lopment and e appears tha rks consider ed for the valuation pro hus, an institu nce protocol ished. Delib een used. Th impact and s process, suc , with a broa mic, social an mega-projec scope have af ns of the pro e quality of th y analysis, a nowledge ba on existing the project ex that the mos in the desig scope of th mation and e integration o at, although red in this pa project. All ocesses and utional gover l, as recom berative-type hey would ha sometimes in ch as Alquev ad problem nd political – ct and SEA f ffected the p oject. There he informatio as recommen ase as comp scientific e xpected imp st important gn phase, at he project an existing unce of analyses c they have di aper contribu l of them for more enl

rnance and p mmended by processes, a ave been imp nvolving div va, should h analysis and would unfol frameworks preparation o fore, the res on was not a nded in meg plete as poss evidence and acts. limitations the level of nd in problem ertainties we carried out. ifferent focu ute to identi also provid lightened and participation y the three as recommen portant, espe vergent intere ave a compa d the use of ld and interre but was not

f the assessm sults obtaine accounted for ga-projects f sible about t d also refer of the studie f institutiona m analysis. I ere the main

s of concern fy the main de recomme d sustainable framework a decision-m ended by the ecially in a p ests and valu arative analy adequate too relate in the f carried out ment studies ed are not c r in the proce framework, w the most re to the degre es of the Al al governanc In the prepa n difficultie

n, all the dec limitations endations fo e decision-ma and an making e river project ues. ysis of ols, to future. in the of the clearly ess. would levant ees of lqueva ce and aration es and cision-of the or the aking.

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. s Partidario ( earliest app quality, and in policy, biophysical, ADVISOR research pro Program. Strategies f institutional These princ European C The assessm for air navig conservation financial fea 1999) define propriate stag d consequenc planning, o , economic, s – Integrate oject funded for coping w l/social) shou ciples remin ommission: ment framew gation and tr n, accessibil asibility. es SEA as “ ge of public ces, of altern or programm social and po ed Evaluatio by the Euro with differen uld be consid nd the princ openness, ef

work was dev ransportation lity, spatial “a systematic cly accounta native visions me initiative olitical consi on for Sust opean Comm nt kinds of dered (Miller ciples of “g ffectiveness, veloped arou n, natural re planning, so c, on-going able decision s and develo es, ensuring deration.” ainable Riv mission under risks (marke r and Lessard good govern participation und seven cr sources and ocial and ec process for n making, t pment intent full integra er Basin G r the 5th Fra et, technical d, 2008). nance” as es n and cohere ritical decisi risks, biodiv conomic com evaluating, the environm ntions incorpo ration of re Governance w amework Res l and operat stablished b ence (CEC, 2 ion factors: versity and n mpetitiveness at the mental orated levant was a search tional, by the 2001). safety nature s, and

REF

ANT evalu DAV Meas EDIA www GUIM Quali HP, T Avali Comm IPAM Empr KIM, Philip LEIJT Priem analy MEM as a f MILL of M Mega (UK)

FERENCES

UNES, P., uation for sus

VIDSON, K suring?”. Soc A (2012), Em w.edia.pt. MARÃES-PE ity of river b TRACTEBE iação Globa mission - DG MB (1995), reendimento , S (2010), “ ppines”. Geo TEN, M. & mus, B. Flyvb ysis, planning MON, P.A., K framework fo LER, R. & L Mega-projects a-projects. C ), Northampt

S

KALLIS, G stainable rive K. M. (201 cial Indicator mpresa de De EREIRA, Â basin governa EL, SEIA (19 al. Bases de G Regional P Relatório d de Alqueva. “Greening th oforum 41: 6 De BRUIJN bjerg and B. g and innova KIRKA, N.A or sustainabl LESSARD, D s”. In: H. Pri Cost-benefit ton (MA). G., VIDEIR er basin gove 1), “Report rs Research 1 esenvolvime Â. & CORRA ance process 992), Empre e decisão. H Policy, Bruxe da Consulta . he Dam: The 27–637. N, H. (2008) Van Wee (e ation. Edward A. & SELSK e fresh water D. (2008), “E iemus, B. Fl analysis, pl RA, N. & ernance”. Ec ting System 100: 351–36

ento das Infr

AL-QUINTA es”. Ecologi eendimento d Hidrotécnica elas. do Público e case of the ), “Mega-pro eds.), Decisio d Elgar: Che KY, J. W. (20 r governance Evolving Str lyvbjerg and lanning and SANTOS, cological Eco ms for Sust 5. raestruturas d ANA, S. (20 cal Economi de Fins Múlt Portuguesa o do Estudo e San Roque ojects and C on-making o eltenham (UK 011), “Limit e”. Land Use

rategy: Risk d B. Van We innovation. R.(2009), “ onomics 68: 9 tainability: de Alqueva -009), “3 pil ics 68: 940-9 tiplos de Alq , Tractebel, o de Impac e Multi-purp Contested Inf on Mega-proj K), Northamp s to Ecologic e Policy 28: 5 Managemen ee (eds.), De . Edward E “Participation 931-939. What Are - EDIA’s we llars and 1 b 954. queva - Estu SEIA, Eur cte Ambient pose Project formation”. I jects. Cost-b pton (MA). ical Moderni 534–541. nt and the Sh ecision-maki Elgar: Chelte n and They ebsite: beam: udo de ropean tal do in the In: H. benefit isation haping ing on enham

MINT “unst NESS tools NILS Asses PART In J. P PART Meth PART Intern Discu PART story Envir PLAT helpe Earth PRIE 18. N SEIA Volum SEIA Volum Ambi TZBERG, H tructured” de S, B., URBE for sustainab SSON, M. & ssment. Jour TIDÁRIO, M Petts (ed.), H TIDÁRIO, M hodological G TIDÁRIO, M national Tran ussion Paper TIDÁRIO, M of a decis ronmental Im TFORM FO ed to finance h Internationa EMUS, H. (2 No. 7. July. A (1995a), E me IB – Rela A (1995b), E me IA – Re iental. H., RAISIN ecision proce EL-PIRSALU bility assessm & DALKMAN rnal of Enviro M. R. (1999) Handbook on M. R. (2007) Guidance. Ag M. R. (200 nsports Rese No. 2009-3 M. R. & CO ion-making mpact Assess OR SUSTAIN e environme al, CEE Bank

2010), “Mega Estudo Integ atório Técnic Estudo Integ esumo Exec NGHANI, D esses”. Admi U, E., AND ment”. Ecolo NN, H. (200 onmental As ), “Strategic E n Environmen ), Strategic gência Portug 09), “Does earch Sympo 1, Madrid. UTINHO, M process and sment Review NABLE ALE ental destruct kwatch Netw a-projects: D grado de Im co. Sociedad grado de Im cutivo e Res D., & THE inistrative Sc DERBERG, S ogical Econo 01), “Decisio ssessment Po Environmen ntal Impact A Environmen guesa do Am SEA chang osium, Sessi M. (2011), “T d the role o w 31: 360–36 ENTEJO (2 tion in Portu work, Jan. Dealing with mpacte Amb de de Engenh mpacte Amb sumo Técnic EORET, A. cience Quarte S. & OLSSO omics 60. 498 on Making a olicy and Ma ntal Assessme Assessment. ntal Assessm mbiente, Lisb e outcomes ion 5, Sustai The Lisbon n of Strategic 67. 005), “The A ugal”. In co Pitfalls”. Eu biental do E haria e Inova biental do E co. Sociedad (1976) “T erly, 21, 246 ON, L. (200 8-508. nd Strategic nagement 3 ent - principl Blackwell, L ment Good Pr boa. ?”. Proceed inable Inter -new internat Environmen Alqueva dam operation wi uropean Plan Empreendime ção Ambient Empreendime de de Engen The structu 6-275. 07), “Catego c Environme (3): 305–327

les and poten London pp.6 ractice Guida dings of the - Urban Mo tional airpor ntal Assessm m - How th with Friends nning Studie ento de Alq ntal. ento de Alq nharia e Ino ure of orising ental”. 7. ntial”. 60-73. ance - e 18th obility, t: The ment”. e EIB of the s Vol. queva, queva, ovação

SEIA Volum Socie SIMO SIMO admin VEIG Por u Enco Ambi VIDE Alque Lisbo VIDE partic Europ VIDE Evalu 18433 WEB Press WILL Journ A (1995c), E me III – A edade de Eng ON, H. A. (1 ON, H.A. ( nistrative org

GA, A., DUA uma contextu ntro Nacion iente e Socie EIRA, N., LO eva multipu on. EIRA, N., A cipation in E pean Environ EIRA, N., K uation for 391481. BER, M. (19 s. LIAMS, B. ( nal of Enviro Estudo Integ Avaliação de genharia e In 960), The N 1976), Adm ganization. T ARTE, L., V ualização pl nal da ANP edade. Junho OBO, G., AN urpose projec ANTUNES, European w nment 16, 19 KALLIS, G Sustainable 947), The T (2011), “Ada onmental Ma grado de Im Impactes e novação Amb New Science o ministrative b The Free Pres

VASCONCEL luridimension PPAS, Asso o. Brasília. NTUNES, P ct. Work Pa P., SANTO water policy: 9-31. G., ANTUNE River Bas heory of So aptive mana nagement 92 mpacte Amb e Avaliação biental. of Managem behaviour: a ss, New Yor LOS, L. (200 nal do desen ciação Naci P., SANTOS, ackage 1 of S, R. & LO a critical r ES, P. & sin Governa ocial and Ec agement of n 2: 1346-1353 biental do E Financeira ment Decision a study of d rk. 08), “A Barr nvolvimento ional de Pe , R., GUIMA f project AD OBO, G. (20 review of p SANTOS, R ance. IWA conomic Org natural resour 3. Empreendime das Medida n. Harper & R decision-mak ragem do Alq no Alentejo esquisa e Pó ARÃES-PER DVISOR. N 006), “Public project evalu R. (Eds.) (2 Publishing. ganisation. O rces - frame ento de Alq as Minimiza Row, New Y king process queva para q o – Portuga ós-Graduaçã REIRA, Â. (2 New Univers c and stakeh uation proce (2007), Integ London. I Oxford Univ ework and is queva, doras. York. ses in quem? l”. IV ão em 2002), ity of holder esses”. grated ISBN: versity sues”.