LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Mwenda, A.N. (2015)
Publisher: Wageningen University
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects:

Thesis Summary

Spatial information in public consultation within Environmental Impact Assessments

Angela N. Mwenda

Established in the United States of America in 1970, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an interdisciplinary approach that considers the anticipated impacts of development on the environment, and proposes timely mitigation of these impacts to the extent possible. Since then, EIA has continued to be established in countries worldwide, with modifications being made to suit regional and local requirements. Essential to EIA is an attempt to balance environmental concerns with social, economic and other human needs, which has led to partnership with society, to the extent that public participation is deeply incorporated into EIA. Also central to the EIA process is information related to the natural and human environment. Sources of this information, particularly those that contain spatial elements, are valuable due to their ability to provide information on location. Sources of spatial information are numerous, and may include photographs, maps, satellite images, orthophotographs, verbal descriptions, animations, and virtual reality, among others.

Despite its innovative presentation of project-relevant information and communication function during public participation, debate exists on the value of spatial information to EIA. For example, high levels of visual realism may hinder the interpretation of spatial information, while high costs, and technical demands may cause certain types of spatial information to be inaccessible to a large number of stakeholders. These challenges are not unique to any one country, and have also been observed in developing countries, where, in addition to a deficiency of information, less developed and poorly enforced legislative, administrative, institutional and procedural frameworks for EIA intensify the challenges. For example, despite an official recommendation for the use of spatial information during public participation within EIA in Kenya, whether this happens, and the extent, was largely undocumented. In view of this observation, an investigation into the use and status of spatial information during public participation within EIA in Kenya was considered.

The main objective of this research was to establish whether spatial information is used in public participation within EIA, and if so, the extent of its use. Three specific sub-objectives were developed, namely: to confirm the presence and extent of public participation within EIA in Kenya; to establish the extent to which spatial information is used in EIA in Kenya; and to evaluate, using case studies, the use of spatial information during public participation within EIA in Kenya. Combined methods of surveys and case studies were used to address the sub-objectives earlier developed.

In response to the first sub-objective, namely, to confirm the presence and extent of public participation within EIA in Kenya, five dimensions for the evaluation of public participation within EIA were identified from legal and best practice requirements. These five dimensions were: notification, participation methods, venue, language used, and type of participants, which were then constituted into a Consultation and Public Participation Index (CPPI), developed within this research to analyze a sample of 223 EIA Study Reports submitted to the Environment Authority between 2002 and 2010. EIA Study Reports record activities during the EIA Study Stage, where public participation activities are most intensive, hence their choice as a source of data for the survey. Following analysis of the five dimensions presented in the CPPI, public participation was found to be relatively low, with the highest score of 1.65 out of a possible score of 5. The dimensions of ‘participation methods’ and ‘type of participants’ scored the highest, followed by ‘venue’, ‘notification’, and ‘language used’, in that order. Variations within the dimensions was also evident during the study period. Despite a 95% mention of public participation in the EIA Study Reports, the low CPPI scores were attributed to gaps in reporting and limited choices per dimension.

In response to the second sub-objective, namely, to establish the extent to which spatial information is used in EIA in Kenya, survey methods similar to those used to address the first sub-objective were employed, where a sample of 434 EIA Study Reports submitted to the Environment Authority between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed for the presence/absence of spatial presentations, levels of visual realism exhibited, and content presented in the spatial presentations. Almost all (95%) of the EIA Study Reports sampled displayed a variety of spatial presentation types, with preference for the combined use of spatial presentations with low and high levels of visual realism. On the content, information depicting a combination of project location and project activities/details was most popular.

In response to the third sub-objective, namely, to evaluate, using case studies, the use of spatial information during public participation within EIA in Kenya, two case studies were conducted, the first in Katani, in the Eastern Province of Kenya, and the second in Kericho, in the Rift Valley Province of Kenya. Both case studies were based on a conceptual framework developed in this research to assess the interplay between EIA, public participation, spatial information and type of participants. In both studies, EIA stages was limited to the EIA Study stage, levels of public participation was limited to ‘inform’, and categories of participants was limited to ‘affected persons’. Seven aspects of spatial information were deemed relevant to public participation, namely: availability, accessibility, content, appropriateness, language, translation, and technical support. In the first case study, all the seven aspects were evaluated, using a cadastral map, where it was established that the requirements for accessibility, language, translation and technical support were met, but those for availability were unsatisfactory, and unconfirmed for content and appropriateness. Out of the 7 aspects of spatial information that were deemed relevant to public participation, the second case study was limited to the aspect of ‘content’, and specifically distance perception. It was argued that distance perception is critical when determining potential benefits or threats from a proposed project. Three types of spatial presentations with different levels of visual realism were used, namely a topographic map, overlay map and aerial map. From this case study, preference was noted for topographic maps, indicating that higher levels of visual realism in spatial presentations were not always preferred. On whether maps improve distance perception, the results indicated that they encourage Euclidian distance perception. The unique point of the case studies was that they were conducted in ‘real-life’ settings, similar to those in which actual EIAs are carried out, as opposed to highly controlled and laboratory-like set ups.

Two main innovations are evident: the consultation and public participation index (CPPI) and the conceptual framework developed in this research. The CPPI brought together, for the first time dimensions that are specifically relevant to public participation within EIA, that is, notification, participation methods, venue, language used, and type of participants. These dimensions offer the opportunity for deeper and more structured analysis of public participation within EIA, and the opportunity to improve practice. The second innovation, the conceptual framework, brought together the elements of EIA, public participation, spatial information and types of participants. The novelty of this conceptual framework was the combination of these elements and their placement within the framework of EIA, which will encourage in-depth investigation on their quality and effectiveness to EIA. Still related to the conceptual framework was the emphasis on ‘affected persons’, who often face direct impacts from development projects, yet are often not included in EIA public participation activities due to their low socio-economic status and challenges in accessing them, e.g. poor infrastructure and insecurity. It is due to their increased stake in any decision made that we specifically sought their opinions in this research.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 2 Trends in consultation and public participation within Environmental Impact Assessment in Kenya................................................................................................ 19
    • 4 Spatial information during public participation within Environmental Impact Assessment in Kenya................................................................................................ 47
    • Institute of Economic Affairs (Kenya). (2008). Profile of women's socio-economic status in Kenya
    • International Association for Public Participation, I. (2007). IAP2 spectrum of public participation Retrieved 8 June 2012, from http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf
    • International Cartographic Association. (2012, 28 September 2012). Usability of maps and GI Retrieved 10 April, 2013, from http://icaci.org/researchagenda/usability-of-maps-and-gi/
    • International Union for the Conservation of Nature, I. (2007, 12-13 April 2007). Conference Report. Paper presented at the African Experts Workshop on Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment Systems, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
    • Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., & Wood, C. (2007). Environmental Impact Assessment: Retrospect and Prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 287-300.
    • Jerpasen, G. B., & Larsen, K. C. (2011). Visual impact of wind farms on cultural heritage: A Norwegian case study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 206-215.
    • Kakonge, J. O., & Imevbore, A. M. (1993). Constraints on implementing environmental impact assessments in Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13, 299-308.
    • Kameri-Mbote, P. (2000). Strategic planning and implementation of public involvement in environmental decision-making as they relate to Environmental Impact Assessment in Kenya. 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.ielrc.org/content/w003.pdf
    • Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Kenya Facts and Figures 2009. Nairobi: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.
    • Kettunen, P., Irvankoski, K., Krause, C. M., Sarjakoski, T., & Sarjakoski, L. T. (2012). Geospatial images in the acquisition of spatial knowledge for wayfinding. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 5, 75-106.
    • Kibutu, T. N., & Mwenda, A. N. (2010). Provision for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Kenya's legislation: A review of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) and Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations (EIAAR). Eastern Africa Journal of Humanities and Sciences, 10(2), 1-13.
    • Kimani, N. N. (2010). Participatory aspirations in environmental governance in East Africa. Law Environment Development Journal, 6(2), 200-215.
    • Kitchin, R. M. (1994). Cognitive maps: What are they and why study them? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 1-19.
    • Kolhoff, A. J., Runhaar, H. A. C., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2009). The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), 271-282.
    • Konecny, M., Kubicek, P., Stachon, Z., & Sasinka, C. (2011). The usability of selected base maps for crises management - users' perspectives. Applied Geomatics, 3(4), 189-198.
    • Kontic, B., Bohanec, M., & Urbancic, T. (2006). An experiment in participative environmental decision making. The Environmentalist, 26, 5-15.
    • Koua, E. L., Maceachren, A., & Kraak, M.-J. (2006). Evaluating the usability of visualization methods in an exploratory geovisualization environment. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(4), 425-448.
    • Kuhn, W. (2012). Core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(12), 2267- 2276.
    • Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1996). How cognitive maps are learned and remembered. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86(1), 123-145.
    • Lai, P. C., Kwong, K.-H., & Mak, A. S. H. (2010). Assessing the applicability and effectiveness of 3D visualisation in environmental impact assessment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 221-233.
    • Laituri, M. (2003). The issues of access: An assessment guide for evaluating public participation geographic information science case studies. URISA, 15(APA II), 25-32.
    • Lane, M. B., Ross, H., Dale, A. P., & Rickson, R. E. (2003). Sacred land, mineral wealth and biodiversity at Coronation Hill, Northern Australia: Indigenous knowledge and SIA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(2), 89-98.
    • Lappin, J. S., Shelton, A. L., & Rieser, J. J. (2006). Environmental context influences visually perceived distance. Perception and Psychophysics, 68(4), 571-581.
    • Lee, N. (1983). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Review. Applied Geography, 3, 5-27.
    • Lei, L., & Hilton, B. (2013). A spatially intelligent public participation system for the environmental impact assessment process. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2, 480-506. doi: 10.3390/ijgi2020480
    • Lewis, J. L., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2006). Culture and Communication: Can landscape visualization improve forest management consultation with indigenous communities? Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 291-313.
    • Lipman, P. D., & Caplan, L. J. (1992). Adult age differences in memory for routes: Effects of instruction and spatial diagram. Psychology and Aging, 7(3), 435- 442.
    • Louwerse, M. M., & Zwaan, R. A. (2009). Language encodes geographical information. Cognitive Science, 33, 51-73.
    • Lund Research Ltd. (2013a). Kruskal-Wallis H Test using SPSS Statistics Retrieved 29 August, 2014, from https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/kruskalwallis-h-test-using-spss-statistics.php
    • Lund Research Ltd. (2013b). Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Retrieved 29 August, 2014, from https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/spearmansrank-order-correlation-statistical-guide.php
    • Macintosh, A. (2010). Best practice environmental impact assessment: A model framework for Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4), 401-417.
    • Maier, K. (2001). Citizen Participation in Planning: Climbing a Ladder? European Planning Studies, 9(6), 707-719.
    • Marara, M., Okello, N., Kuhanwa, Z., Douven, W., Beevers, L., & Leentvaar, J. (2011). The importance of context in delivering effective EIA: case studies from East Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), 286- 296.
    • Mark, D. M., Freksa, C., Hirtle, S. C., Lloyd, R., & Tversky, B. (1999). Cognitive models of geographical space. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 13(8), 747-774.
    • Matthews, M. H. (1980). Children represent their environment: Mental maps of Coventry City Centre. Geoforum, 11, 385-397.
    • McCall, M. K. (2003). Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International, 27, 549-573.
    • McGinn, T. (2004). Instructions for probability proportional to size sampling technique. RHRC consortium monitoring and evaluation toolkit Retrieved 26 January, 2015, from www.rhrc.org/.../rrb%20PPS%20sampling%20technique.doc
    • McKendry, J. E. (2000). The influence of map design on resource management decision making. Cartographica, 37(2), 13-27.
    • Microsoft Corporation. (2014). The Bing Maps Platform Retrieved 29 September, 2014, from http://www.microsoft.com/maps/
    • Milne, J. (1999). Questionnaires: advantages and disadvantages Retrieved from.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info-questionnaires/
    • Montello, D. R. (1991). The measurement of cognitive distance: methods and construct validity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 101-122.
    • Montello, D. R. (2002). Cognitive map-design research in the twentieth century: theoretical and empirical approaches. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 29(3), 283-304.
    • Montello, D. R., & Freundschuh, S. M. (1995). Sources of spatial knowledge and their implications for GIS: An introduction. Geographical Systems, 2, 169- 176.
    • Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5-14.
    • Morrison-Saunders, A., & Bailey, M. (2009). Appraising the role of relationships between regulators and consultants for effective EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 284-294.
    • Moufaddal, W. M. (2005). Use of satellite imagery as environmental impact assessment tool: a case study from the NW Egyptian Red Sea coastal zone. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 107, 427-452.
    • Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2005). Constructing consistent composite indicators: the issue of weights.
    • Mwenda, A. N., Bregt, A. K., & Ligtenberg, A. (2013). Spatial information during public participation within environmental impact assessment in Kenya. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2013.839115
    • Mwenda, A. N., Bregt, A. K., Ligtenberg, A., & Kibutu, T. N. (2012). Trends in consultation and public participation within Environmental Impact Assessment in Kenya. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.668075
    • Nadeem, O., & Fisher, T. B. (2011). An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 36-47.
    • National Environment Management Authority. (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and Administrative Procedures - EIAGAP. Nairobi: National Environment Management Authority.
    • National Environment Management Authority. (2013). Compliance and Enforcement Retrieved 22 December 2014, from www.nema.go.ke
    • Negev, M. (2012). Knowledge, data and interests: Challenges in participation of diverse stakeholders in HIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33, 48-54.
    • Newcombe, N. S., & Stieff, M. (2012). Six myths about spatial thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 955-971.
    • Noordzij, M., L., Zuidhoek, S., & Postma, A. (2006). The influence of visual experience on the ability to form spatial mental models based on route and survey descriptions. Cognition, 100, 321-342.
    • Oduori, R. W. (2002). Language and politics in Kenya: restricted and elaborated codes. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1(4), 434-442.
    • Office of Public Communications. (2008). About Kenya Retrieved 13 August, 2012, from http://www.communication.go.ke
    • Okello, N., Beevers, L., Douven, W., & Leentvaar, J. (2009). The Doing and Undoing of Public Participation during Environmental Impact Assessments in Kenya. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(3), 217-226.
    • Olokesusi, F. (1998). Legal and institutional framework of environmental impact assessment in Nigeria: an initial assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 159-174.
    • Onyango, V., & Schmidt, M. (2007). Towards a strategic environment assessment framework in Kenya. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18(3), 309-328.
    • Ooms, K., De Maeyer, P., Fack, V., Van Aasche, E., & Witlox, F. (2012). Interpreting maps through the eyes of expert and novice users. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(10), 1773-1788.
    • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, O. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Methodology and user guide Retrieved from http://composite-indicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
    • Otiso, K. M., & Owusu, G. (2008). Comparative urbanization in Ghana and Kenya in time and space. GeoJournal, 71, 143-157.
    • Palerm, J. R. (2000). An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(5), 581-600.
    • Pfeffer, K., Baud, I., Denis, E., Scott, D., & Sydenstricker-Neto, J. (2013). Participatory spatial knowledge management tools; empowerment and upscaling or exclusion? Information, Communication and Society, 16(2), 258-285.
    • Portman, M. (2009). Involving the public in the impact assessment of offshore renewable energy facilities. Marine Policy, 33, 332-338.
    • Prendergast, P., & Rybaczuk, K. (2005, 22-25 February). Using Visualization Techniques in Planning to Improve Collaborative Governance in Ireland. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Urban Planning and Spatial Development and Impacts of ICT on Physical Space.
    • Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
    • Republic of Kenya. (1999). The Environmental Management and Coordination Act - EMCA. (No. 8). Nairobi: Government Printer.
    • Republic of Kenya. (2003). The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations - EIAAR. (No. 101). Nairobi: Government Printer.
    • Riddlesden, D., Singleton, A. D., & Fischer, T. B. (2012). A Survey of the use of Geographic Information Systems in English Local Authority Impact Assessments. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(1), 1-14.
    • Rodrigues, M., Montanes, C., & Fueyo, N. (2009). A method for the assessment of the visual impact caused by the large-scale deployment of renewable-energy facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
    • Salomons, G. H., & Hoberg, G. (2014). Setting boundaries of participation in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 69-75.
    • Samimi, A. J., Erami, N. E., & Mehnatfar, Y. (2010). Environmental performance index and economic growth: evidence from some developing countries. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(8), 3098-3102.
    • Satapathy, D. R., Katpatal, Y. B., & Wate, S. R. (2008). Application of geospatial technologies for environmental impact assessment: An Indian scenario. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(2), 355-386.
    • Schlossberg, M., & Shuford, E. (2005). Delineating "public" and "participation" in PPGIS. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), 16(2), 15-26.
    • Shepherd, A., & Bowler, C. (1997). Beyond the requirements: improving public participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(6), 725-738.
    • Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2008). Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: Critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 415-428.
    • Sinclair, A. J., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2002). Provisions for more meaningful public participation still elusive in proposed Canadian EA bill. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(3), 161-176.
    • Slocum, T. A., Blok, C., Jiang, B., Koussoulakou, A., Montello, D. R., Fuhrmann, S., & Hedley, N. R. (2001). Cognitive and usability issues in geovisualization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28, 61-75.
    • Slotterback, C. S. (2011). Planners' perspectives on using technology in participatory processes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 468-485.
    • Soini, K. (2001). Exploring Human Dimensions of Multifunctional Landscapes through Mapping and Map-making. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 225- 239.
    • Sors, J. C. (2001). Public participation in Local Agenda 21: A review of traditional and innovative tools (Vol. Nota di Lavoro, pp. 1-49). Milan, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Sugovic, M., & Witt, J. K. (2013). An older view on distance perception: older adults perceive walkable extents as further. Experimental Brain Research, 226, 383-391.
    • Sun, H.-J., Chan, G. S. W., & Campos, J. L. (2004). Active navigation and orientation-free spatial representations. Memory and Cognition, 32(1), 51- 71.
    • Tang, B.-s., Wong, S.-w., & Lau, M. C.-h. (2008). Social impact assessment and public participation in China: A case study of land requisition in Guangzhou. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 57-72.
    • Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 261-292.
    • Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560-589.
    • Thorndyke, P. W., & Stasz, C. (1980). Individual differences in procedures for knowledge acquisition from maps. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 137-175.
    • Tuler, S., & Webler, T. (1999). Voices from the forest: what participants expect of a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal, 12(5), 437-453.
    • Une, H., Nyapola, H., & Sogoh, J. (2003). Development of the Kenya Institute of Surveying and Mapping. Paper presented at the 21st International Cartographic Conference (ICC) 'Cartographic Renaissance', Durban, South Africa.
    • United Nations Development Program. (2011). Human Development Report J. Klugman (Ed.) Sustainability and Equity: A better future for all
    • Uttal, D. H., Fisher, J. A., & Taylor, H. A. (2006). Words and maps: Developmental changes in mental models of spatial information acquired from descriptions and depictions. Developmental Science, 9(2), 221-235.
    • van Lammeren, R., Houtkamp, J., Colijn, S., Hilferink, M., & Bouwman, A. (2010). Affective appraisal of 3D land use visualization. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34, 465-475.
    • Vanderhaegen, M., & Muro, E. (2005). Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA studies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 123-142.
    • Wadsworth. (2005). Sampling methods Retrieved 11 May, 2011, from http://www.wadsworth.com/psycholog_d/templates/student_resources/works hops/res_methd/sampling/sampling_17.html
    • Wandesforde-Smith, G. (1980). International perspectives on environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 1(1), 53-64.
    • Wane, N., & Chandler, D. J. (2002). African women, cultural knowledge, and environmental education with a focus on Kenya's indigenous women. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 7(1), 86-98.
    • Wang, Z.-g., & Chen, X.-g. (2006). The design of public participation in Environmental Impact Assessments. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 9(1), 93-97.
    • Wardak, C., Deneve, S., & Hamed, S. B. (2011). Focused visual attention distorts distance perception away from the attentional locus. Neuropsychologia, 49, 535-545.
    • Warner, L. L., & Diab, R. D. (2002). Use of geographic information systems in an environmental impact assessment of an overhead power line. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(1), 39-47.
    • Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2006). Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 699-722.
    • Wiedemann, P. M., & Femers, S. (1993). Public participation in waste management decision making: Analysis and management of conflicts. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 33, 355-368.
    • Wilkening, J., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2011). The effect of gender and spatial abilities on map use preferences and performance in road selection tasks. Paper presented at the 25th Cartographic Conference, International Cartographic Association, Paris, France.
    • Willis, K. S., Holscher, C., Wilbertz, G., & Li, C. (2009). A comparison of spatial knowledge acquisition with maps and mobile maps. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 33, 100-110.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Collected from