Recent orders
Persona Doll Assignment Guidelines
CHLDV 156
Persona Doll Assignment Guidelines
Kay Taus is credited with creating the concept of Persona Dolls, her technique was described in the book Anti Bias Curriculum: Tools for Empowering Children by Louise Derman Sparks and the Anti Bias Task Force (1989). The persona doll can be used to introduce children to various cultures and the stereotypes and biases associated with them; introduce children to cultural groups or other forms of diversity not represented in the classroom; and create opportunities for problem solving around diversity and other issues.
For this assignment students will create a Persona Doll to be used with young children in an early childhood setting. As part of the process students will develop a biography, create an authentic image (personal doll) and writing three stories about the persona doll that relate to the issues and themes of this course. Persona Dolls and one story will be shared with the class as part of this assignment.
To complete this assignment students will:
A Develop a Persona Doll –using the templates and patterns provided create a soft doll reflecting gender, ethnicity, culture and other physical characteristics you wish to represent. Pay careful attention to skin color, hair color and texture, facial features and clothes. Your persona doll may have a disability or special need, represent a particular culture, ethnic, religious or linguistic group, and represent a form of diversity not present in the classroom or one that is represented by only one or two children.
BDevelop an Identity –using the attached resources to identify the specific characteristics of the persona doll.
C Develop Three Stories –following the guidelines below, develop three stories for your persona doll. Plan to introduce your doll to the class and share one story as part of this assignment.
Persona Dolls and one story will be shared with peers at the end of the semester, submit a photo of your persona doll along with the three stories and key questions on the date specified on the agenda.
Persona Doll Guidelines
Part B: Creating an Identity
Respond to the following in developing a persona for your doll:
Doll’s Name:
[First, middle and last]
Age:
Place of Birth:
[Month, Day and Year]
Gender:
Physical Features
[Eye color, skin color, hair, etc.]
Which features are like mom’s or dad’s or?
Ethnicity
[Parents birth place, cultural identity]
Language(s) spoken:
Religion:
Cultural background:
Likes/Things the child enjoys doing:
Food likes: Dislikes/Fears
Food Dislikes
Allergies
Special Abilities/Things the child is good at: Disabilities/Things the child finds difficult
Family Structure: [Who lives with the child, including pets]
Social Class:
Parents’ Career/Occupation
Type of home:
Pets (if any, what kind/type)
Where does the child sleep [Who does the child sleep with if anyone/anything]Anything Else? [Extra curricular activities, travel experience, desires?]
Persona Doll Guidelines
Part C: Creating Three Stories
Early childhood educators may use persona dolls as a tool to engage children in discussions about diversity and anti bias issues. Typically, persona dolls are kept separate from other resources used in the classroom and introduced to the children by the teacher. Persona dolls may visit the children several times over the course of the year, often at group time or meeting time, sometimes in response to something that has happened in the classroom or community and other times as an opportunity for dialogue about diversity issues. To begin, develop three stories about your persona doll following the guidelines below:
First Story
Develop a short story introducing the children in your class to the doll the
first time you bring her/him to the group. Share basic information with the
children about the doll, such as her/his name, age, and maybe who she/he
lives with at home. You might also tell the children that this is her/his first
day in the program and ask the children for help in making her/him feel
welcome.
Second Story
Develop another short story that tells the children a little bit more about
who this new “friend” is. This is a good time to tell a story about
something that happened to the doll that is similar to experiences that
many of the children have had (new sibling, moving to a new house, had a
fight with a friend, was excluded from a game). The story will include a
Description of a Situation
Key Questions –that encourage children to imagine how the child might feel and what the child might do, how they might respond or recommendations for solving the problem or improving the situation.
Positive Resolution –incorporate children’s’ ideas as appropriate and relevant.
Third Story
Develop a third story that builds on the relationship they know have with their new friend. This should deal with or introduce an anti-bias issue.
Develop a story that addresses the incident or issue. Remember to keep in
mind the ages and developmental stages of the children you work with as
you write your story. Include the same three components you integrated into your second story:
Description of a Situation
Key Questions –that encourage children to imagine how the child might feel and what the child might do, how they might respond or recommendations for solving the problem or improving the situation.
Positive Resolution –incorporate children’s’ ideas as appropriate and relevant.
Use the information from the worksheet on developing stories for persona dolls as a guide.
Each story should be labeled and typed, stories two and three should each be followed by the three components –Situation, Key Questions and Positive Resolution. One of your stories will be presented with your persona doll to the class on the date specified in the agenda. Turn in all three stories along with a picture of your persona doll on the date indicated.
Leadership Styles
Strategic Leadership
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Assessment of Winston and Franklin
Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were two important leaders, especially during the occurrence of World War 2. They managed to see the significance in joining forces to have their own nations’ needs met as their friendship blossomed. Winston Churchill was effective when it came to his leadership and statesmanship of Britain. He had strategic foresight as an attribute, especially in consideration of the Munich Agreement following its aftermath and lack of success in preservation of Europe’s peace (Kumar, 2014). This peace could not be assured in the presence of the looming threat of Nazi Germany. Winston Churchill’s friendship with Franklin D. Roosevelt would grow further owing to the alliance that they fostered for the sake of ridding Britain and the United States of the Nazi control. The man also had vision clarity especially in the Western Alliance’s (Britain and the United States) defeat of Germany and Japan. Franklin Roosevelt is considered a strategic leader since he took the United States through a great portion of the World War II and the Great Depression in the 1930s (Goodwin, 2018). He was a visionary leader through his impressionable discussion of political issues and the level of optimism with which he led the United States. The Americans were calmer when Franklin Roosevelt was handling national issues, so much so that the fear of facing certain situations was eliminated and replaced by boldness in handling difficult matters.
Comparison and contrast of the strategic leadership skills
These two leaders were similar and different in various ways. They were both good communicators. FDR was “one of the best orators of the 20th century”, especially with the use of the advanced technology of the time, the radio, through his “fireside chats” (Leuchtenburg, 1995). He was well known for his presentation skills, both as an orator and through his imposing stature. To further this truth, the previous administration only boasted of a single mailroom staff, but after FDR taking office as president, the same mailroom now boasted of 70 people as staff within the first week in office. Churchill was a good communicator, owing to his ability to bring the Britons together through his conversations, visibility, and the amount of value he left with those whom he interacted with (Axelrod, 2009). He left a mark through every interaction he had with them. He managed to build himself up into an effective orator, especially in the presence of his allied forces. His effectiveness as an orator did not come seamlessly like it did for FDR. His best option was practicing it to the point of achieving effectiveness. Not only were Churchill and Roosevelt good communicators, they were also good problem solvers. When Churchill was faced with difficulty during World War II, he engaged FDR, with whom they brainstormed on effective ways of dealing with their impending rivals in the field (Reynolds, 2006; & Roosevelt & Churchill, 2012). The fact that they were already friends helped better the interactive situation. They managed to champion efforts towards the end of the war as well as to keep the enemies away from the American coast while managing to end the global war, especially against Britain.
With regard to negotiation skills, Churchill put them into good effect when he convinced FDR to provide help to Britain even through the provision of tools of war to aid Britain bring the war to an end, and true to this, FDR helped out the Britons. Churchill was gifted with his convincing ability. This case especially worked since both countries were going to benefit from the additional American efforts to bring the war to an end. FDR was a good negotiator too, since he convinced the American people about their disengagement from the war and their neutrality in the World War II, thus distancing America from the war, but promising to lend a much needed hand to Britain. They both succeeded as great negotiators. Both leaders were effective in building consensus, especially when looking at FDR and Churchill agreeing to help each other out to the point of keeping America safe and Britain out of the war (La Feber, 1975; Reynolds, 2006; & Roosevelt & Churchill, 2012). They agreed on these terms, which then became their source of motivation in the engagement of the war. It is also important to throw in their relationship building capabilities seeing that they cultivated their personal and professional relationship. This relationship helped fuel their ability to build a consensus to a point of both leaders benefitting from the arrangement.
On differences, Churchill was actively involved with the military during his tenure as Prime Minister while FDR distanced himself from his commander in chief position to the point of leaving the heavy-lifting to his military leaders. As much as FDR has been part of the military before jumping into politics, he got to a point where he thought best to delegate the military issues to the military heads, so much so that he distanced himself from his position as commander in chief. Another difference is that FDR, during the blossoming of his relationship with Churchill, was functioning at a time when he was focused on his political future as president while Churchill was focused on efforts to calm and rid Britain of the war (Roosevelt, 2017). FDR was also focused on the national political issues while Churchill was focused on global, war issues. The leaders had different agendas, thus having different goals to achieve.
Churchill’s strengths, weaknesses, successes, and failures
Churchill was a man of various strengths. He was an effective leader and statesman, a popular and influential man, he was convincing as he did Roosevelt, inspirational, he was a good orator, and he was able to make difficult decisions. However, he had various weaknesses. He had a weakness in gambling through which he lost a lot of money, he failed in a World War I attack when his attempt to land troops went sideways, and his leadership in Norway’s invasion bore no fruits (Best, 2001). These were also his failures. His successes were he succeeded as statesman prime minister; he brought the first minimum wage system to Britain, and naval reform implementation (Haugen, 2006). He also succeeded in getting Britain out of the war and uniting Britons, he won the literature Nobel Peace Prize, and he was active in the passing of the people’s budget.
Franklin’s successes, weaknesses, successes, and failures
FDR was a compassionate man, a pragmatic leader, he had a good combination of political skills, he was self-confident, he was able to overcome adversity, and was a keen leader (Parrish, 1991; & Leuchtenburg, 1995). He was, however, considered insincere, vain, and a liar but compensated these with good leadership skills. The successes of FDR include credit and banking system stabilization, employment through public works was made possible, union membership and labor rights were improved, and farmers were able to finance their loans. Others were America’s infrastructure improved due to public works, rural electrification benefitted from improvement, and success during the great Depression and World War II (Winkler, 2009). The failures include farmers experienced worse situations due to ineffective federal policies, and as much as depression was dealt with people did not experience economic recovery which declined leading to increase in unemployment. On top of this, farmers went on with their suffering due to little impact by the Resettlement Administration, and African American farmers suffered even more as a result of Roosevelt wanting to please southern businessmen and politicians, with farmers’ production levels reducing.
References
Axelrod, A. (2009). Winston Churchill, CEO: 25 Lessons for bold business leaders. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc..Best, G. (2001). Churchill: A study in greatness. A&C Black.
Goodwin, D. K. (2018). Leadership: Lessons from the Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson for Turbulent Times. Penguin UK.Haugen, B. (2006). Winston Churchill: British soldier, writer, statesman. Capstone.Kumar, S. (2014). Establishing linkages between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 23(1), 1.La Feber, W. (1975). Roosevelt, Churchill, and Indochina: 1942-45. The American Historical Review, 80(5), 1277-1295.
Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1995). The FDR years: On Roosevelt and his legacy. Columbia University Press.Parrish, M. E. (1991). The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman.
Reynolds, D. (2006). From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the international history of the 1940s. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Roosevelt, C. (2017). Upstairs at the Roosevelts’: Growing Up with Franklin and Eleanor. U of Nebraska Press.Roosevelt, F. D., & Churchill, W. S. (2012). Atlantic Charter. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization.Winkler, A. (2009). The New Deal-Accomplishments and Failures. Washington: US Senate Committee on Banking.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Student’s Name
Course Code and Name
Instructor’s Name
Submission Date
Introduction
In today’s globalized world, one of the best ways to capture current thinking is through the use of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA, according to Lobos and Partidario (2014), is a methodical approach to evaluating the environmental impacts of potential policies, strategies, or initiatives. It is a method for taking into account the long-term effects of a decision, as well as its immediate economic and societal implications, from the outset of the decision-making process. Strategy, plan, or program are evaluated for their suitability in dealing with environmental and climate change issues by a SEA. It also assesses if policies, plans, or programs have the potential to have negative impacts on the environment and climate resilience, and whether there are ways to improve environmental conditions and contribute to climate-resilient and low-carbon growth (Verheem & Tonk, 2000). SEA’s significance is well-known. Stakeholder input and environmental impact assessments for specific development projects are only some of the benefits of SEA, which promotes sustainable development, strengthens the evidence foundation for strategic decisions, and expedites other procedures like environmental impact assessments. SEA’s ability to take into account the broader environmental consequences of strategic ideas is one of its most important features. There has been a shift in the way coastal designs are approached, focusing on both the physical and social aspects of a place. This study will explore those aspects of procedural or methodological practice that demand further growth and refinement, based on conceptions of SEA effectiveness.Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEA is an approach and instrument for evaluating the influence of proposed policies, plans, and programs on natural resources as well as social and cultural contexts and economic conditions, as well as the institutional framework within which decisions are made. Policies, plans, and programs that address environmental issues are considered, and the interdependence of environmental issues with economic and social elements is assessed through the use of a variety of analytical and participatory methodologies (Gauthier, Simard, & Waaub, 2011). As a result, SEA takes a very broad and comprehensive approach to sustainability, taking into consideration all three dimensions of sustainability as well as institutional difficulties. Fischer, Matuzzi, & Nowacki (2010) identify that this is done on design since many of the pressures on the poor and the environment are the consequence of custom, tradition, and institutional issues such as land ownership and administration, and because the breadth is intended to be broad. Because policies have an influence on physical resources, it is difficult to evaluate their impact on physical resources without first understanding the sociocultural, economic, and institutional settings in which they are implemented. As development organizations move their attention away from individual projects and toward wider policies and goals, Noble and Nwanekezie (2017) point to how SEAs are becoming more and more critical. While these conclusions are widely agreed to be the most prudent course of action, the road from contemplation to action, and subsequently to results, has been a bumpy one thus far.
Aside from the holistic approach, SEA gives for some degree of decision-making freedom at various stages of its framework. Therefore, choices are examined at several levels of the planning and management system, not simply at the highest levels of policy and program development and implementation. Finally, SEA may be utilized as an effective proactive assessment technique, providing valuable input into the creation of public policy and planning (Huang, Fischer, & Xu, 2017). While SEA is not one single rigorous and prescriptive methodology, it may be seen as a family of approaches that utilize a variety of different tools and techniques. An effective SEA, according to Koval et al. (2021), is one that is appropriate for the scenario in which it is used and that is appropriate for the context in which it is used. An emphasis is placed on fully integrating environmental, social, and economic variables into a holistic sustainability assessment at one end of the spectrum, while integrating environmental issues with economic and social concerns into strategic decision-making is placed at the other end of the spectrum.
SEA Effectiveness
From the outset of the decision-making process, SEA is used to assist in the formulation of policies, plans, and programs, as well as to assess their potential for development effectiveness and sustainability. SEA, according to Beaussier et al. (2019), is used to assist in the creation of policies, initiatives, and programs, as well as to analyze their efficacy and sustainability. This sets it apart from other conventional environmental assessment procedures like the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the latter has a demonstrated track record of addressing environmental hazards and opportunities in individual projects but are more challenging to apply to programs, policies, and mass plans due to their more formalized structure. SEA is intended to be used in conjunction with environmental impact assessments and other evaluation approaches and tools, not in substitute of them.
Using SEA in development cooperation has a number of advantages in terms of decision-making processes and development results. It provides environmental data to assist individuals in making more informed decisions and identifying new possibilities by facilitating a systematic and comprehensive examination of development options and alternatives (Bond et al., 2018). SEA helps to prudent resource and environmental management, setting the basis for long-term economic growth and stability. Additionally, SEA can aid in governance promotion by enhancing stakeholder involvement, allowing for trans-boundary collaboration on shared natural resources, and assisting in conflict avoidance.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a worldwide agenda for social, economic, and environmental action adopted by the United Nations and a huge part of the current turnaround by nations on matters regarding the environment. SEA may aid in the implementation of SDG-supporting efforts by providing a systematic framework for incorporating the SDGs into government policies, plans, and programs (Lobos & Partidario, 2014). The SDGs, in turn, have the potential to reaffirm the SEA’s commitment to sustainable development. As a consequence, integrating the two policy instruments results in a mutually beneficial relationship. In this study, we examine existing SEA participation in the SDGs in the scholarly literature as well as in practice to determine what is presently available. To demonstrate SEA’s contribution to sustainable development, it may be necessary to establish clearer and more meaningful connections between SEA and the SDGs, as well as help with implementation and influencing action in support of global goals.
Areas of SEA that Require Further Advancement and Improvement
Environmental impact assessments are becoming increasingly important to institutions, governments, and environmental assessment administrators all around the globe as they consider the environmental repercussions of policy, planning, and program decisions. A growing number of companies are turning to SEA to help them better understand the long-term environmental consequences of their actions. In many countries throughout the world, there is a growing amount of knowledge on various SEA techniques, including institutional frameworks, assessment and review processes, and outcomes attained in specific case applications, which is being collected and compiled (Partidario & Monteiro, 2019). It highlights the unique difficulties associated with building and implementing SEA, despite a paucity of understanding about how to ensure its success. Despite the fact that the SEA’s objectives have long been recognized as important, its implementation did not begin until the mid-1980s (Noble & Nwanekezie, 2017). An important approach in the process of improving EA performance, as well as an important instrument in the integration of environmental concerns into decision-making and the trend toward sustainability objectives, is the use of SEA. The fact that a large quantity of effort has been done in this area does not mean that an agreement on an acceptable SEA structure has yet to be reached.
There are a number of restrictions that apply to SEA. For starters, SEA necessitates a significant investment of time and resources. In the case of a SEA, for example, preparations may take anywhere from 50 to 100 days (Fundingsland Tetlow & Hanusch, 2012). Governmental resources in developing countries are already stretched to their limits, and this might add even more strain to their already overburdened systems. A significant number of procedures (such as gathering baseline data and involving stakeholders) are likely to have not yet been created because seabed exploration is a relatively new technological advancement in the field of oceanography. In order to successfully implement long-term strategic initiatives, SEA must be prepared to deal with uncertainty at all levels, from a local to a national or international one. Flooding or technological advancements, for example, may result in delays and technical difficulties on the road.
In order to be exact and scientific, SEA must be sensitive to the demands of the scenario, adaptable, and quick to respond to changing conditions. When making a decision, it is important to consider a variety of aspects, including SEA. Frequently, the choice is made on the basis of non-sustainable or environmental considerations. For instance, the findings of a SEA may persuade legislators to choose an ecologically friendly approach. Many sources, such as those located in underserved urban regions, are not taken into account by the SEA, which is a significant disadvantage (Partidário, 1996). The importance of social and economic concerns is usually undervalued. As a result, the SEA technique is reliant on a large number of quantitative data points that are not always available inside the boundaries of the affected urban area. Since it interacts with a wide variety of interdependent elements acting on several fronts, as well as with a wide range of societal values and a high degree of uncertainty about anticipated outcomes, SEA necessitates a high degree of adaptability and flexibility in the decision-making environment. Being presented with unexpected events, on the other hand, does not entail the need to make strategic decisions. The presence of uncertainty features is inextricably tied to the character of a strategic decision; yet, there are a number of uncertainties associated with the development of particular projects that lack the broad visionary and prohibitive quality associated with strategic alternatives.
Another important consideration in this context is the potential contribution of SEA to the achievement of environmental integrated decision-making in planning, ideation, policy formulation, and programs development. According to Rega and Baldizzone (2015), SEA is the process of incorporating environmental assessment principles into the decision-making process. Others perceive a major separation between enterprise architecture and integration. Different countries have recognized a wide range of hurdles and limits that are tied to their respective political and institutional settings, which may be found here. However, in the majority of cases, the difficulties presented appear to be related to the employment of a novel environmental assessment tool, which introduces a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity into typical environmental decision-making (Ciccullo et al., 2018). One of the most common difficulties is a lack of supervision and training, as well as a lack of accountability and responsibility, as well as an inability to use established or proven ways.
The political and organizational structure of the environment in which SEA is used has a significant impact on the importance of the impediments that have been discovered by the SEA. Policymakers and planners usually lack the capacity to transmit essential information or encourage open debate that EA’s flexibility and participatory principles need because SEA applies to earlier activities in the decision-making process because SEA applies to earlier actions. It is necessary, however, for interest groups to exert some influence on policy development and implementation in order to guarantee that policies are ecologically sound and sustainable (Huang, Fischer, & Xu, 2017). This may be accomplished through critical analysis and political pressure. In addition, problems of secrecy and legality may arise, posing significant obstacles to an open and transparent assessment and decision-making process that might otherwise be possible. In order to be successful in the SEA, a number of complicated limitations must be met, which is especially true in more open political systems.
The success of the SEA is dependent on strong political will on the part of governments and other global institutions such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. It is necessary for each political and organizational culture to develop the administrative and institutional mechanisms necessary to implement a SEA system, as well as to determine the most effective means of ensuring a certain level of accountability for policy, planning, and program proposals, particularly those that are politically sensitive (Bond et al., 2018). On the other hand, if more strict and inflexible political regimes do not include environmental assessment methods or allow for public scrutiny as integral components of the decision-making process, it is expected that further impediments would be encountered. In these circumstances, no procedural or technical solution can be a substitute for political responsibility, as well as for effective and flexible institutional structures and processes.
Suggestions Regarding the Use of SEA in the Future
Nations with adaptable and open cultural and political frameworks are more likely to have produced solid environmental policies and well-defined environmental objectives in comparison to countries with rigid and closed systems. A broad range of ecosystem services (which should include ecosystems, people, and communities, in addition to natural and physical resources) and the repercussions of those services must be examined in order for SEA to be effective in attaining sustainable development (encompassing ecological, physical, social, cultural, and economic) (Fischer, Matuzzi, & Nowacki, 2010). SEA is confronted with a plethora of severe difficulties pertaining to its long-term existence. The first is the link between short-term environmental usage and long-term output, which includes cumulative impacts, as well as other factors mentioned by Rozas-Vásquez et al. (2018). The second stage involves establishing whether or not any irreversible alterations have occurred (Hayes & Fischer, 2021). Effective organizational structures must be built across and within departments/agencies responsible for policy formulation in order to handle the pre-stages and follow-up, as well as to assure the analysis, integration, and assessment of ideas. Involvement of stakeholders, steering committees, and interdepartmental committees are all examples of stakeholder engagement in action.
Identifying if an integrated environmental assessment and planning system will result in enhanced decision-making and environmental management without the need for a separate SEA technique is one of the challenges. Certain countries, like New Zealand, have a solid legislative framework for SEA, but there is a lack of advice, resources, and ways to help practitioners implement their policies (Beaussier et al., 2019). In other parts of the world such as Sweden, environmental and planning legislation just necessitates the creation of an EIS, without the requirement for an evaluation technique (Beaussier et al., 2019). New guidelines are required to augment current legislation in order to encourage critical thinking and compulsory decision-making rationalization procedures. It is also important that these recommendations should be developed in consultation with experts and with special consideration of elements that are unique to a given country.
Conclusion
Strategic Environmental Assessment is a methodical approach to evaluating the environmental impacts of potential policies, strategies, or initiatives. In this discussion, it has been established that SEA is a method for taking into account the long-term effects of a decision, as well as its immediate economic and societal implications, from the outset of the decision-making process. The sole purpose of the paper was to explore those aspects of procedural or methodological practice that demand further growth and refinement, based on conceptions of SEA effectiveness. It notes that SEA is an approach and instrument for evaluating the influence of proposed policies, plans, and programs on natural resources as well as social and cultural contexts and economic conditions, as well as the institutional framework within which decisions are made. As a result, SEA takes a very broad and comprehensive approach to sustainability, taking into consideration all three dimensions of sustainability as well as institutional difficulties. Using SEA in development cooperation has a number of advantages in terms of decision-making processes and development results. It provides environmental data to assist individuals in making more informed decisions and identifying new possibilities by facilitating a systematic and comprehensive examination of development options and alternatives. However, there are a number of restrictions that apply to SEA. The main issue is that as a new system, SEA is very uncertain, a situation that brings concerns to users. Nations with adaptable and open cultural and political frameworks are more likely to have produced solid environmental policies and well-defined environmental objectives in comparison to countries with rigid and closed systems. New guidelines are required to augment current legislation in order to encourage critical thinking and compulsory decision-making rationalization procedures.
References
Beaussier, T., Caurla, S., Bellon-Maurel, V., & Loiseau, E. (2019). Coupling economic models
and environmental assessment methods to support regional policies: a critical review. Journal of cleaner production, 216, 408-421.
Bond, A., Retief, F., Cave, B., Fundingsland, M., Duinker, P. N., Verheem, R., & Brown, A. L.
(2018). A contribution to the conceptualisation of quality in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, 49-58.
Ciccullo, F., Pero, M., Caridi, M., Gosling, J., & Purvis, L. (2018). Integrating the environmental
and social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply chain management paradigms: A literature review and future research directions. Journal of cleaner production, 172, 2336-2350.
Fischer, T. B., Matuzzi, M., & Nowacki, J. (2010). The consideration of health in strategic
environmental assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(3), 200-210.
Fundingsland Tetlow, M., & Hanusch, M. (2012). Strategic environmental assessment: the state
of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 15-24.
Gauthier, M., Simard, L., & Waaub, J. P. (2011). Public participation in strategic environmental
assessment (SEA): Critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(1), 48-60.
Hayes, S. J., & Fischer, T. B. (2021). Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 47, 29-35.
Huang, Y., Fischer, T. B., & Xu, H. (2017). The stakeholder analysis for SEA of Chinese foreign
direct investment: the case of ‘One Belt, One Road’initiative in Pakistan. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(2), 158-171.
Koval, V., Mikhno, I., Udovychenko, I., Gordiichuk, Y., & Kalina, I. (2021). Sustainable natural
resource management to ensure strategic environmental development. TEM J, 10(3), 1022-1030.
Lobos, V., & Partidario, M. (2014). Theory versus practice in strategic environmental assessment
(SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48, 34-46.
Noble, B., & Nwanekezie, K. (2017). Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment:
Principles, approaches and research directions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 165-173.
Partidário, M. R. (1996). Strategic environmental assessment: key issues emerging from recent
practice. Environmental impact assessment review, 16(1), 31-55.
Partidario, M. R., & Monteiro, M. B. (2019). Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness in
Portugal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3-4), 247-265.
Rozas-Vásquez, D., Fuerst, C., Geneletti, D., & Almendra, O. (2018). Integration of ecosystem
services in strategic environmental assessment across spatial planning scales. Land use policy, 71, 303-310.
Rega, C., & Baldizzone, G. (2015). Public participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment:
A practitioners’ perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 105-115.
Verheem, R. A. A., & Tonk, J. A. M. N. (2000). Strategic environmental assessment: one concept,
multiple forms. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 177-182.