The handling of alternatives in two international projects - the Detroit River International Crossing (Canada-USA) and the Öresund Bridge (Sweden-Denmark) – is compared and analysed. In impact assessment, and in planning, alternatives play an important role. They entail the formulation of different ways to reach a predetermined goal of a project or plan. They can be used to justify the main alternative, or to question the predetermined goals of an endeavour. Large-scale infrastructure projects are often politically and financially sensitive and have significant environmental and societal impacts. It is therefore interesting to investigate the handling of alternatives in these case-studies – in impact assessment and in planning – to analyse the use of alternatives. In the two projects, both of which are fixed links across a body of water and an international boundary, two similar cases in different jurisdictions and systems are analysed. Useful comparisons can be made about why differences in the handling of alternatives occur and lessons can be learnt about what matters and contributes to a “more rational” handling of alternatives in impact assessment; whether it be legislative systems, individual process actors or technical skills.

Alternativhanteringen i två internationalle projekt - Detroit River International Crossing mellan USA och Kanada samt Öresundsbron mellan Sverige och Danmark - analyseras. Jämförelser görs angående skillnader i planerings- och miljöbedömningsprocesserna. Alternativ; miljöbedömning; Öresundsbron; Detroit River International Crossing; planering; transportplanering; alternativhantering; planeringsprocesser