Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation

evier.com/locate/eiar
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 666–684
www.els

Context awareness and sensitivity in SEAimplementation

Tuija Hilding-Rydevik a,⁎, Holmfridur Bjarnadóttir b,1

a EIA Centre, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,Box 7012, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden

b SKI - Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, SE-106 58 Stockholm, Sweden

Available online 12 July 2007

Abstract

The Impact Assessment research community repeatedly asserts that the implementation of StrategicEnvironmental Assessment (SEA) should take the issue of context into consideration. The primary aim of thispaper then is to attempt to give substance to the concept of “context” in relation to the implementation of SEA.The second aim is to discuss the relevance of context consciousness and sensitivity in relation to one of themain aims given to SEA implementation i.e. to contribute to the “integration” of environmental perspectivesin planning processes. Context must be defined in relation to a certain question. In this paper the question infocus is the assumption that SEA implementation will contribute to integration of environmental issues inplanning processes. Research results relating to the use of environmental tools, like for example SEA, andexperiences of integration efforts, strongly indicate that the use of a single tool like SEA is not enough toachieve this integration. The current “context free” normative and procedural assumptions concerning the aimof SEA implementation and “best practice” in term of SEA can be criticised on the same grounds as normativeand procedural planning theories, as being context free. The assumptions behind the current formulations ofthe aim and best practice of SEA need to be revisited. A firm empirical and theoretical knowledge anddiscussion is needed, especially in relation to the issue of context and integration. This paper provides astarting point in this direction.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Strategic Environmental Assessment; SEA; Implementation; Context; Integration; Regional development

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 18 67 19 78.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.Hilding-Rydevik), [email protected] (H. Bjarnadóttir).

1 Tel.: +46 8 698 84 50.

0195-9255/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.009

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.009

667T. Hilding-Rydevik, H. Bjarnadóttir / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 666–684

1. Introduction

1.1. The need for understanding context in relation to SEA

In recent years several scholars (e.g. Cashmore and Nieslony, 2005; Bina, 2003 p100–118;Bina andWellington, 2005; Hilding-Rydevik, 2003; Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000; Noteboom, 2005;Partidário, 2005a; Sach, 20012 p.77) have highlighted the need to understand the implementationcontext of SEA, as well as to adapt SEA to such context to ensure the successful implementationof SEA. This has generally been done in recognition of the fact that our understanding of thenature of the planning context needs to be broadened (e.g., Emmelin, 1998; Fischer, 2003; Hildénet al., 2004; Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000; Marsden, 1998; Richardson, 2000, 2005). Hildén andJalonen (2005 p.170) state that: “Empirical research strongly suggests that the preparation ofstrategic actions is often best understood as an expression of social struggles over problemdefinition, objectives, and acceptable means. Under such circumstances, flexibility and sensitivityto context is a key to successful SEA.” (Hildén et al., 2004). Jones et al. (2005 p.10) state inrelation to SEA and land use planning that: “Every SEA and land use planning system is unique,and each is the product of a particular set of legal, administrative and political circumstances.”These references highlight some of the statements put forward on the need to consider theimplementation context. Few attempts have however been made to explore this question in greaterdetail. Similarly, the individual components that make up an individual SEA implementation“context” also remain largely unaddressed. Thissen (2001) in particular urges that empiricalresearch be undertaken of the “characteristics and courses of the decision processes” in order tooperationalize SEA and to support the development of guidelines for policy SEA. The primaryaim of this paper is to attempt to give substance to the concept of context in relation to theimplementation of SEA. What is context, and how can it be described and defined? Thiscontribution should thus be viewed as the initial step of what may prove to be a rather longjourney, as further theoretical and empirical input from a number of different research perspectiveswill be needed.

The above quotes indicate that there is a relationship between the awareness of context,context sensitivity, and the success of SEA implementation. Hildén et al. (2004) put it like this:“The relevance of the different views on planning is that they have a bearing on the role ofenvironmental assessment. Different views of planning lead to very different interpretations ofwhat the assessment can and should be about, what they should deliver and whether SEA as awhole is a justified mean” (Hildén et al., 2004). The ongoing effort to define the role and aims ofSEA implementation aims etc in general has thus far resulted in a number of different for-mulations being presented; none of which are universally accepted. The second aim of this paperis to discuss the relevance of context awareness and sensitivity in relation to one of the mainsaims of using SEA, namely, to contribute to the “integration” of environmental perspectives andissues in planning processes (for example as expressed in the European Union directive: “On theassessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment” 2001/42/EC).Does greater knowledge of a particular planning context change our view of the integrationaspirations attached to implementing SEA? Are claims relating to the need to take “context”into consideration valid; and if they are, how is this to be achieved in relation to the goal ofintegration?

2 Sach (2001) asks for a flexible approach on SEA, which we interpret a demand for the issue of ‘context’ to be takeninto consideration.

668 T. Hilding-Rydevik, H. Bjarnadóttir / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 666–684

1.2. The need to understand context in relation to planning theory

Environmental Assessment and planning theory have developed along two parallel, but separatepaths (Lawrence, 2000). In 1970, Faludi addressed the role of context in planning where hisexplanatory categories were: level and pace of development, institutional structure, political systemand administrative structure, norms and values, cleavages in society, and the specific features of asociety. Later, Faludi (1987) refers quite loosely to “context and content” and “types of problems andorganisational settings”. According to Sager (2001), it has long been a standard criticism ofprocedural planning theory that it is purportedly context free (p 511). Among the critics isMandelbaum (1979)who contends that “normative procedural theories are often incomplete becausethey do not specify either the settings inwhich they apply or the anticipated outcomes”. Furthermore,ignorance, or a simple lack of knowledge about the role of planners and of basic political realities, hasalso been criticised: for example, Fainstein and Campbell (1996) argue that “… planning theoristshave too often debated these concepts in a political vacuum, assuming too much autonomy ofplanners to choose the best concept based on their intrinsic merits”. This is also the topic of theoristswho apply an alternative approach based on Michael Foucault's analysis of power (e.g. Flyvbjergand Richardson, 2002). According to Sager (2002), a recent and increasingly large body of workstudies planning from an institutional perspective, for example examining, how, in practice, planningprocesses, implementation, and success are influenced by agency organisation and regulatory style.It is stressed however that factors other than those relating to institutional settings can influence theplanning style, including pressure groups and powerful stakeholders, as well as political pressuredirect on the planners themselves. Sager gives an analysis of the organisational characteristics— theoverarching aims of contributing to an “institutionally enriched planning theory”.

1.3. General definition of context

Beforewe proceed the generalmeaning of “context”must be stated. The basic vocabularymeaningof context is defined3 as “the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; “thehistorical context.” The dictionary also suggests the concept of “circumstance” as a synonym forcontext, but gives it a slightly different definition: “a condition that accompanies or influences someevent or activity”. In this paper, the concept of context in relation to the formulated SEA integrationgoals will be used in the following sense: context is the set of facts or circumstances that have animpact on the chosen approaches to SEA, but the context is also the set of facts and conditions thathave an impact on the outcomes of SEA implementation.By “approaches” here, we refer to the chosenaim and goals attached to SEA, the expectations put on SEA implementation, the chosen steps in itsimplementation and its method of implementation in practice. By “outcomes”, we refer to the impactsand effects that implementation of SEA has on the contents of a plan, on decision-making, on theparticipants in the planning process, on the mode of operation in the organisations taking part in theplanning process, in both the short and the long terms. This definition is judged as being appropriate inorder to discuss the implications of the statements on SEA presented in the introduction.

1.4. Structure

The paper is divided into four sections. Section 1 should be seen as an introduction providingthe background to, and rationale for the questions addressed and the general definition of context

3 WordReference.com English Dictionary, July 2006.

http://WordReference.com


is given. Section 2 describes some empirical research results and which are used to illustrate someelements of context in relation to tools use in efforts to integrate SD in regional developmentplanning in the Nordic countries. In Section 3 experiences of integration efforts are presented, asis a general definition of integration. Conclusions are drawn on the role of SEA implementation insolving problems encountered in relation with integration efforts. The discussion and conclusionSection 4, revolves around the two aims presented for this paper.

2. Regional development programming: example of context and tools to promote integration

2.1. Tools for integrating Sustainable Development

In recent years, regional economic development has received increasing political attention inrelation to questions over the implementation of the policy goals of Sustainable Development (SD)in the European Union (EU) and its member countries, as well as in the Nordic countries (three ofwhich are EUmembers).With the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden)in mind, a research project was designed to produce an overview of efforts to promote theintegration of SD in regional development policy and planning, which was then being undertakenin the Nordic countries at both the national and the regional levels. In respect of the regional level,the project reviewed the tools4 – for example, SWOT-analysis and Impact Assessment – thatNordic regions have been using to integrate SD in their regional development programming work(the study is described fully in Hilding-Rydevik et al., 2004). The analysis and results presented inthis section illustrate how the implementation of tools like SEA and their impact on the planningprocess, can be related to the specific context characteristics of a country and region and even tospecific organisation characteristics.

2.2. Methods and materials

The first part of the project included a desk study, which provided an overview of the nationalpolitical efforts to promote SD in the context of regional development policy— in relation to bothpolicy statements and legislation. This overview also included descriptions of how regionaldevelopment work was formally organised. All five Nordic countries were included, with the aimto produce an overview of all of the various efforts being undertaken at the national level in eachcountry. The second part of the project included a closer study of four Nordic regions and regionalorganisations to provide in depth cases: two from Sweden (Västra Götaland, Södermanland), andone each from Denmark (North Jutland) and Finland (Päijät-Häme). Considering the lowimplementation level of both SD and the tools intended to promote it in the Nordic regions (withthe exception of SWOT-analysis) (which was found through the interviews with national regionaldevelopment representatives and when surveying regions to include in this study), it was deemednecessary to choose cases amongst those regions that were considered to be ‘frontrunners’ by thenational interviewees. In total, 12 regional officials were interviewed representing a mix of thesectors5 – regional economic development, environment or SD and social issues – in each region.Semi-structured interviews were conducted, the interviews were recorded, transcribed, and

4 “Tool” is used in the broad sense: Anything used in the performance of an operation; instrument. The AmericanHeritage Dictionary of the English language, 1977 Edition.5 ‘Sector’ is e.g. the transport sector, regional development sector, environmental sector i.e. interest areas in a society

that are kept together by e.g. a national policy like an economic or an environment policy.


analysed. The main regional development documents from each region were analysed accordingto a predefined list of questions and issues (in total around 25 documents were included).

2.3. Mix of tools used in the attempts to achieve integration

The results show that a mix of tools has been applied to integrate SD in the different steps ofpreparing the programme, during its implementation and in the regional development organisationitself. In the regions studied, the following tools were used: well prepared and extensive dialoguesconducted within the regional organisation and externally — including a broad spectrum ofregional stakeholders; reorganisation of the regional organisation to suit the requirements of SD,and application of SD SWOT-analysis,6 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), SEA and SDIndicators. The analysis shows a great variety of expectations regarding the impacts and outputs ofeach tool (Table 1). This was particularly the case for SEA, in relation to which a broad range ofexpectations were identified.

Interviewees were also asked to comment on the outputs resulting from the implementation ofthe different tools. These outputs were often at variance with the stated expectations. In certaininstances an enlarged information base, created for example through the use of SD indicators,helped to strengthen the focus on SD in the region. This was the case in the Swedish region ofVästra Götaland. Here the use of SD indicators helped to identify the fact that there was a need tofocus on social issues in their regional development work, which had not been done previously. Inboth Västra Götaland and in the Finnish region of Päijät Häme, the tools used included theformation of working groups and planning arenas with a broad sector representation. Thiscontributed to legitimise SD as an important ‘value basis’ (Västra Götaland) and input (Päijät-Häme) for regional development formulation processes. In these regions, the expectations withregard to tool use have been fulfilled. On the other hand, the results from the Danish region ofNorth Jutland illustrate that tools used here (SEA) made only a limited contribution to changingthe commitment, political will, organisation, and/or content of the plan etc in relation toenvironmental perspectives. The interviews indicate that the implementation of SEA did notsucceed in meeting any of the expectations held by the regional planning actors.

2.4. Finding the elements of context in the regional development example

2.4.1. Planning style does not come out of the blueCan the differences between the regional organisations in relation to different expectations and

outcomes, and in relation to the tool use described in the previous section, be explained bycontext, for example through some specific national characteristic, region-specific issues or evenregional organisation specific issues? In order to take a closer look at this the concepts andcontents of “planning style” (Sager, 2001) and “national policy style” (Richardson, 1982: p2 inSkou Andersen, 1999) are used. The Bartlett and Kurian (1999) typology (see Fig. 1 below) ofwhy and how EIAworks is also used as a help to identify the contents of context in the regionaldevelopment example above.

The regional development programming work can be viewed as a kind of planning process.Sager (2001) points out in relation to planning processes that “Planning style does not come out ofthe blue; neither is it primarily the result of one planner's arbitrary or idiosyncratic improvisation.

6 SD SWOT-analysis: Describing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats in the region in relation to theSD goal.

Table 1Examples of which tools that 4 Nordic regions have used in order to promote integration of Sustainable Development

Tool Expectation concerning tools output

Extensive dialogues with regionaldevelopment stakeholders, partnership

Defining SD in the specific regional context

Extensive dialogues externally and internallyin the regional development organisation

To spread responsibility for SD

Re-organisation Adapt the organisation to the tool use and to SD integrationSD SWOT-analysis⁎ Describing the regional situation and the prospectsSEA Putting environmental issues on the agenda, improving the environment,

integrating environmental issues, strengthening dialogue with citizens,have an impact on the content of the programme

SD indicators Monitor and provide feedback on SD work, make SD concrete, make goalconflicts clear, form a basis for budget discussions

Examples of the expectations on output from tools use (SD) (complete list in Hilding-Rydevik et al., 2004).⁎SWOT-analysis: Describing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats in the region - in relation to the SDgoal.


Style is linked – probably in some loose way – to the institutional environment via thecharacteristics of the planning agency.’ ‘My broad and general hypothesis is that, in practice,agency planners tend to design planning processes so that style and organisational propertiescorrespond”. Thus, it can be assumed that the choice of tool can be embedded in the style of theregional programming/planning processes. National organisations for regional development andtheir operating procedures are in turn embedded in, and characterized by, the different nationalpolicy styles (‘the standard operating procedures’) (Richardson, 1982: p2 in Skou Andersen,1999) and historical contexts. National policy style, as a concept is not strictly defined, but relatesto the national legal–constitutional system and to the administrative set-up, using Skou-Andersen's approach (1999). The administrative set up relates to “the division of competenciesbetween national, regional, and local authorities as well as to their traditional role in regulatorysystems.”

The existence of national differences in policy style, in relation to environmental policy andregulation, and the outputs of this policy and regulatory process have been highlighted specificallyfor the Nordic countries by a number of researchers. Skou Andersen (1999) e.g. highlights some“context variables” that have impact on pollution control strategies and the outcomes of thesestrategies. The national policy style referred to above is one such variable, with a second being“problem pressure”. The notion of “problem pressure” includes “basic environmental char-acteristics”, “economic performance”, and “public opinion”. Skou Andersen (1999) also claimsthat the “innovation capability” of a national political and judicial system is a necessary, but notsufficient condition for successful environmental policy. Mulders (1999) moreover shows thatdistinct differences exist, in terms of the view of nature, between civil servants in the envi-ronmental sector in the Nordic countries. Jahn (1999) also concludes that environmental policiesacross the Nordic countries differ considerably and that differences in environmental performancecan thus be seen. Taken together, this simply illustrates that clear differences seem to exist at thenational level across the Nordic countries in terms of the various national contexts.

Bartlett and Kurian (1999) have developed a typology that illustrates the different modes ofoperation expected of EIA. All six models, listed in Fig. 1, have been empirically validated bydifferent researchers (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999). No such list currently exists for SEA, so for thesake of this paper, we assume that these models are also valid for the use of SEA. It is also

Fig. 1. The Bartlett and Kurian (1999) typology of ‘how and why Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) works’ (veryshort version).



assumed that the Bartlett and Kurian typology is also applicable to tools other than EIA and SEAfor example, that it is also applicable to indicators.

A number of indications of possible context differences between the regions can be identified ifusing the Bartlett and Kurian (1999) typology and based on the results described here. The regionof Västra Götaland seems to encompass quite distinctly the political economy model. This alsogoes well with the political rhetoric in Västra Götaland, which is generally in line with the theoriesof ecological modernisation.7 The other Swedish region, Södermanland, seems more keen toembrace the information processing and organisational politics model in its approach to SD. Theindicator work, together with the reorganisation measures, indicates this. This is assumed to be thecase if the wordings in the typology of Bartlett and Kurian are applicable not only to organisationsbut also to planning processes. In the Danish North Jutland case, the pluralistic and symbolicpolitics models seem to dominate. In the Finnish case, the region of Päijät Häme seems to exhibit amix of the information processing and organisational politics models. As such, it appears that inthis case the implementation of SEA offers a perfect example of how the tool of SEA should workaccording to mainstream ideas (as expressed in e.g. Brown and Therivel, 2000; IAIA, 2002).

It is also apposite to make some initial remarks on the question of national policy styles inrelation to the Bartlett and Kurian (1999) typology and the interview statements concerningexpectations and outputs from tool implementation, . In North Jutland, the pluralistic model'sexpectation of SEA performance goes hand in hand with the land use planning traditions and EIAtraditions in Denmark, where the focus on public participation has been prominent and successful(Kjellerup, 2001). As an explanation of why the tool of SEA does not seem to work in this regioncan be found by turning to the notion of ‘symbolic politics’ at the regional policy level. VästraGötaland's political economy approach seems to fit well with its status as an autonomous,prosperous, and successful region, as well as, more generally, with the broader national Swedishcontext of ecological modernisation politics (e.g.Anshelm and Hedrén, 1998). The other Swedishregion studied here, namely, the county of Södermanland being a national but regionally basedpublic administration, with its information processing and organisational politics model; howeverseems to fit well with the bureaucratic and civil service tradition in Sweden (e.g. Karlsson, 2003)and with the consensus-oriented style of policy operation (Sairinen, 2000, p 93). The Finnishregion on the other hand seems to operate more in accordance with the ‘top-down’ policy styleapproach, compared to the other Nordic countries, and could thus be assumed to fit the in-formation-processing model quite well.

2.4.2. Difficulties in contexts lacking political will and commitmentThe four Nordic case studies seem to provide a clear indication that, when the regional political

will is in place, and when there is a determination that SD should be an important part of, or thebasis for, regional development, then the regions use a mix of approaches, measures and ‘tools’ topromote and progress their work with SD. This seems to be the case in the Finnish and Swedishregions. The tools used do not become goals in themselves, but rather simply remain a part of, anda means to, the overall organisational development work in relation to SD and regionaldevelopment. Therefore, it seems that certain contexts are receptive to tools when (as described inthe case studies) the political will, the organisational commitment, the professional skill and

7 Ecological modernisation is here defined as the SD approach based on the assumption that economic growth andenvironmental management can be made compatible through the integration of ecological considerations into establishedways of thinking and acting. It is a perspective where environmental care is thought of as something that can promoteefficiency and economic growth (Hajer, 1996 p 248f; Harvey, 1996 p 378).


learning motivation, already exist. Tool implementation is thus embedded in the overall planningstyle and, most importantly, embedded in the overall change, learning and development workundertaken to integrating the ‘new’ issue of SD into the broader regional development planningand agency work.

In theDanish case study region, no overall political or sector-encompassing political commitmentexists. The SEA tool as such exists in a political vacuum with its implementation lacking an overallpolicy framework. As such then, many of the traditionally highlighted flaws in SEA and EIAimplementation seem to be present in theDanish case. For example, notwithstanding the existence ofgood assessment techniques and results, the SEA process remains largely ineffective, in the sensethat it provides input to the formation of the contents of the plan, but it does so too late in the process.However, from July 2004, the use of SEA became compulsory in relation to regional plans inDenmark, and this may give some impetus to the formation of the political will to apply SEA.8

In both Finland and Sweden, there are clear national commitments, in legal form or throughgovernment policy statements and guidelines, regarding SD and its importance for regionaldevelopment work. These national foundations are, however, of quite recent origin and few regionsin either Sweden or Finland had expanded their environmental work to encompass SD at the timewhen this study was conducted. As such, there seem to be a number of special characteristicsdisplayed by those regional administrations that pursue SD as an important regional developmentissue, using and developing tools to promote it. The nature of ‘tool’ use in the Finnish and Swedishregions moreover often goes beyond basic legal demands. Indeed, it is often voluntary in nature.

2.4.3. The elements of context are ‘context’ dependentBased on the analysis above, the facts and circumstances that have an impact on the choice of

approaches to, and outcomes of, tools such as SEA include: national policy style, characteristicsof the planning agency, planning style and political commitment to SD. Mentioned, but notdiscussed is also professional skill, learning motivation and change. The elements of context inthe example above are however approached from a specific issue— namely tools use in order topromote integration of SD in regional development planning processes and regional developmentbodies. We thus state that the elements of context need to be defined in relation to some issue ofquestion — the elements of context are ‘context’ dependent.

3. Integration and the role of SEA implementation

This third part of the paper will discuss the implications of context awareness and sensitivity inrelation to the assumptions that SEA implementation promotes the integration of environmentalissues, perspectives, concerns in the planning processes.

3.1. Expecting integration from SEA implementation

Each tool, and the discourses in which it is imbedded, represents a set of normative, theoreticaland political assumptions and models concerning its functioning, as well as its expected output

8 Notwithstanding this however, and despite the absence of SEA legislation in the last couple of years, eight out of 14Danish regions (the number of Danish regions has now been amended due to a process of regional reform) have alreadylaunched some kind of SEA related projects. This has been done primarily as a reaction to the implementation of the newSEA Directive. However, a number of these projects have already been discontinued due to lack of funding. There havehowever recently been a number of promising SEA projects launched in the counties of Storstrøm and Viborg.


and implementation effect (as is exemplified by Bartlett and Kurian, 1999). In relation to SEA, theexpectations and thus assumptions, in the SEA research community, concerning the outputs ofSEA implementation are both numerous and wide-ranging. The level of expectation surroundingthe SEA application has over the last 20 years been developed and explored by researchers,officials and consultants in numerous books, scientific articles and reports (e.g. Asplund andHilding-Rydevik, 1996; João, 2005; Lee, 1982; Lawrence, 2000; Rodgers, 1976; Therivel andPartidario, 1996; Verheem and Tonk, 2000; Stinchcombe and Gibson, 2001). Among theexpectations most often highlighted in this emergent SEA discourse, is that SEA is regarded as animportant tool for integrating environmental concerns into decision-making (Sadler and Verheem,1996). As such, it is expected to contribute to the implementation of planning practices that are inline with and promote Sustainable Development (Therivel and Partidario, 1996; Stinchcombe andGibson, 2001, Directive 2001/42/EC). This recognition of the importance of SEA is confirmed bythe call for its implementation at both the international and European levels, primarily in forasuch as Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Convention, the Habitats Directive, through the EU'sStructural Funds, and via Directive 2001/42/EC (Sheate et al., 2001).

3.2. Inertia in relation to integration and change

The generally stated desire that an application of SEA should and can contribute to integration,represents an assumption concerning the existing planning and planning processes — it is, ineffect, an indirect demand that something needs to be changed in the operating mode of planningin relation to environmental perspectives, concerns, and information. The call for integration canbe interpreted as a solution providing this change. Thus far, however, the planning problemsthat this integration is designed to solve remains unclear, particularly as seen from the SEA-community's point of view. We need thus first, in order to proceed the discussion, explore theproblems encountered in practical integration efforts as a basis for delineating the problems to besolved.

Sadler and Verheem (1996 p. 60) suggests that one of the criteria to make the tool ofenvironmental assessment more effective is the “receptivity of decision makers and pro-ponents to the results of the EIA, founded on good communication and accountability.”The issue of receptiveness is interesting. In many instances, we still find, that significantresistance exists among planning professionals participating in planning processes and inorganisations, to integrating environmental perspectives in general. In Sweden this hasproved to be the case, in spite of more than 30 years of ongoing integration efforts in thearea of municipal land use planning (as exemplified in Dovlén, 2005; Håkansson, 2005;Storbjörk and Isaksson, 2005). Inertia in relation to changes in professional culture andpractice in relation to environmental perspectives and concerns thus seem to exist. Inthe regional development field inertia has also been observed (experiences of integrationhowever only goes back less than 10 years in the Nordic countries)(Asplund et al., 2004;Hilding-Rydevik et al., 2004). As such, receptiveness to results from tools like SEA can beassumed to be low.

The observed inertia in different sectors to a great extent emanates from conditions andattitudes at the micro level, i.e. the every day professional practice (Asplund et al., 2004). It is notenough then to simply produce directives and policy measures designed from a macro perspective(e.g. EU or national government perspective), as they invariably neglect the potential difficultiesthat might emerge in the implementation at the micro level. For instance, sector interests arepresupposed to be compatible even though it is obvious that in many planning situations where


different sector interests are to be weighed in relation to each other, environmental concern stilltend to be a delicate and conflict laden issue (Asplund and Hilding-Rydevik, 2001).

The argument behind the assertion that micro conditions are important relates to assumptionsand theories concerning what planning processes are and how actors in the process learn. Aplanning process (e.g. with the aim of producing regional development programmes or local landuse plans) is assumed to be a socially constructed phenomenon (Berger and Luckmann, 1966;Burr, 1995) maintained by means of social, symbolic, and political actions. The actors taking partin the process are however bound by various conditions: their communication and interaction areformed and structured by existing and institutionalized perspectives, norms, and rules (Giddens,1984; Luhman, 1995). Giddens emphasises the fact that actors have a practical knowledge,knowledge of what to say and what to do in a practical situation. This knowledge is knowledge ofhow to act in practice, knowledge about the practical doings, and the kind of routines that onedoes, without putting them in words and without self-reflection. One simply knows how to act,and one also knows how not to act, where the limits are, what one is supposed not to do etc. Thisis however a trap, since there is no reflective distance regarding concepts, categories, conventions,and institutionalized habits. One is embedded here in a social culture. This social culture can beone of the main obstacles to the promotion of change, for example, in favour of integrating andimplementing SD and new tools in planning.

Though actors are guided by discourses, institutions, routines and conventions, they also havethe capacity – if there is an opportunity – to reflect upon and review these, and to make moredeliberate choices. Namely, to abandon what they find to be dysfunctional and/or obsoleteperspectives, while leaving themselves open to new issues and perspectives. In every-day practicehowever this capacity is not often used, perhaps the opportunity is not there to do so. By learningwe mean the reflective process in which existing and new aspects of a phenomenon (regionaldevelopment issues for example) are brought to the fore, are critically examined and talked about,leading to new ways of conceiving and handling the task at hand, or a problem to be solved (forexample integrating environmental issues in planning).

3.3. Finding the general meaning of ‘integration’

The experiences of integration efforts described above shows that it is in the instances whendifferent sector perspectives and actors meet that integration problems occur but we still do nothave a definition of what ‘integration’ is. Asplund (2001) has discussed the meaning of integrationby looking at the vocabulary meaning and by analysing different political texts promotingintegration. Using her statements and including our own input in relation to the issue of “context”this paper provides the following response. Integration here means to unite something in itsentirety. Integration is the opposite of segregation i.e. to keep things apart e.g. environmental andeconomic growth perspectives in regional development planning. The integration of something isachieved through a simultaneous and mutual adaptation on equal terms of those parts that areintended to become united. This could e.g. be the attempt to unite economic, environmental, andsocial policy goals in forming the contents of a new regional development policy and work basedon the policy of SD. Thus integration cannot be achieved through a simple add-on or one sidedadaptation of something (like environmental perspectives) to something else already existing(such as traditional regional development planning, the organisation responsible for planning andthe professionals involved in it etc) unless the already existing organisation or organisationalculture, also changes. This interpretation is in line with the thoughts that integration goals areclosely attached to demands on change.


3.4. Problems encountered in relation to integration efforts

Based on the previous sections a number of conclusions can be drawn concerning the problemsfaced by Nordic regional development organisations in the promotion of integration.

• The introduction of SD policy and integration goals at the macro level in regional developmentpolicy and implementation implies, at the micro level, a need for a more substantial change ofregional development policy, its contents, and its organisation. If the challenge of integration istaken onboard in line with the meaning of integration outlined above, then this impliessubstantial efforts be taken in order to change organisational, professional practice, norms, andculture.

• A certain level of inertia exists at the micro level in relation to integration, even in planningcontexts where integration has existed for more than 30 years. The challenge posed by theconcept of integration thus seems to be great, with long-term effort needed to overturn them.

• Integration challenges at the micro level differ in relation to the conditions prevailing in theregional organisation.

• Integration aspirations imply the need to transcend policy efforts in the environmental sector.Integration is about the mutual metamorphosis of those sectors, professionals, organisations,planning processes etc that take part in the integration effort, such that something new andunified is created.

• The Nordic countries exhibit differences in their macro-level contexts for example relating tonational policy style — indications exist that these macro-level circumstances, and contexts,have a significant impact on tool choice and use at the micro level.

• Micro-level context factors are important to the outcomes of SEA implementation. Micro-levelcontext factors are however likely to see their impact on tools output refracted through theircountry's national policy and regulatory style. As such, a national policy style including forexample framework laws, puts pressure on, and leaves room for, the implementing actors tointerpret the SEA legislation and the way ahead in respect of implementation. This comparesto a policy style where regulation is enacted to provide a significant level of detail on howimplementation is to be carried out.

• The choice of tools and measures for integration seems to relate to the conditions emanatingfrom the planning style and character of the organisation i.e.micro-level factors. The characterof the organisation can, in turn, be embedded in the national policy style i.e. macro-levelconditions. The choice of national environmental policy could e.g. be linked to the nationalchoice of SEA-approach in legislation and guidelines. The chosen approach to implement SEAin a planning practice situation will then in turn be influenced by planning style and agencyproperty. In certain instances, the culture of the environment professional, who tend to have anatural science perspective, will also have an impact.

3.5. Conclusions on the role of SEA implementation in relation to integration

Towhat extent can the use of a tool such as SEA be expected to have an impact on themicro-levelconditions like inertia to change and the lack of political will in relation to integration describedpreviously? To what extent can the use of a tool such as SEA change agency properties and planningstyles if these are in fact the main obstacles to the implementation of the tool? The question is, whatrole can SEA implementation play in changing the often existing general resistance towardsintegrating environmental issues and towards including environmental professionals in planning


processes? Which changes can the use of SEA contribute with in the short run and in relation to aspecific planning process, in the long run as part of changing the micro-level conditions inorganisations implementing SEA and in relation to the outputs from a national SEA system? Theexperiences described earlier show that even when several tools are used to facilitate SD integration,and even if this is done in planning contexts where integration efforts have been ongoing for manyyears, the challenges remain significant and results are only partial. This clearly indicates that on itsown, the application of SEA cannot promote integration as defined in this paper.We also know fromthe implementation of EIA that its implementation includes a number of difficulties (see Hilding-Rydevik, 2006 for an overview of effectiveness in relation to EIA) and that little empirical effort has,thus far, been made to actually measure the effectiveness of EIA i.e. its impact on decision making(e.g. Wood, 1999). This is applicable also to SEA.

Tool use may contribute, in the long-run and in certain instances, to the creation of anenvironmental or sustainability ‘mind set’ (Jones et al., 2005) but one should not rely solely onthis input. This standpoint is also supported by the high rate of failure in relation to efforts that aremade in order to produce change in organisations (Henderson, 2002). The mere use of the toolsdescribed above provides, of itself, no panacea overriding the need to establish a wider SDcommitment by a government, regional, municipal, or private organisation. However, applying agood ‘tool’ can result in heightened efficiency and effectiveness in the sequence of policydevelopment, implementation, and evaluation (Hilding-Rydevik et al., 2004).

In relation to promoting integration it seems appropriate to suggest then, perhaps in a rathernaïve way, that we should choose the mix of tools needed in a specific planning context. It followsfrom this that the first important, and also often rather difficult step in tools use, including SEA, isto identify what is needed. Is what is needed a fundamental change of mindset in respect of theprofessionals and decision-makers concerned, or is there merely a need for specific impact datafor a very specific purpose? Which contribution can implementation of SEA make and whichadditional tools are needed in relation to solving the context specific problems?

4. Discussion and conclusions

This paper provides a first attempt to systematically approach what could constitute elementsof “context” in relation to the implementation of SEA. It provides a general definition of contextin relation to SEA. Based on empirical results and different theories a number of elements ofcontext are outlined in relation to the regional development context in the Nordic countries. Theelements relate to the circumstances and facts that have impact on the chosen approaches to SEAand the outcomes of SEA. The paper also states that the more specific elements of context inrelation to SEA implementation need to be addressed in relation to some question. The goalattached to SEA implementation – that it contributes to integration of environmental issues inplanning processes – is revisited based on the analysis and discussion of context awareness.

4.1. The elements of context in relation to SEA implementation

The authors indicate that a number of differences in national, regional, organisational andsector contexts can be identified in relation to the example used — integration of SD in regionaldevelopment programming work. These differences seem to coincide with the identifieddifferences in expectations concerning the outputs from tools implementation, for example SEA.The differences seem also to coincide with the actual output from the use of tools such as SEA.Research results relating to experiences of integration efforts in land use planning are also used to


show the crucial role that the micro-level context (i.e. the context relating to everyday pro-fessional practice), has in relation to understanding the difficulties encountered in efforts tointegrate environmental perspectives in planning processes.

4.2. The relevance of context awareness

Basically, the idea behind impact assessment (IA) is about attaining the facts in relation to thepotentially positive and/or negative environmental impacts of a project, plan, or policy as part of aplanning process. Planning processes worldwide do however often exhibit a number of majordeficiencies in: the inclusion of IA information at an early enough stage for it to be effectivelytaken into consideration, the democratic and public input (which often fails), the development ofalternatives (which are often not developed or analyzed), and the general will to take en-vironmental perspectives into consideration (which is often lacking). In order to remedy thesedeficiencies a number of procedural steps and context free assumptions on “best practice” andeffectiveness criteria are now included in the EIA and SEA concept. Ultimately, the choice of stepsdeemed crucial, will depend on the improvement needs of the specific planning context at hand(national, regional, local, organisational) where SEA is to be applied.

Understanding which the elements of the context are where SEA is to be implemented willprovide input to understanding the specific role SEA application could play in a specific context. Assuch then, the output demanded of SEA implementation in the context of municipal land useplanning in, for example, Sweden, Finland, Norway, andDenmark,will be different compared to thatfor Iceland or Portugal. In Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark the land use planning systems(legislation, democratic principles, transparency etc) have long been in place and environmentalconcerns and/or SD goals are included in the planning legislations. Environmental legislation is alsowell developed in these countries. Under these circumstances the main aim of implementing SEAmight be to provide information concerning environmental impacts and possibly to promote anincreased role for explicitly working with and assessing alternatives in the planning process. Inanother land use planning context, SEA implementation may however be required to improve theplanning system per se (legislation and principles) — as described for example by Partidário(2005b) in relation to Portugal, and as is the case in Iceland where the introduction of SEA isexpected to contribute to improving the land use planning system itself (Bjarnadóttir, 2005). Anotherexample of different and context specific needs is exemplified by the differences in implementingSEA in the land-use planning sector compared to the regional development planning sector inSweden. Land-use planning is since long well regulated and legislated, it has well defined planningsteps, and its goals are outlined in legislation and various other handbooks. Environmental goals andintegration aspirations were introducedmore than 30 years ago. Compared to land-use planning, thelegislation for regional development planning is practically non-existent. Instead, planning andprogramme work take place through the provision of guideline from the government andnegotiations concerning funding between first the regional partnership and then between the 21regions respectively and the government. The regional organisations have the responsibility to co-ordinate the planning work through regional partnerships (including public as well as private actors,and NGO's) whose membership is decided by the regions themselves. The various steps in theplanning process are not easily defined but rather are often up to the regional partnership to decide. Ademocratic deficiency is often claimed to exist in these regional partnerships. The national policygoal to integrate SD (including the environmental integration aspirations as sub-goals) wasintroduced only recently. An attempt to theoretically assess the possibility of implementing the newSwedish SEA legislation in regional development planning, showed e.g. that an application of SEA


would introduce more planning steps and would also make the process more formal, the democraticinput would increase, while environmental impacts would be introduced where they have neverpreviously been seen in this context (Hedlund et al., 2005). This could precipitate a change in favourof environmental concerns in general. On the other hand, do the legally prescribed SEAprocess stepstotally diverge from the planning practice and culture in this sector thus demanding large changesfrom the actors leading and participating in these processes which could lead to a low level ofimplementation even after a long period of time. In Finland however regional development planningis regulated through legal provisions and here EIA and SEA are used in the process of implementingthe regional development plan, i.e. in the process of choosing which regional development projectsto fund. The introduction of SEA into the land use planning system in Sweden introduced some newelements to the already existing process but seems still, in general, to be in line with the prevailingplanning tradition and culture.9

4.3. Questioning the aim that SEA should and could promote integration

Why are environmental perspectives or the three SD dimensions (economic, environmental,and social) and their respective professionals not self evidently and equal partners in planningprocesses in different contexts? This is basically the problem we as an SEA community are tryingto solve through introducing the implementation of SEA.We are basically dealing with aspirationsto change the planning practice, organisational culture, norms, values etc in relation to en-vironmental and or SD issues. When it comes to changing the culture of organisations, currenttheories and attempts have been characterized by a high rate of failure (Henderson, 2002) as waspointed out earlier. In most instances the implementation of SEA may contribute to “transactionalchange” i.e. a “modification and redesign of the systems and processes in which individualsinteract”, using Henderson's (2002) words. In order however to change “the way people in theorganisation perceive their roles, responsibilities, and relationships” and thus also change peoples'behaviour, then “transformational change” is needed (Henderson, 2002). The meaning of inte-gration presented earlier in this paper indicates the need for transformational change.

The research results and analysis presented in this paper do in fact, change our view of theintegration aspirations attached to SEA. We state that if the integration goal is interpreted in themanner in which we have done in this paper then this implies that a radical change in planningpractice, organisational culture, norms, and values in relation to environmental issues will have tooccur. As has been exemplified in Section 2, a number of tools are being used by Nordicorganisations aiming at integrating SD goals. Research concerning integration efforts alsoindicates that integration is a challenging and time-consuming task, which supports the assumptionthat many different efforts are needed. To what extent SEA implementation will promote thisradical change can be questioned. An enhanced context awareness and sensitivity in designing andimplementing SEA might improve the contribution. This need however to be tested in practice.

4.4. Develop an SEA planning theory

The empirical results and the analysis made in this paper suggests that the need to understandcontext in relation to SEA implementation, as pointed out by several authors in the SEA researchcommunity (see Introduction), is valid. Our understanding is that context knowledge is crucial in

9 Emmelin and Lerman (2004, p 136) claim however that “paradigmatic” differences exist in the rationales of theplanning and environmental legislations (including the SEA legislation) in Sweden.


order to be able to further our understanding of which role SEA implementation has and shouldhave. It is also crucial in order to further our understanding of which the reasonable expectationsare on the outputs from application of SEA, in different contexts. A large number of assumptionsare however made in this paper. This indicates strongly the need for studies in order to furtherelaborate the elements of context. The following questions should thus be explored throughempirical studies:

• Which planning problems can be identified in different contexts in relation to how envi-ronmental perspectives and/or SD and environmental impacts, issues, facts, are treated. Thisknowledge is needed in order to be able to pin-point the planning problems that need to betackled and how they are linked to different contexts and their characteristics;

• Which are the achievements thus far of implementing SEA in different contexts e.g. determinethe type of and more specific planning problems that SEA implementation has, or could,potentially provide a solution to, or at least make a contribution to finding a solution. This willenable us to move away from the prevailing unspecific integration rhetoric accompanying theSEA concept.

The provision of this empirical basis will enable us to learn from practice in order to be able tocontribute to: A) the formation of planning theories including in particular the integration ofenvironmental or SD issues while also enabling us to contribute to B) the formulation of theoriesof and for SEA practice which, from our point of view, could be viewed as a kind of or part ofplanning theory. The current “context free” normative and procedural assumptions concerning theaim of SEA implementation and the formulations of “best practice” in term of SEAwe claim canbe criticised on the same grounds as normative and procedural planning theories, as being contextfree (as outlined e.g. by Watson, 2002a,b and in the introduction of this paper). As such, theassumptions behind the current formulations of the aim and, best practice of SEA and ef-fectiveness criteria for the application need to be revisited and based on a more solid empirical astheoretical basis. Moreover, this is particularly so in relation to the integration aspirations placedon SEA.

Acknowledgements

The paper is based on inputs from three research projects: 1) “Progressing Sustainable RegionalDevelopment: Appraising institutional innovation and tools appropriate for Nordic practice”funded by the Nordic Council ofMinisters; 2) “Sustainable Development and Economic Growth –a socio-cultural perspective on regional programming processes” funded byMistra; 3) “SEA as anintervention – effects of the EU directive 2001/42/EC on the integration of environmental aspectsin planning” which is part of the research programme MiSt, Tools for Environmental Assessmentin Strategic Decision Making, www.sea-mist.se funded by the Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency.

References

Anshelm J, Hedrén J. Miljöforskningens döda vinkel. In: Wärneryd O, Hilding-Rydevik T, editors. Hållbart samhälle —en antologi om mål, möjligheter, medel och makt: FRN, Stockholm; 1998.

Asplund E. Integration—miljöpolitiskt budskap och praktiskt problem. In: Asplund E, Hilding-Rydevik T, editors. Arenaför hållbar utveckling— aktörer, processer. Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Infrastructure, TRITA-IP FR01-88. Stockholm; 2001.

http://www.sea-mist.se


Asplund E, Hilding-Rydevik T. Knowledge, environment and the future. Plan-EIA-case studies in two municipalities, vol.96-14. Div. for Regional Planning, Royal Institute of Technology, TRITA-IP FR; 1996.

Asplund E, Hilding-Rydevik T. Arena för hållbar utveckling — aktörer, processer. Royal Institute of Technology,Department of Infrastructure, TRITA-IP FR 01-88. Stockholm; 2001.

Asplund E, Dovlén S, Hilding-Rydevik T, Håkansson M, Isaksson K, Storbjörk S. Sustainable development andeconomic growth — a socio-cultural perspective on regional programming processes. Research application toMistra; 2004.

Bartlett RV, Kurian PA. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making. Policy andPolit 1999;27:415–33.

Berger P, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality. UK: Penguin; 1966.Bina O. Re-conceptualising Strategic Environmental Assessment: theoretical overview and case study from Chile.

Newnham College, University of Cambridge. Doctoral dissertation; 2003.Bina O, Wellington T. Strategic Environmental Assessment: theory and research. Position presented as a basis for the

session “SEA Theory and Research” at the conference “Experiences and Perspectives in Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment”, Prague, Czech Republic, Sept 27–30, 2005; 2005.

Bjarnadóttir H. The introduction of the EU directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment into municipal planning:revolutionary change or business as usual? J Nordregio 2005;5(2).

Brown AL, Therivel R. Principles to guide the development of Strategic Environmental Assessment: one concept, multipleforms. J Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2000;18(3):183–9.

Burr V. An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge; 1995.Cashmore M, Nieslony C. The contribution of environmental assessment to sustainable development: towards a richer

conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the conference “Experiences and Perspectives in StrategicEnvironmental Assessment”, Prague, Czech Republic, Sept 27–30, 2005 at the session SEA Theory and Research;2005. (Paper distributed at the conference).

Dovlén S. Communicating professional perspectives. Local government and spatial planning for sustainability. RoyalInstitute of Technology, Department of Infrastructure, TRITA-INFRA 04-040, Stockholm; 2005.

Emmelin L. Evaluating environmental impact assessment systems — theoretical and methodological considerations.Scand Hous Plan Res 1998;15:1–20.

Emmelin L, Lerman P. Miljöregler — hinder för utveckling och god miljö? Blekinge Institute of Technology. ResearchReport 2004:09; 2004.

Fainstein S, Campbell S. Introduction: the structure and debate of planning theory. Fainstein and Campbell, readings inplanning theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 1996.

Faludi A. A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1987.Fischer T. Strategic Environmental Assessment in postmodern times. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2003;23:155–70.Flyvbjerg B, Richardson T. Planning and Foucault: in search of the dark side of planning theory. In: Allmendinger M,

Tewdwr-Jones M, editors. Planning futures. New directions for planning theory. Routledge; 2002. p. 44–62.Giddens A. The constitution of society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984.Hajer MA. Ecological modernisation as cultural politics. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B, editors. Risk, Environment

& Modernity. Towards a new EcologyLondon: SAGE; 1996.Harvey D. Justice, nature and the geography of difference. London: Blackwell; 1996.Hedlund A, Hilding-Rydevik T, Olausson. Miljö och regional utveckling — integration av miljö och hållbar utveckling i

regionalt utvecklingsarbete och miljöbedömningars roll. Uppdrag från Naturvårdsverket, arbetsrapport; 2005.Henderson GM. Transformative learning as a condition for transformational change in organizations. Hum Resour Dev

Rev 2002;1(2).Hildén M, Jalonen P. Implementing SEA in Finland — further development of existing practice. In: Schmidt M, João E,

Albrecht E, editors. Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer; 2005.Hildén M, Furman E, Kaljonen M. Views on planning and expectations of SEA: the case of transport planning. Environ

Impact Asses Rev 2004;24:519–36.Hilding-Rydevik T. The current international academic SEA discussion — important issues for research and

development. In: Hilding-Rydevik T, editor. Nordic experiences of impact assessment of plans and programmes.Proceedings from SEA workshop, Stockholm, 11–12 February 2002; 2003. Nordregio Electronic Paper 2003:1 atwww.nordregio.se.

Hilding-Rydevik, T. Environmental Assessment— Effectiveness, Quality and Success. In: Mariussen, Å, Uhlin, Å, Trans-national Practices. Systems thinking in Policy Making. Nordregio, Stockholm. Also published in: Emmelin L, editor.Effective Environmental Assessment Tools — Critical Reflections on Concepts and Practice. Blekinge Institute ofTechnology, MiSt Programme Report No 1, Karlskrona; 2006.

http://www.nordregio.se


Hilding-Rydevik T, Clement K, Bradley K, Hansen M. Tools for sustainable regional development. Experiences andProspects. Nordregio report R2004:4, Stockholm; 2004.

Håkansson M. Kompetens för hållbar utveckling. Professionella roller i kommunal planering. Kungliga TekniskaHögskolan, Institutionen för Infrastruktur, TRITA-INFRA 05-015, Stockholm; 2005.

International Association for Impact Assessment. Strategic Environmental Assessment— performance criteria, vol. 1. SpecialPublication Series; 2002 (2005). IAIA home page http://www.iaia.org.

Jahn D. The social paradigms of environmental performance: the Nordic countries in an international perspective. In: JoasM, Hermanson A-S, editors. The Nordic Environments. Comparing Political, Administrative and Policy Aspects.Aldershot: Ashgate; 1999.

João E. Key principles of SEA. In: Schmidt M, João E, Albrecht E, editors. Implementing Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer; 2005.

JonesC,BakerM,Carter J, JayS, ShortM,WoodC.SEAanoverview. In: Jones C,BakerM,Carter J, Jay S, ShortM,WoodC,editors. Strategic Environmental Assessment and land use planning. An international evaluation. London: Earthscan, 2005.

Karlsson D. En chimär av endräkt. Ideologiska dimensioner i kommunal kulturpolitik. Göteborgs universitet,Förvaltningshögskolan, Göteborg; 2003.

Kjellerup U. Horsens — Skanderborg rail link. In: Hilding-Rydevik T, editor. EIA, large development projects anddecision-making in the Nordic countries. Nordregio report R2001:6. Stockholm; 2001.

Kørnøv L, Thissen WAH. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment. J Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2000;18(3):191–200.

Lawrence T. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2000;20:607–25.Lee N. Environmental impact procedures. Ekistics 1982;49(7):227–9 [May–June].Luhman N. Social systems. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; 1995.Mandelbaum SJ. A complete general theory of planning is impossible. Policy Sci 1979;11:59–71.Marsden S. Importance of context in measuring effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment. J Impact Assess

Proj Apprais 1998;16:255–66.Mulders A. Views of nature versus policy management approaches in Nordic environmental administrations. In: Joas M,

Hermanson A-S, editors. The Nordic Environments. Comparing Political, Administrative and Policy Aspects. Aldershot:Ashgate; 1999.

Noteboom S. Impact assessment procedures as incentive for social learning. Signs of a “new Dutch polder model”. Paperpresented at the conference “Experiences and Perspectives in Strategic Environmental Assessment”, Prague, CzechRepublic, Sept 27–30, 2005 at the session SEA Theory and Research; 2005.

PartidárioMR.Capacity building and SEA. In: SchmidtM, JoãoE,Albrecht E, editors. Implementing Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer; 2005a.

Partidário MR. Portugal. In: Jones C, Baker M, Carter J, Jay S, Short M, Wood C, editors. Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment and land use planning. An International EvaluationLondon: Earthscan; 2005b.

Richardson J. Policy styles in Western Europe. London: Allen and Unwin; 1982.Richardson T. Environmental integration in infrastructure planning: a Foucauldian discourse analysis of the trans-

European transport network. Urban and Regional Studies. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University; 2000.Richardson T. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality and

ethics. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005;25(4) [May].Rodgers JL. Environmental impact assessment, growthmanagement and the comprehensive plan. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Ballinger publication company; 1976.Sadler B, Verheem R. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future Directions. Report no. 53,

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands; 1996.Sach K. Conclusions. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2001Workshop on

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in the cooperation with developing and transition countries. Berlin,Nov. 26–27, 2001; 2001.

Sager T. Planning style and agency properties. Environ Plann A 2001;33:509–32.Sager T. Democratic planning and social choice dilemmas: prelude to institutional planning theory. Ashgate Publishing

Group; 2002.Sairinen R. Regulatory reform of Finnish environmental policy. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. Helsinki: Helsinki

University of Technology; 2000.Sheate W, Richardson J, Aschemann R, Palerm J, Stehen U. SEA and Integration of the Environment into Strategic

Decision Making, 1–3. Final Report to the European Commission, London; 2001.Stinchcombe K, Gibson R. Strategic Environmental Assessment as means of pursuing sustainability: ten advantages and

ten challenges. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2001;3(3):343–72.

http://www.iaia.org


SkouAndersenM. ecological modernisation capacity: finding patterns in the mosaic of case studies. In: JoasM,HermansonA-S, editors. The Nordic Environments. Comparing Political, Administrative and Policy Aspects. Aldershot: Ashgate;1999.

Storbjörk S, Isaksson K. I gränslandet mellan politik och planering — roller, relationer och avvägandets problematik. In:Asplund E, Skantze A, editors. Hållbar utveckling i praktiken — möten, gränser, perspektiv. Kungliga TekniskaHögskolan, Institutionen för Infrastruktur, TRITA-INFRA 05-011, Stockholm; 2005.

Therivel R, Partidario MR, editors. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan; 1996.Thissen W. Strategic Environmental Assessment and policy: developments and challenges. Environmental Assess-

ment Yearbook 2001. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and EIA Centre, University ofManchesterUniversity of Manchester; 2001.

Verheem RAA, Tonk JAMN. Strategic Environmental Assessment: one concept, multiple forms. J Impact Assess ProjApprais 2000;18(3):177–82.

Watson V. Do we learn from planning practice? The contribution of the practice movement to planning theory. J PlannEduc Res 2002a;22:178–87.

Watson V. The usefulness of normative planning theories in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa. Plan Theor 2002b;1(1).Wood C. Comparative evaluation of EIA systems. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of EIA. EIA in practice: impact and

limitationsBlackwell Science; 1999.

Tuija Hilding-Rydevik (PhD) (research leader at the EIA-Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,Uppsala and associate professor at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm) initiates and leads research projectsrelated to the integration of environmental perspectives and/or sustainable development in different planning contexts andsupervises PhD students. The role of impact assessment in promoting environmental integration has been a specialinterest since the beginning of the 1990s. A special focus is currently on the regional economic development andplanning sector where she currently leads the research project “Implementing Sustainable Development in RegionalDevelopment Projects-practical measures and socio-cultural conditions” (HUR) which is a collaboration project betweenthree Swedish universities.

Hólmfrídur Bjarnadottir holds a Master in Town Planning from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. She haspreviously worked as a research associate at the Centre for European Urban Environments (CREUE) at the University ofNewcastle, as a planner at the Icelandic Planning Agency and as a research fellow at the Nordic research instituteNordregio, (1999–2006) where she carried out Nordic comparative studies in the fields of EIA and SEA. Holmfridurholds a position as EIA specialist at the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate and is completing a Licentiate Thesis on theimplementation of the SEA directive in Sweden, England and Iceland, at the Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Documents

Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation