Learning through EC directive based SEA in spatial

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e i a r

Learning through EC directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany Thomas B. Fischer a,⁎, Sue Kidd a, Urmila Jha-Thakur a, Paola Gazzola c, Deborah Peel b a b c

Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, UK School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, Jordanstown campus, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, UK School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University, Claremont Tower, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 September 2008 Received in revised form 4 March 2009 Accepted 6 March 2009 Available online 15 April 2009 Keywords: Strategic environmental assessment Learning potential SEA directive Spatial planning

a b s t r a c t This paper presents results of an international comparative research project, funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC) on the ‘learning potential of appraisal (strategic environmental assessment — SEA) in spatial planning’. In this context, aspects of ‘single-loop’ and ‘double-loop’ learning, as well as of individual, organisational and social learning are discussed for emerging post-EC Directive German practice in the planning region (Zweckverband) of Brunswick (Braunschweig), focusing on four spatial plan SEAs from various administrative levels in the region. It is found that whilst SEA is able to lead to plan SEA specific knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and analysis (‘single-loop learning’), it is currently resulting only occasionally in wider synthesis and evaluation (‘double-loop learning’). Furthermore, whilst there is evidence that individual and occasionally organisational learning may be enhanced through SEA, most notably in small municipalities, social learning appears to be happening only sporadically. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction — learning in order to improve SEA effectiveness Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is commonly understood as a systematic, objectives-led, evidence-based, pro-active and participative decision-making support instrument for the formulation of environmentally sustainable policies, plans and programmes (PPPs; see e.g., Fischer, 2007; 2003; Brown and Therivel, 2000; Sadler and Verheem, 1996). Through application of a range of suitable, situation specific methods and techniques, SEA is supposed to add rigour to the decision making process. Its main aim is to ensure due consideration is given to environmental aspects in PPP making above the project level. Ultimately, SEA should lead to changes in PPP processes and outcomes by reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing positive environmental action. Fischer (2007) linked the potential effectiveness of SEA in leading to a better consideration of the environmental component in PPP making to the following three functions: (1) SEA provides decision-makers with better information; (2) SEA enables attitudes and perceptions to change through participation and involvement; (3) SEA changes established routines. All of these functions can be interpreted as turning on the quality of knowledge and learning in order to enhance decision making

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: fi[email protected] (T.B. Fischer). 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.03.001

processes, promoting more environmentally conscious outcomes. Based on more comprehensive information provided through SEA, instrumental learning is supposed to occur, with better knowledge leading to a higher level of comprehension by individuals, organisations, and possibly the wider population, and ultimately to environmentally adjusted PPPs. This may be connected with what Argyris and Schön (1978) in their seminal work on organisational learning described as ‘single-loop’ (‘know-how’) learning. In addition, transformative learning may also be happening, leading to changes in attitudes, perceptions and routines of individuals and organisations, based in particular on wider synthesis and evaluation. In this context, SEA may have positive impacts beyond a specific policy, plan or programme, leading to changes of individual and organisational values and norms. This can be connected with what Argyris and Schön (1978) called ‘double-loop’ (‘know-why’) learning. The learning literature – particularly of the transformative kind – has already become an established feature of environmental planning, resource management, and alternative dispute resolution practices (see e.g., Keen et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004). However, to date, the learning dimension of SEA activities has been held to be relatively weak and immature (Owens et al., 2005). Overall, it is probably fair to say that ‘learning’ has had only a patchy appearance in the SEA (and also the EIA) literature (Saarikoski, 2000; Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Sinclair et al., 2008; see also Jha-Thakur et al., forthcoming). The key assumption here is that learning is necessary in order to improve SEA's effectiveness in leading to a more balanced consideration of economic, social and environmental aspects in PPP making.

422

T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

2. Research project underlying the paper This paper reports on some of the results of a UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC) funded project, ‘exploring the learning potential of appraisal in spatial planning’, conducted by a research team of Liverpool University in 2007/2008. The purpose of this research project was twofold: (i) to develop a theoretical understanding of the learning dimension of SEA through a comparative examination of aspects of learning in England, Italy and Germany; and (ii) to identify the types of learning happening on the ground with a view to providing an evidence base of learning through SEA. Overall, the project aimed at examining ways for improving the learning outcomes associated with SEA in spatial planning and, based on this, ultimately to enhance SEA's effectiveness. In this context, the project drew upon experiences with local spatial planning documents, which were subjected to the requirements of the European Union's Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (EC/2001/42; European Commission, 2001). In order to be able to examine the learning potential of differing appraisal methodologies, practice at the local level in more than one country was considered, including Southampton (UK), Ravenna (Italy) and the planning region (Zweckverband) of Brunswick (Braunschweig, Germany). Following an earlier ESRC funded research study (Owens et al., 2005), this project sought to contribute to the future research agenda in this field and inform the activities of the UK ASC regarding the skills and knowledge needed to support planning for more sustainable places. The empirical data collection comprised: (1) choosing the case study; establishing and reviewing relevant spatial plan SEAs; (2) interviews revolving around various forms and levels of individual, organisational as well as social learning aspects in appraisal/SEA with spatial plan making and SEA actors, includ-

ing representatives of authorities, consultants and observers/ academics; and (3) written questionnaires with those actors mentioned under (2) on aspects of individual and organisational learning. This paper focuses on the results of parts (1) and (2) for the Brunswick case study. Results of part (3) are discussed in a comparative manner for the three countries by Jha-Thakur et al. (forthcoming; for a project overview, see also Kidd et al., forthcoming). Besides identifying and discussing the perceived learning potential of SEA, this paper also provides for a first insight into emerging post Directive SEA practice in Germany, a country with a long established and strong pre-SEA Directive environmental planning and management tradition. In the international professional literature, to date post Directive SEA practice in Germany has mainly been dealt with in a generic, but not in a case specific manner (see e.g., Fischer, 2007; Scholles and van Haaren, 2004). In this context, the paper also shows what problems may arise when attempting to research post-SEA Directive practice. 3. Theoretical framework The first part of the research project involved the development of a theoretical framework, which was then used as the basis for the empirical research. A ‘taxonomy of learning in SEA’ was designed, relating individual, organisational and social learning aspects to Argyris and Schön's (1978) concept of ‘single and double loop’ learning, as introduced above. Furthermore, the taxonomy also depicts different levels of understanding, drawing on Bloom's (1956) work on educational objectives (see Fig. 1; Kidd et al., forthcoming). In this context, single-loop learning can be associated with knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and analysis connected with a specific SEA. Double-loop learning in comparison can be associated with wider synthesis and evaluation, with implications going beyond the specific SEA case. All aspects of the theoretical framework were covered in the empirical research. In interviews, questions were asked on the extent

Fig. 1. Single and double loop learning through SEA. Source: Kidd et al. (forthcoming).

T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

to which individuals and organisations learn through SEA. Furthermore, questions on the levels of understanding were asked, in order to establish whether there is single- or double-loop learning happening, i.e., whether learning is only of an instrumental, or also of a transformatory type. Finally, whether wider social learning may occur was established, particularly in terms of sharing perspectives with other authorities, stakeholders and the wider community (see e.g., Bandura, 1977; Webler et al., 1995).

423

Braunschweig (English name Brunswick) with a population of roughly 250,000 inhabitants lies in the state of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony). The Brunswick planning region (Zweckverband Braunschweig) had completed both, a regional spatial plan and an EC-Directive based SEA between 2004 and 2008 (Zweckverband Braunschweig, 2008a,b). The region has a population of just over 1 M and consists of three unitary cities; Braunschweig, Wolfsburg and Salzgitter, as well as five counties; Helmstedt, Gifhorn, Peine, Wolfenbüttel and Goslar. The counties each consist of several medium size and smaller municipalities.

4. Choice of a suitable German case study The initial idea was to investigate post-EC Directive SEA practice for local statutory spatial/land use plans of cities with a population of between 250,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. Whilst in theory, this should have been a straightforward exercise almost four years after the Directive came into force, in practice finding a suitable case study in Germany proved more difficult than anticipated. This is mainly explained by the fact that in Germany, opposite to practice in e.g., England, there are no statutory requirements to prepare local land use plans at regular intervals. For this reason, in the Länder (states) of former Western Germany, many municipalities still have land use plans in place that were prepared back in the 1970s and 1980s, with up to several hundred subsequent updates related to specific land use changes. Whilst updates also fall under the requirements of the SEA Directive, associated assessments are more EIAs than SEAs in that they focus on single developments only. Whilst municipalities in the states of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) have more recent statutory land use plans from the 1990s and early 2000s, most were prepared before SEA Directive requirements became effective. Although local land use planning SEA practice in Germany was thus still very much at the experimenting stage at the beginning of 2008 (for an example, see Saad and Schneider, 2006), practice at the regional level was much better established (Scholles, personal communication; UVP report, 2006). As early as 2002, for example, there had been a research study of regional spatial plan SEA, funded by the Federal Environment Agency and a range of completed case studies had been mentioned in the professional literature (Gather and Schmidt, 2002; Hanusch and Glasson, 2008). It was decided to investigate the nature of the learning dimension within a city regional case study where the main city would fall into the category of roughly 250,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. This was of a comparative size with the English and Italian case studies.

5. Spatial/ land use planning and SEA in Germany and the Brunswick region In Germany, spatial/land use planning is regulated through the Federal Building Code (Construction and Spatial Planning Act/Baugesetzbuch) from 1960, last amended in 2006. Spatial/land use planning is a responsibility of the 16 German states, with spatial/land use planning frameworks differing substantially throughout Germany. Spatial/land use plans and programmes are prepared at different administrative tiers, and normally include state, regional/county, municipal and neighbourhood tiers. Furthermore, landscape development plans and programmes (Landschaftspläne und – programme) are prepared at the different tiers. These serve as state of the landscape/environment reports, and provide for the landscape/environmental baseline for spatial plans and their related SEAs. Furthermore, being based on the precautionary principle, they set overall landscape/environmental development aims and objectives and formulate landscape/environmental development measures for the areas they cover. Landscape plans and programmes share many aims and objectives with SEA (Fischer, 2005) and there is some extensive overlap of both, procedural and substantive coverage (Scholles and van Haaren, 2004; Hanusch and Fischer, 2009). Spatial planning in the state of Lower Saxony is regulated through the Lower Saxony Spatial Planning Law (Niedersächsisches Gesetz über Raumordnung und Landesplanung — NROG) of 2007. Furthermore, landscape – and thus environmental – planning is regulated through the Lower Saxony Environmental Protection Law (Niedersächsisches Naturschutzgesetz — NNatG) of 1994, amended in 2003. Based on the requirements of Directive EC/2001/42, SEA was formalised in German spatial planning in 2004 through the ‘Act to Accommodate EU Requirements in the Federal Construction Act’. An SEA

Table 1 Spatial and landscape planning framework for the Brunswick region.

NB: coloured/shaded cells = SEA case studies underlying this paper. 1 Older local land use plans were at times prepared at a scale 1:10,000. However, many planners feel that this shows too much detail, and eg every single playing field is included. This makes project planning very slow, as every small change required a land use plan alteration process. In the city of Wolfsburg, for example, the 1977 statutory land use plan had been subject to 120 plan alteration procedures by 2008.

424

T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

Framework Law within the context of EIA legislation (first established in 1990) came into force one year later on 29 June 2005 (Gesetz zur Einführung einer Strategischen Umweltprüfung und zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2001/42/EG — SUPG). All formal spatial and land use plans normally require SEA. In addition, landscape plans and programmes may also require SEA, mainly if they are not prepared in parallel with spatial and land use plans. Federal guidelines for spatial/land use plan SEAs are currently being developed. Regarding SEA for spatial plans and programmes in Lower Saxony, a preliminary guidance document was released by the responsible ministry in 2007 (Niedersächsisches Ministerium, 2007). SEA-type assessment practice in Germany predates the European SEA Directive. Whilst procedural aspects of SEA are reflected in plan making itself, many substantive aspects are covered by the landscape planning system. Local landscape plans prepared during the latter half of the 1990s in the state of Brandenburg, for example, were identified to meet the requirements of the then SEA Directive proposal to the largest extent of a range of UK, Dutch and German spatial/ land use plan SEA type assessments (Fischer, 2002). In Lower Saxony, there is a state wide spatial programme in place (Landesraumordnungsprogramm) from 2007. Furthermore, a state-wide Landscape Programme (Landschaftsprogramm) from 1989 is also in place. Regional level spatial and landscape framework plans are also prepared. As explained above, the Brunswick planning region covers five counties and three unitary cities. All of these have landscape framework plans in place (see BfN, 2008). Furthermore, there are landscape plans at municipal levels and finally, open space master plans (Grünordnungspläne) for master plans (Bebauungspläne) within municipalities. Table 1 shows the spatial/ land use and landscape planning framework for the Brunswick region. The coloured cells indicate the spatial/land use plan SEAs covered in this paper. In addition to the regional spatial plan SEA and the local land use plan SEAs of the municipalities of Wolfsburg (population 120,000; Stadt Wolfsburg, 2008) and Wolfenbüttel (population 56,000; Planungsamt Stadt Wolfenbüttel, 2007), a local landscape plan (Königslutter; population 17,000; BfN, 2005) was also considered, as this was prepared with some above average financial and research support in an interactive, communicative and web-based manner. Taken together, these various plans provided for a useful set of examples for examining the learning potential of SEA. Fig. 2 shows the location of the Brunswick city region in Germany and Lower Saxony, as well as the SEA case study areas investigated.

6. Questionnaire survey The initial research idea was to conduct between 10 and 15 interviews on the SEA for the Regional Spatial Plan (Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm) Brunswick. However, whilst three contacts were quickly established, namely with the persons responsible for plan and SEA preparation in the regional administration, as well as the consultant preparing the SEA, it was difficult to identify further interview partners. Whilst, in theory, representatives of the environmental authorities from the counties and unitary cities were involved at various stages of the SEA process, the two regional planners said that in practice, these were somewhat passive, as it was an entirely new experience for them. Similar problems regarding the identification of a large enough set of people to be interviewed on SEA were also experienced in the other two case studies of Southampton and Ravenna. This is probably an indication that even in the post EC Directive era, SEA is still not a mainstream and fully institutionalised instrument, but rather one that is largely confined to the realms of technical experts. This in itself is an important finding, making it somewhat questionable whether wider social learning is indeed currently happening through SEA to any large extent. At this stage, a decision was made to also look at other (local) land use plan SEA practice in the region in order to find out more about the role of the regional spatial plan SEA in other spatial/land use planning and SEA exercises in the region. Interviews were conducted with eight plan and SEA representatives in the first week of March 2008. In addition, interviews with four academics which had a good knowledge of spatial plan SEA practice in Germany and the Brunswick region were also conducted. The questionnaire survey was semi-structured and consisted of five main parts. The first part included questions regarding the interviewee on age, experience, education and plan making responsibility, as well as on the role in the SEA process. The second part included questions regarding the SEA process and its fit with other planning processes. The third part explored the methodological approach, looking in particular at the methods and techniques used in assessment. The fourth part raised questions regarding the learning potential of SEA in spatial planning, including aspects of: (a) comprehension, application and analysis; i.e., does SEA lead to adjustments of the spatial plan?

Fig. 2. The Brunswick city region and other SEA case study areas.

T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

(b) Individual learning; i.e., has the interviewee learned something personally from the SEA? (c) the potential for SEA to lead to organisational and social learning in terms of: • better communication and co-operation of authorities, individuals, institutions and organisations; • changes in attitudes towards environmental issues of individuals, institutions and other stakeholders/ the general public involved in the planning process, — potentially also regarding future plan making exercises; • changes of an organisation's values/objectives/goals/mission; (d) barriers to learning through SEA. Finally, the fifth part raised questions regarding the overall perceived effectiveness of SEA and necessary changes in order to improve current practice. The 12 interviewees included: - For the Brunswick regional spatial plan SEA; two representatives of the regional planning authority (responsible for the plan and SEA making process) and the SEA consultant. - For the Wolfsburg local land use plan SEA; one representative of the local planning authority (responsible for both, plan and SEA preparation) and two representatives of the SEA consultant. - For the Wolfenbüttel local land use plan SEA; the local authority representative responsible for the preparation of both, the local land use plan as well as its SEA. Here, no consultant or other authority were involved. - For the landscape plan Königslutter; the local authority representative responsible for the landscape plan preparation. - Four University academics with a good understanding of spatial and land use plan SEAs, and landscape plans and programmes in Germany and the Brunswick region. All the interviewees had a planning/environmental assessment related university higher education background. 7. The learning potential through spatial plan SEA in the Brunswick region — emerging evidence In the Brunswick region, all spatial/land use plan SEAs have a project related focus; ie focusing on impacts of specific changes in land use. The information provided by the 49 local (unitary city and municipal) land use plans and the eight unitary city and county wide landscape framework plans (see Table 1), as well as the Brunswick region's ‘Free Spaces Development Concept’ (a type of strategic development outlook plan) were the main evidence base for the regional spatial plan SEA, combining aspects of bottom-up and top-down tiering in plan making. This is in line with the ‘counter-current approach’ applied in German spatial planning (see Fischer, 2002). In local land use plan SEAs, which use landscape framework plans as an important environmental baseline, so called area letters (Gebietsbriefe) are prepared for all those areas potentially subject to land use changes. These consist of tables outlining impacts and potential mitigation measures for various environmental aspects. In this context, the basis for an estimation of impacts is frequently GIS based overlay maps of the various environmental elements. The regional spatial plan SEA used a GIS based (1:50,000) estimation of impact significance in table format for all individual anticipated land use changes in the Brunswick region on the environmental components as specified in the SEA Directive, taking into account overall environmental protection and development aims and objectives. In this context, a total of 317 individual changes were assessed for areas of (note that housing and commercial developments are covered within municipal local land use plans; these,

425

however, need to consider e.g., protected areas and associated development restrictions, established in the regional spatial plan): -

raw material extraction (152 areas); light railway (4 cases); roads (16 cases); forest extensions (103 cases); electricity lines (5 cases); wind energy (37 cases).

Furthermore, cumulative effect estimation was provided in 80 cases of potential significant environmental impacts. Spatial plan and SEA processes were fully integrated and followed the requirements of the EC SEA Directive (Zweckverband Braunschweig, 2008b). 7.1. Learning through SEA Overall, all the interviewees agreed that there was scope for learning through SEA. This was principally through the integration, participation and monitoring functions of the instrument. The transparency created by SEA and, as a consequence, the potential of, for example, social learning was also mentioned by the interviewees. All the interviewees stated that SEA had led to single-loop learning in terms of knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and analysis, and that as a consequence spatial/land use plans had been changed. This included changing boundaries of planned or anticipated new settlements and areas of raw material extraction as well as to green ‘buffer zones’ (i.e., green belt) between settlements. Furthermore, the rejection of certain infrastructure project proposals (e.g., road bypasses) was mentioned as being a consequence of the SEA process. In terms of a possible quantification of substantive changes to the spatial plan, the consultant of the Brunswick regional spatial plan SEA estimated that between 5% and 10% of the areas for raw material extraction had changed, based on SEA. Furthermore, he said that a total of 13 land use changes arose based on comments made during SEA consultation. SEA induced land use changes were also observed in the Wolfenbüttel local land use plan SEA and were expected in the Wolfsburg local land use plan SEA, which at the time of the interviews had just started. Furthermore, the interactive, communicative and web-based Königslutter landscape plan process was said to have led to numerous concrete land use related measures and actions not initially anticipated. Whilst all those interviewed without exception stated that they had learned something from SEA personally, opinions as to whether SEA was leading to organisational and wider social learning in terms of: • better communication and co-operation of authorities, individuals, other institutions and organisations; • changes in attitudes towards environmental issues of persons, institutions and other stakeholders/the general public involved in the planning process, — potentially also regarding future plan making exercises; and • changes of an organisation's values (objectives, goals, mission). were more varied. Whilst, on the one hand, consultants and most academics consistently said that SEA was indeed potentially leading to all of these changes, representatives of the planning authorities were sceptical as to whether SEA was able to lead to changes in attitudes and values. In this context, importantly, it was argued that attitudes and values regarding environmental issues had changed over the past few years, anyways, based e.g., on the debates on climate change, deforestation, and other environmental stresses, as well as on the introduction of new environmental policies and procedures. The latter, however, would also include the introduction of SEA. Regarding the existence of a better communication and co-operation between parties, the planning authority representatives interviewed thought

426

T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

that a positive impact of SEA was likely. In this context, it was claimed, for example, that health agencies only became involved in spatial plan making through SEA (see also Kørnøv, 2009). Increased communication was observed, for example, in the case of the Brunswick city regional plan making process between the city of Wolfsburg and the Brunswick regional planning authority. This revolved around SEA induced development restrictions for settlements that were formulated in the regional spatial plan, but which were rejected by the city of Wolfsburg. Finally, whilst both, consultants and academics thought that Directive based SEA was currently already an effective environmental planning instrument, which offered a wide scope for learning, this conviction was only shared by the interviewees speaking for the small to medium size municipalities. 7.2. Barriers to learning A number of barriers for learning through SEA that were directly related to the instrument itself were identified by the interviewees. Existing barriers included the repetition of tasks by SEA that were already done elsewhere, particularly in landscape planning. Here, it was argued that there is a need for SEA to be applied flexibly, focusing only on those issues that were not yet already covered somewhere else in the planning system. This includes, for example, the consideration of development alternatives. Furthermore, it was suggested that SEA was probably trying to cover too many substantive issues, and that there was a need to focus on those issues that were clearly of impact significance. One of the academics interviewed also suggested that the absence of requirements to prove positive impacts within SEA is an important barrier to learning. A further barrier mentioned by most interviewees included the perceived weak legal status of SEA, mainly in terms of substantive assessment requirements. Here, the implicit suggestion was that the focus of SEA should be broadened, from ensuring that the process is undertaken to ensuring that an influential quality SEA has been achieved. In this context, the ‘taxonomy of learning in SEA’ introduced above may play an important role. Finally, the local authority representative from Wolfenbüttel said that a barrier for learning through SEA was also that wider societal economic and social impacts currently did not receive the same attention as environmental aspects, suggesting that socioeconomic assessment should be conducted next to SEA. In addition to barriers resulting from the way the instrument itself is applied, institutional barriers were mentioned. Several interviewees suggested that obstacles to learning included an unwillingness of many institutional actors to change established practices. Furthermore, it was suggested that there was too much of a sectoral focus in the current planning system too early on. As a consequence, there was a lack of support for an instrument such as SEA, which by its very nature is intended to be inter-disciplinary, integrative and pro-active. Finally, the ‘ever increasing speed with which SEA is supposed to be done’ was seen as problematic for SEA to develop its full learning potential, as learning was thought to require time. Other possible barriers for learning through SEA were also identified. These, however, may be case specific. For example, learning would be inhibited by the ‘wrong’ person conducting SEA, e.g., a poor facilitator or someone with a poor understanding of environmental issues. 7.3. Changes needed to enhance the learning potential of SEA A range of suggestions were made by the interviewees on what changes were needed in order to enhance the learning potential of SEA in spatial planning. Most of these were of an institutional nature. Importantly, they include the need also to apply SEA at the conceptual level (e.g., to the city structure concept shown in Table 1), without which it was felt SEA was a truncated and incomplete instrument. Furthermore, it was suggested that local land use plans should be

prepared more regularly, as otherwise SEA would not be able to fully develop its proactive role and learning potential. It was also proposed that SEA's success should be measured in the context of e.g., SEA specific monitoring. In addition to these points, made by the local authority representatives and consultants, the academic interviewees suggested that additional resources were needed, both in terms of finances and time in order for SEA to be applied effectively and to develop its learning potential. The Königslutter local landscape plan appears to support this suggestion. Based on some above average funding and research support, this was perceived by the interviewees as a highly successful case, with many stakeholders, interest groups and the general public being involved and changing their opinions/attitudes. Furthermore, interviewed academics considered a more consistent and compulsory consideration of environmental targets/standards to be of importance. Finally, it was felt that cumulative aspects needed to be considered better and that, in this context, a clearer distinction between SEA and EIA methodological approaches was needed. Here, it was suggested that if SEA was doing the same as EIA, then the added value would be small. Overall, consultants and academics felt that SEA was worth the effort and money. Whilst this feeling was also shared by the person responsible for the preparation of the local landscape plan for the small local authority of Königslutter, the representatives of the Wolfsburg and Wolfenbüttel local plan authorities were somewhat skeptical. In this context, it is important that authorities of larger municipalities had often been involved in other, non-statutory environmental baseline generation, development and planning exercises, before SEA was introduced, such as municipal environmental atlases or green area development plans (see e.g., Herberg, 2008; City of Braunschweig, 2009). Therefore, SEA's added value was seen with greater scepticism. In the case of the interactive landscape plan Königslutter, the local authority representative thought that it had been embracing all types of learning from knowledge acquisition and comprehension, over application, analysis to wider synthesis and evaluation (see Fig. 1). In this pilot landscape/environmental plan for a small municipality (17.000 inhabitants), which received additional funding from the Federal Agency for Environmental Protection (Bundesamt für Naturschutz; see BfN, 2005), as well as academic support from a research team of the University of Hanover, a highly communicative and interactive approach was applied. Different stakeholders, interest groups, and the general public were extensively involved on individual environmental protection and development decisions. Involvement efforts included the organisation of a range of workshops, school and market information days, computer-based games on environmental issues, organised nature walks and other activities. These meant that the general public was enabled to learn about environmental problems and issues. Furthermore, in the plan making exercise, interactive maps were used, which enabled consultees to work their comments directly into the various maps of the landscape plan. According to the interviewees, for the Königslutter landscape plan, this led to improved communication and co-operation, and, as a consequence to changes not only in attitudes, but also in values. One example includes local farmers, who had previously been highly skeptical of environmental protection and development measures. However, through the landscape plan making exercise, the farmers were said to have started to see benefits, for example, regarding measures for reducing soil erosion. Importantly, these were found to be in line with other suggested environmental development measures, e.g., planting of hedges. The local authority representative responsible for the landscape plan argued that its perceived success is clearly connected with the substantial funding and support provided. However, she also suggested that the size of the municipality may have also been important, as personal and group networks were rather strong in this small town of 17,000 inhabitants.

T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

8. Discussion The results of the interviews on SEA practice in the Brunswick region indicate that the extent of SEA's learning potential, both, in terms of single and double loop learning may depend on a range of aspects, including: (1) the type of plan (or programme) for which SEA is conducted; (2) the size of the area for which the spatial/land use plan is prepared; (3) the extent of plan makers' engagement in the SEA process; (4) availability of financial and time resources for SEA; (5) an overall ability to engage and communicate with stakeholders. These aspects are further discussed below. (1) The type of plan for which SEA is conducted appears to be of particular importance, not just in terms of the perception of the general role of SEA, but also regarding its learning potential. In a well established system where environmental implications had been an important consideration in routinely prepared spatial plans for some considerable time, the added value of SEA is bound to be perceived as being smaller than in a system which is underdeveloped, newly developing or where the consideration of environmental aspects is weak. In the case of the Brunswick regional spatial plan, SEA clearly led to some considerable individual and organisational learning. In this context, it is important that the Brunswick region is a new construct, for which a spatial plan and associated SEA had been produced for the first time. Furthermore, there was no regional landscape plan, i.e., a ‘duplication’ of effort was not a problem here. (2) In Germany, the size of the area for which the spatial/land use plan is prepared has some importance, as larger municipalities tend to apply a wider range of environmental mapping, development and planning instruments than those required on a statutory basis. In this case, comparatively speaking, the added value of Directive based SEA and its learning potential appears to be somewhat smaller if it is applied along with a range of other similar instruments, including e.g., environmental atlases and green area development plans. In this context, the necessity of applying SEA flexibly, focussing on major impacts or areas where there may be weak understanding in order to be useful was stressed. Furthermore, the chance to engage and communicate with stakeholders, interest groups and the general public in smaller municipalities is less complex and more straightforward than in larger areas. (3) If plan makers as well as other stakeholders play an important role in SEA preparation and fully engage with the instrument, it is likely that they experience a stronger personal/individual learning experience, which in turn is likely to have a wider organisational and potentially also social learning effect. In the case of the medium size municipality of Wolfenbüttel, for example, the local authority representative responsible for plan making was also responsible for the preparation of SEA, experiencing individual learning through SEA. However, his opinion on the ability of SEA to lead to changes in, for example, organisational attitudes and values towards the environment was similarly skeptical as those of the regional and large local authority representatives, mainly because other stakeholders were too disengaged from the process. For the representatives of the regional and large local authorities, SEA was just ‘another piece in the puzzle’ of various environmental planning and management instruments. Also, in spatial plan SEAs prepared by larger municipalities, consultants play an important role, particularly in generating SEA baseline data and preparing SEA

427

documentation, therefore making the SEA experience more detached from the plan making authority's other activities. (4) Availability of sufficient financial and time resources appears crucial for enhancing the learning potential of SEA. The ‘ever increasing speeds with which planning and appraisal is to be achieved’ (academic interviewee) was seen as being particularly problematic. In this context, a look at the interactive and communicative landscape plan for the small municipality of Königslutter was very useful. This had received some substantial funding by the Federal Agency for Environmental Protection and research support by the University of Hanover. Based on the resources provided, the municipality was enabled to engage with the general public to an extent, which would have not normally been possible. The general public was thus enabled to learn about environmental issues, problems and solutions. Scale and subsidiarity in decision making therefore play an important role. (5) Stakeholders, interest groups and the general public are likely to be more willing to engage in SEA, if they understand the implications for them. This requires SEA to do more than simply informing e.g., through generic leaflets. Instead, target group specific communication is required. How this can be achieved was shown by the Königslutter landscape plan. Overall, research results indicate that a communicative approach to SEA, similar to the one applied in Königslutter, clearly has many positive outcomes. However, even in a small municipality this approach has shown to require a lot of effort and some substantial funding, as otherwise extensive communication with the general public would not be possible. A more traditional approach towards public consultation, e.g., based on written leaflets with attached questionnaires has frequently shown to result in only low participation levels. For example, in the Wolfenbüttel case (municipality with 54,000 inhabitants) only five comments from the general public were obtained by applying a traditional consultation approach. In the Brunswick regional spatial plan example (representing a population of over 1 M) about 100 comments were received (i.e., in these two cases on average 1 comment per 10,000 inhabitants was obtained). Finally, if consultees feel that their input does not have an impact on decision making, their willingness to become involved may be greatly reduced. In this context, it was suggested that a low participation rate was also connected with frustration on the Local Agenda 21 process, which did not result in any implementation of concrete projects, as well as a general decline in interest in political and public questions (see also Oels, 2000). 9. Conclusions Emerging EC Directive based SEA practice in the planning region of Brunswick in Germany indicates that SEA currently results in various forms of learning, including single-loop learning (SEA specific knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and analysis) as well as to a lesser extent, double-loop learning (wider synthesis and evaluation). Learning particularly occurred at the individual level and occasionally at the organisational level. Wider social level, however, was unlikely to have occurred in most cases. Overall, there is some scope to further enhance SEA's learning potential. Interviews with key actors of the SEA processes for the regional spatial plan Brunswick, the local land use plans Wolfsburg and Wolfenbüttel, as well as the SEA like landscape plan Königslutter indicate that the current main methodological approach taken (ie site specific GIS and ‘area letter’ based assessment of specific development options/projects) gives rise to single-loop learning, leading to various changes of planned land allocations and boundaries. This methodological approach also means that proving the impact of SEA on the plan is fairly straightforward. Wider participation and enhanced communication is happening to

428

T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

varying degrees. Whilst all SEAs led to wider involvement with other stakeholders, only in the case of the Königslutter landscape plan was there some substantial wider public participation. Through SEA, attitudes and possibly values of individuals as well as occasionally organisations appear to have changed and health authorities have only started to be involved in spatial/land use plan making exercises through SEA. For learning through SEA to happen, interviewees suggested that a range of conditions were important, many revolving around the instrument's institutional context. For example, the strategic/conceptual approach to planning was deemed to need further development, also considering SEA in this context. In the Brunswick region, this was said to be underdeveloped and planning was observed to be mainly project focused. Furthermore, it was suggested that the instrument of SEA itself needed to be strengthened, particularly its substantive (as opposed to its procedural) elements. In this context, one of the local authority representatives said that the main problem is that environmental impacts are only presented, but not necessarily avoided or mitigated. Regarding the involvement of other bodies, stakeholders and the general public, it is clear that target group specific communication is crucial. In this context, those who get involved in SEA need to see how they had an impact on the process. Also, in order for wider involvement to be effective, sufficient resources (funding and support) were said to be of crucial importance. Currently, in plan making, sectoral interests are defined too early on, which should be avoided. Furthermore, the frequency with which spatial plans are prepared in Germany currently appears to be too irregular. Overall, emerging practice in the Brunswick region indicates the there is a need for SEA to be applied flexibly and that it should go beyond what EIA is already doing today. In order to avoid inefficiencies, it should not repeat what is already done elsewhere. Finally, for SEA to fully develop its organisational and social learning potential, it will need to become more mainstream. Currently, too often, it appears to be still largely confined to the realms of technical experts. Acknowledgments This paper is based on a pilot project jointly funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and by the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC), “Developing the learning potential of appraisal in spatial planning”, Award No: RES-182-25-0018. The authors are grateful to the ESRC and to the ASC for their support. The authors would also like to thank the interviewees in the Brunswick Region for their time and cooperation. References Argyris C, Schön DA. Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1978. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1977. BfN – Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Interaktiver Landschaftsplan Königslutter am Elm, Naturschutz und biologische Vielfalt, Heft 24, Bonn – Bad Godesberg; 2005 (see also http://www.koenigslutter.de/landschaftsplan.php). BfN – Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Landschaftsrahmenplan Niedersachsen 2008; 2008. www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB//documents/themen/landschaftsplanung/ni_lrp.pdf; last accessed 08/08/08. Bloom B. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain. London: Longman; 1956. Brown AL, Therivel R. Principles to guide the development of SEA methodology. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2000;18(3):183–90.

City of Braunschweig. Umweltatlas; 2009. http://www.braunschweig.de/ umwelt_ naturschutz/infos/umweltatlas/index.html; last accessed: 19/02/09. Diduck A, Mitchell B. Learning, public involvement and environmental assessment: Canadian case study. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2003;5(3):339–64. European Commission. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Off J Eur Communities 2001;L197:30–7 published 21.7.2001. Fischer TB. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan; 2002. Fischer TB. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2003;23(2):155–70. Fischer TB. Germany. In: Jones C, Baker M, Carter J, Jay S, Short M, Wood C, editors. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan; 2005. p. 79–96. Fischer TB. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment — towards a more systematic approach. London: Earthscan; 2007. Gather, M. and Schmidt, C., 2002. http://www.erato.fh-erfurt.de/vt/projekte/umweltpruefung.pdf; last accessed 08/08/08. Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. SEA and Landscape Planning, in: Sadler B., Aschemann, R., Dusik, J., Fischer, T.B., Partidário, M. and Verheem R. (eds). Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan, London; 2009. Hanusch M, Glasson J. Much ado about SEA/SA monitoring: The performance of English Regional Spatial Strategies, and some German comparisons. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(8):601–17. Herberg A. Relevant baseline data for use in SEA — examples from Germany. In: Fischer TB, Gazzola P, Jha-Thakur U, Belcakova I, Aschemann R, editors. 2008. Environmental Assessment Lecturers' Handbook, ROAD Bratislava; 2008. Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Kidd, S., Peel, D. and Fischer, T. (forthcoming). SEA effectiveness – the significance of learning, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R. Social learning in environmental management. Towards a sustainable future. London: Earthscan; 2005. Kidd, S., Fischer, T., Gazzola, P., Jha-Thakur, U. and Peel, D. (forthcoming), 'Developing the learning potential of appraisal in spatial planning' Project Report, available at http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/esrcinfocentre/viewawardpage.aspx?awardnumber=RES-182-25-0018. Kørnøv L. Strategic environmental assessment as catalyst of healthier spatial planning: the Danish guidance and practice. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2009;29(1):60–5. Niedersächsisches Ministerium für den ländlichen Raum, Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und verbraucherschutz. Vorläufige Arbeitshilfe für die Strategische Umwetlprüfung (SUP) bei Raumordnungsplänen. Hannover; 2007. Oels A. “Let's get together and feel alright!” Eine kritische Untersuchung von “Agenda 21” Prozessen in England und Deutschland. In: Heinelt H, Mühlich E, editors. Lokale Agenda 21- Prozesse. Erklärungsansätze, Konzepte und Ergebnisse, Leske und Budrich, Opladen; 2000. Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research. Environ Plann A 2005;36:1943–59. Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M. Process of social learning in integrated resources management. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 2004;14:193–206. Planungsamt Stadt Wolfenbüttel. Flächennutzungsplan der Stadt Wolfenbüttel – Begründung und Umweltbericht; 2007. CD-Rom. Saad S, Schneider T. Umweltprüfung zum Flächennutzungsplan der Stadt Leipzig – Eine Zwischenbilanz. UVP-Rep 2006;2006(1+2):25–33. Saarikoski H. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a collaborative learning process. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2000;20(6):681–700. Sadler B, Verheem R. Strategic Environmental Assessment - Status, Challenges and Future Directions No. 53. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM); 1996. Scholles, F., personal communication, University of Hanover, 5 March 2008. Scholles F, van Haaren C. Co-ordination of SEA and landscape planning. In: Schmidt M, João E, Albrecht E, editors. Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2004. p. 557–70. Sinclair AJ, Diduck A, Fitzpatrick P. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2008;28(7):415–28. Stadt Wolfsburg. Flächennutzungsplanung; 2008. http://www.wolfsburg.de/verwaltung/ bauberatung/stadtplanung/nutzungsplanung/; last accessed 08/08/08. UVP report. Special issue on spatial/ land use plan SEA, 2006: 1+2; 2006. Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1995;15(5):443–63. Zweckverband Braunschweig. Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm für den Grossraum Braunschweig, Beschreibende Darstellung; 2008a. http://www.zgb.de/barrierefrei/ content/regionalplanung/rrop2008_zd.shtml; last accessed 08/08/08. Zweckverband Braunschweig. Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm für den Grossraum Braunschweig, Umweltbericht; 2008b. http://www.zgb.de/barrierefrei/content/ regionalplanung/rrop2008_u.shtml; last accessed 08/08/08.