Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable urban development

ELSEVIER

STRATEGIC E N V I R O N M E N T A L ASSESSMENT FOR S U S T A I N A B L E URBAN DEVELOPMENT Anne Shepherd Georgia Institute of Technology

Leonard Ortolano Stanford University

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) evaluates the environmental impacts of policies, plans, and programs. This article examines the use of SEA for sustainable urban development. We first explore opportunities for SEA to promote sustainability principles. Then, we analyze case studies that have applied SEA to comprehensive planning. Our results indicate that SEA can effectively weave sustainability principles into the fabric o f urban plans. Finally, we highlight both SEA's potential and its challenges for sustainable urban development. © 1996 Elsevier Science Inc.

Introduction The integration of environmental impact assessment (EIA) principles into planning and policymaking has been called the "ultimate means by which sustainable development can be achieved" (Partid~irio 1996:34). However, EIA's project-level emphasis limits its ability to ensure sustainable development. Similarly, land use planning tends to focus on individual projects rather than on long-term sustainability goals. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has emerged as a way to integrate EIA and comprehensive planning to promote urban sustainability. Strategic environmental assessment considers the environmental impacts of policies, plans, and programs (PPPs) and their alternatives (Therivel et al. 1992). Many countries have implemented SEA in an effort to achieve Address requests for reprints to: Prof. Anne Shepherd, City Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0155, U.S.A. ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1996;16:321-335 © 1996 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0195-9255/96/$15.00 PII S0195-9255(96)00071-6

322

ANNE SHEPHERD AND LEONARD ORTOLANO

sustainability. Of all the SEA applications, those for comprehensive plans are the most common perhaps because comprehensive planning is inherently interactive, publicly open, and geopolitically well defined (Curran and Wood 1996). This article examines the use of strategic environmental assessment as a tool for urban sustainability. We first describe opportunities for SEA to promote sustainability principles. Next, we present case studies of cities and countries that have used SEA for comprehensive plans? Finally, we analyze SEA's effectiveness and its challenges for sustainable urban development. Definitions for sustainable development are inconsistent and debated in the literature (L616 1991). We intentionally avoid (in this article) the ongoing debate to precisely define sustainable development. A widely cited definition (WCED 1987:43) is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In this article, we use the term sustainability principles to broadly refer to criteria and definitions of sustainable development. Examples of urban sustainability principles are given elsewhere in this special issue (see the Introduction and the article by Alberti).

Background Experience around the world suggests that EIA at the project level is insufficient to maintain environmental quality and promote sustainable development. The principal reasons are that EIA starts too late, ends too soon, and is too site-specific. SEA can overcome the weaknesses of projectlevel EIA in several ways. First, SEA considers a broader scope of impacts (such as cumulative, secondary, and indirect impacts) than project-level EIA. Second, SEA uses "tiering," i.e., multiple tiers of EIA. Higher-level EIAs (or SEAs) can cover general issues that lower-level (or project) EIAs can either incorporate by reference or analyze more thoroughly. Third, because SEA occurs before major project-level decisions, agencies can consider policy-level alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures. Finally, SEA can incorporate sustainability principles throughout decision making: from policies, plans, and programs down to the level of projects. Two distinct approaches have been used to apply SEA to strategic decisions. The first is a "bottom-up" approach: project-level EIA's limited scope is expanded to higher-level assessments of policies, plans, and programs. The second is a "top-down" approach: sustainability principles are established and they trickle down to PPPs, then to projects. SEA has often evolved upward from the EIA of projects, rather than downward from a ~The planning literature uses "comprehensive plan" to refer to the document(s) that guide the development of a city or country. A comprehensive plan generally covers land use, circulation, and community facilities, among other elements.

SEA F O R U R B A N D E V E L O P M E N T

323

set of broader objectives. This is probably because methods for projectlevel EIA are more established and familiar than methods for top-down SEA based on sustainability principles. As Therivel and Partid~irio note (1996:2-3), "To be effective, the SEA process needs to begin at the most strategic policy level and 'trickle down' to lower tiers of PPP-making. SEA is, to an extent, held back by the heavy inheritance of methodologies from project EIA. SEA must assume its own status and develop more independently of project EIA." Although our focus is at the urban level in this article, it is recognized that "no city or urban region can achieve sustainability on its own. Regardless of local land use and environmental policies, a prerequisite for sustainable cities is sustainable use of the global hinterland" (Rees and Wackernagel, pp. 223, this issue). At the same time, a sustainable global environment requires sustainable development within cities. SEA's Potential to Promote Urban Sustainability

The literature on strategic environmental assessment puts forth several advantages of SEA (see, e.g., Therivel et al. 1992; Partid~irio 1996). In this section, we synthesize these advantages as potentials for SEA to contribute to sustainable urban development. Whether SEA's potentials can be realized in practice is an empirical question, which we pursue later in this article.

Systematic, Integrated Framework for Considering Sustainability Principles A goal of SEA is to systematically examine possible environmental impacts of PPPs and minimize adverse impacts wherever possible. The same goal might be ascribed to project-level EIA. However, EIA faces an integration problem: EIA is not well integrated into planning, so it often becomes an ex post facto rationalization for decisions. Strategic environmental assessment addresses this integration problem directly. SEA allows for a systematic and comprehensive consideration of sustainability principles in the planning process. Policies, plans, and programs can be evaluated against a framework that includes environmental objectives and targets, green plans, and sustainability strategies (Sadler and Verheem 1996). By integrating SEA and urban planning, sustainability principles can guide decisionmaking.

Early Examination of Projected Impacts of Policies, Plans, and Programs on the Urban Environment The term environment is used here in its broadest sense to include social as well as biophysical factors. SEA at early stages of decision making permits dealing with the sources (e.g., development plans and policies) rather than the symptoms of environmental deterioration (Sadler and Ver-

324

ANNE SHEPHERD AND LEONARD ORTOLANO

heem 1996). A timely SEA allows a more proactive approach toward sustainable development than the reactive approach often associated with project-level EIA. A wider range of alternatives can be considered; for instance, an alternative to a proposal to develop electric power plants could be a program to encourage energy conservation through financial incentives.

Higher-level, Comprehensive Scope to Consider Cumulative Impacts Project-by-project impact assessment can overlook the area-wide impacts of development. SEA provides a way to account for cumulative impacts, which have been defined as the "result of additive and aggregative actions producing impacts that accumulate incrementally or synergistically over time and space" (Contant and Wiggins 1993:341). SEA can help to detect, manage, and monitor cumulative impacts over large areas and long time periods. In addition, SEA can recommend mitigation measures that are more far-reaching than those for specific projects.

Tiering to Carry Sustainability Principles from PPPs to Projects A benefit of tiering is to carry sustainability principles from PPPs down to projects. Another benefit is efficiency. Tiering can streamline project-level EIAs when proposed projects are consistent with existing evaluations in an SEA. Project-level EIAs can simply refer to, rather than reevaluate, the analyses in the SEA. Even though tiering offers advantages in terms of efficiency, it also presents possibilities to subvert the project-level EIA process. Suppose that a proposed project (with major impacts) was not anticipated in an area development plan. If the development plan's SEA were used to cover the project-level EIA, then significant impacts could be overlooked. So, in this sense, the efficiency of tiering may interfere with the goal of attaining sustainable urban development.

Monitoring and Mitigation Measures for Adaptive Environmental Management Monitoring is an essential link between a city's short-term project implementation goals and its long-term sustainable development goals, Despite monitoring's widely recognized importance, it is not a well-established activity, Relatively little attention is paid to the actual effects of plans and projects. SEAs can be used to establish monitoring programs that promote sustainability principles in several ways. First, monitoring can be used to determine whether mitigation measures were implemented and were effective. It can warn agencies of unanticipated impacts, or if impacts approach a

SEA F O R U R B A N D E V E L O P M E N T

325

critical level. Existing mitigation measures can be refined, or new mitigation measures can be implemented, before it is too late to prevent or reduce unacceptable impacts. Second, the actual effects of PPPs can be compared to the predicted effects to refine forecasting capabilities. Third, monitoring can improve outcomes of PPPs through adaptive environmental management, which deals with uncertainties by continuously modifying management practices (Carpenter 1996; Holling 1978).

Substantive, Early Public Involvement Public involvement provides a crucial contribution to sustainability (WCED 1987). A well-known problem with public participation in EIA is that it can occur too late to influence key decisions. Public participation often becomes public relations: to defend a decision that has already been made or to gather opinions that have little effect on the final project. SEA has the potential to expand public involvement in both time and space. With regard to time, public participation in SEA can occur early enough to influence major decisions that have far-reaching implications (such as a city's comprehensive plan). With regard to space, public involvement in PPPs can incorporate a community's vision more effectively than piecemeal public involvement for individual projects. The six above-noted opportunities for SEA to promote urban sustainability will be used (later in this article) to analyze case studies of SEA in comprehensive planning.

Applications of SEA in Comprehensive Planning Detailed documentation of practical experience with SEA for comprehensive plans has recently appeared in the literature (Therivel and Partid~irio 1996; IAIA 1996). This documentation provides the basis for the four case studies presented below (Table 1).

Hertfordshire, England 2 Hertfordshire County Council, England, has incorporated principles of sustainable development into their structure plan through SEA. [In the United Kingdom (UK), a structure plan is one form of local authority development plan. Structure plans focus on strategic land use issues.] Hertfordshire is a mixed urban and rural area to the north of London. Despite an increase in the standard of living, citizens felt that quality of life had significantly deteriorated over the last 30 years: Hertfordshire "is busier, dirtier, more dangerous, has fewer local facilities, and has less sense of community." 2This case study is from Rumble and Therivel (1996). All quotations related to the Hertfordshire case are from this source.

326

ANNE SHEPHERDAND LEONARDORTOLANO

TABLE 1. G e n e r a l E l e m e n t s of the Case Studies Hertfordshire Location Type of plan Responsibility for SEA Duration of study Is an SEA required in the c o r n prehensive planning process?

United Kingdom Structure Plan The County Council Two years No, but encouraged in guidelines, Some SEAs go beyond the guidelines and include sustainability objectives.

Sollentuna and Karlskoga

San Joaquin County

Ottawa

Sweden

United States

Canada

Comprehensive Land Use Plan The municipality

General Plan

Official Plan

The county

Two years

Five years

The municipality Three years

No, but some municipalities perform SEAs for comprehensive plans on their own initiative.

Yes, under CEQA.

Encouraged, but not harmonized through legislation. SEA occurs at the initiative of individual municipalities.

The U K published guidelines for "environmental appraisals" of developm e n t plans in the early 1990s. (In the UK, an environmental appraisal is a type of SEA. Environmental appraisals are usually qualitative rather than quantitative.) These guidelines emphasized the role of d e v e l o p m e n t plans in helping to achieve sustainable development. M o r e than 100 S E A s for d e v e l o p m e n t plans had been completed in the U K , and at least 90 m o r e are being completed, as of late 1995. Most of these S E A s limited themselves to the steps set out in the guidelines. However, Hertfordshire developed an appraisal process that went beyond the guidelines for SEA. The Hertfordshire S E A establishes sustainability objectives, and then evaluates plans, alternatives, strategies, and policies based on the sustainability objectives. In 1993, Hertfordshire County Council's planning d e p a r t m e n t decided to p r e p a r e a new structure plan from scratch, rather than modify the old structure plan, and to use sustainability as a key starting point. The County Council commissioned consultants to produce an environmental strategy. This environmental strategy forged the link between the S E A and the structure plan. Extensive discussions with the public helped to establish a set of "sustainability aims," which included the following: reduce overall d e m a n d for resources; increase the reuse and recycling of resources; maintain critical national and local assets; and improve the overall quality of life. The sustainability aims provided the f r a m e w o r k to evaluate decisions, policies, and p r o g r a m s in the structure plan. (For example, a structure plan

SEA FOR U R B A N D E V E L O P M E N T

327

objective was to "concentrate development in towns." This would meet several sustainability aims, among them, "reduce overall demand for resources.") Mitigations and monitoring were included in the plan. Interestingly, the SEA and project-level EIAs were intentionally separated because they are "very different tools": the former deals with general qualitative issues and the latter deals with specific quantitative impacts. More specific analyses will be needed for individual projects' EIAs. The sustainability aims and structure plan objectives were published in May 1994 and used in a public involvement program. More than 1% of Hertfordshire's population was contacted. Public support for the structure plan is high. Hertfordshire's SEA "has truly helped to incorporate the principle of sustainability into Hertfordshire's structure plan."

Sollentuna and Karlskoga, Sweden 3 Two Swedish cities, Sollentuna and Karlskoga, provide examples of SEA in comprehensive planning. Swedish municipalities are required to prepare a comprehensive land use plan (CP) for future development. Even though SEA is not required for comprehensive plans, several municipalities have, on their own initiative, carried out SEA since the early 1990s. During 1992-1993, a team of planners, environmental experts, and consultants (the "SEA-CP" team) applied SEA to comprehensive plans in Sollentuna and Karlskoga. Sollentuna was preparing a land-use policy for a sparsely developed part of the community. Karlskoga was planning for a new railway. The SEA-CP team talked extensively with citizens and officials regarding sustainable development. Sustainability principles were used to analyze environmental impacts and formulate mitigation measures. SOLLENTUNA. Sollentuna's planning commission was charged with providing a policy for future land use in Margareteborg, a virtually undeveloped section of the city. The planning process was initiated with minimal participation of the SEA-CP team. Key issues, including environmental issues, were discussed at an early meeting, but no environmental experts were present. The task of outlining alternative plans was entrusted to the urban planning consultants. Sustainable development criteria were later developed by a group of environmental experts. However, these criteria did not significantly influence the design of alternatives because, by that time, the urban planning consultants were focussed on defending their particular proposals. The SEA-CP integration was ineffective because of obstacles in revisiting past decisions. The SEA became a separate report rather than an integral part of the CP. Notwithstanding the lack of integration, the SEA report was regarded as a source of valuable information. ~These case studies are from Asplund and Hilding-Rydevik (1996). All quotations related to the Swedish cases are from this source.

328

ANNE SHEPHERD AND LEONARD ORTOLANO

KARLSKOGA. The lessons from Sollentuna--the importance of an early, simultaneous start between SEA and CP activitiesmaided the process of integrating SEA and CP in Karlskoga. The SEA-CP team developed objectives (related to function, economy, and the environment) to evaluate alternatives. Sustainability criteria were not defined explicitly, but they were implicit in the team's objectives. The SEA-CP integration was successful. The team prepared a single integrated report with clear connections between the SEA and CP. The SEA-CP integration made it possible to improve and transform both the planning process and the results. Planning processes that usually focussed on technical issues were instead opened up to political discussions on sustainability. The results are expected to contribute to sustainable development if the SEA-CP results are carried down to specific development plans. In these two cases in Sweden, the integration of SEA in CP was heavily influenced by the early stages of planning. Successful SEA-CP integration only occurred when the plan drafters and environmental experts started their work simultaneously.

San Joaquin County, California 4 SEA is required for comprehensive planning in California by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A case study of SEA for a general (i.e., comprehensive) plan for San Joaquin County demonstrates the power of CEQA. The San Joaquin case also exemplifies how, ironically, CEQA can "miss the big picture" of long-range objectives for a region (Olshansky 1996:316). About half of the 50 states in the United States have EIA programs in addition to the federal EIA requirements. Of these state-level EIA programs, California's is among the most extensive. CEQA requires the preparation of an "Environmental Impact Report" (EIR) for general plans, which is an SEA. (We use the term SEA in this case study to refer to an EIR for a general plan.) San Joaquin County staff and consultants prepared the general plan over a 5-year period. The plan sought to accommodate growth in population and employment to the year 2010 within the seven existing cities in the county. However, the County Board of Supervisors later proposed five new towns within the county, so a second plan was prepared. Population projections and developers' proposals for the five new towns appeared to guide the general plan. Developers' proposals were made independently of the County staff's plans. Thus, the County staff was placed in a reactive (instead of proactive) planning position when these new towns were brought into the general plan. ~This case study is from Skewes-Cox (1996). All quotations related to the San Joaquin County, California case are from source.

SEA F O R U R B A N D E V E L O P M E N T

329

The County contracted a consulting company to prepare the SEA for the general plan. The SEA analyzed impacts (e.g., on agricultural land, traffic, air quality, and biotic resources), evaluated several alternatives, and included numerous mitigation measures. Many impacts were not adequately assessed at the general plan stage. It was expected that these impacts would be addressed in more detail at the project level. A monitoring plan (which is required by CEQA) was incorporated into the SEA for all recommended mitigation measures. The SEA and the general plan were integrated from the beginning. In the end, however, the SEA did not sway the County to adopt the most environmentally sensitive general plan. However, the SEA document was considered valuable for analyzing future projects in the county.

Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario, Canada 5 The final case study concerns the integration of SEA and land-use planning for Ottawa, Canada, in the province of Ontario. The integration of SEA and municipal planning has received renewed attention in Ontario. However, little progress has been made to harmonize these processes through legislation. When SEA has occurred, it has been at the initiative of individual municipalities. In Ontario, new land development is regulated by two parallel but different processes: the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. Land use is governed by the Planning Act, whereas the infrastructure required for land development is governed by the E A Act. (The EA Act requires preparation of a Master Plan, which is an SEA.) Planning activities under these two laws are often separated, so requirements for public input and agency review could be duplicative. However, in this case study, potential inefficiencies were reduced by integrating planning and SEA, and by tiering the SEA and project-level EIAs. SEA could, in principle, fulfill some requirements of project-level EIA, although this fulfillment is not guaranteed by the provincial government. The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC) initiated a study in 1994 (to be completed in 1997) to integrate an Official Plan (i.e., land use plan) review with Master Plans for water, wastewater, and transportation. Together, these plans will provide a Regional Development Strategy: an integrated analysis of both future land use and infrastructure to accommodate growth to the year 2021. While this study did not use the term sustainability explicitly, the evaluation criteria characterized sustainability principles. These criteria were derived from RMOC's "community vision" and the provincial government's policy guidance. SThis case study is from McKinnon and Joyner (1996). All quotations related to the Ontario case are from this source.

330

ANNE SHEPHERD AND LEONARD ORTOLANO

T A B L E 2. A n a l y s i s of S E A ' s E f f e c t i v e n e s s for U r b a n S u s t a i n a b i l i t y Hertfordshire

Sollentuna and Karlskoga

San Joaquin County

Ottawa

Systemic, integrated framework for considering sustainability principies.

Yes. Sustainability aims used to evaluate structure plan objecrives,

To some extent. In Sollentuna, sustainability criteria were explicit; SEA was not integrated with the plan. In Karlskoga, sustainability objectives were implicit; SEA was integrated with the plan.

To some extent. Sustainability was an implicit background policy, although sustainabilty criteria were not explicit. Most environmentally sound alternative was not selected.

To some extent. Sustainability was not explicit; however,criteria related to sustainability wereused to evaluate alternatives.

Early examination of projected impacts of policies, plans, and programs on the urban environment,

Yes.Sustainability issues were built into the structure plan from the beginning, Strong link between SEA and planning,

Yes (in Karlskoga); not well (in Sollentuna). Lessonsleamed fromSollentuna were used to ensure early integration in Karlskoga.

Yes.General Plan and SEA were strongly linked from the beginning, even though they were prepared by two different groups.

Yes.The goal of this SEA was to integrate environmental assessment and planning requirements.

Higher-level, comprehensire scope to consider cumulative impacts.

Yes.

Yes, perhaps. Cumulative irapact analysisnot clear.

Yes.

Yes, perhaps. Cumulative impact analysis not clear.

(continued)

R M O C ' s i n t e g r a t e d p l a n n i n g process h a d two distinct phases: strategic a n d detailed. T h e strategic p h a s e d e v e l o p e d a clear d i r e c t i o n for l a n d - u s e p l a n n i n g . A l t e r n a t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t scenarios were systematically e v a l u a t e d against a set of 29 criteria r e l a t e d to s u s t a i n a b i l i t y (e.g., n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t , c a r i n g a n d h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s ) . A n i n t e g r a t e d d o c u m e n t i n c l u d e d the preferred development scenario and mitigation measures. The detailed phase of the s t u d y used a b r o a d e r r a n g e of criteria to e v a l u a t e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a l t e r n a t i v e s for the p r e f e r r e d d e v e l o p m e n t scenario. T h e R e g i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t Strategy a n d associated i n f r a s t r u c t u r e package are n o w u n d e r p u b l i c a n d a g e n c y review. F i n a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n will i n c l u d e p r o p o s e d i n f r a s t r u c t u r e projects, r e q u i r e m e n t s that have b e e n m e t t h r o u g h the i n t e g r a t e d p l a n n i n g process, r e m a i n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s to b e fulfilled for specific projects, a n d a m o n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m .

SEA FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT

T A B L E 2.

331

Continued Hertfordshire

Sollentuna and Karlskoga

San Joaquin County

Ottawa

Tiering to carry sustainability principies from PPPs to projects.

Yes. More detailed analyses called for at project level.

Yes. Need to ensure sustainability principles extend down to projects.

Yes. More detailed analyses called for at project level.

Yes. SEA may fulfill some requirements of project EIAs.

Monitoring and mitigation measures for adaptive environmental management.

Yes: both mitigations and monitoring were explicit in the SEA.

Mitigations, yes. Monitoring, uncertain.

Yes: both mitigations and monitoring were included in the SEA.

Yes, mitigation measures were included. Monitoring was strongly recommended.

Substantive, early public involvement,

Yes. Extensive public involvement in the SEA and its appraisal.

Yes. Extensive discussions between the plannets, consultants, and citizens.

Yes. Over 100 meetings between the public and officials.

Yes. Simultaneous public and agency consultation.

The four case studies above were selected because detailed documentation was readily accessible. SEA has also been applied to land-use planning in other countries, such as the Netherlands, New Zealand, and in the European Community?

Effectiveness of SEA for Promoting Urban Sustainability Earlier, we examined six potentials of SEA to promote sustainability. The previous section presented four case studies of SEA for comprehensive plans. We now analyze the case studies, in a framework of SEA's potentials, to gauge the degree that SEA was effective in promoting sustainable urban development (Table 2). Results from our analysis are clear. SEA was effective as a tool to implement sustainability principles in comprehensive planning. All six potentials were realized, to varying degrees:

• Systematic, integrated framework for considering sustainability principles. The SEA and planning processes were well integrated in each of the cases (except for Sollentuna). The Hertfordshire case achieved perhaps the highest degree of integration: sustainability principles guided the preparation of the structure plan from the beginning. In 6See Therivel (1993) and Partid~irio (1996) for surveys of SEA applications.

332

ANNE SHEPHERD AND LEONARD ORTOLANO

the San Joaquin case, the SEA and general plan were linked, but it appears that developers' proposals, rather than sustainability principles, drove the planning process. • Early examination ofprojected impacts ofpolicies, plans, andprograms on the urban environment. Impacts were examined early in each of the cases, except for Sollentuna. In Sollentuna, both SEA and plan preparation started early, but they were parallel rather than integrated activities. • Higher-level, comprehensive scope to consider cumulative impacts. Each of the cases examined the impacts of area-wide development. However, cumulative impact analyses were not explicit in the cases of Sollentuna, Karlskoga, and Ottawa. • Tiering to carry sustainability principles from PPPs to projects. The value of tiering, as well as the need for project-specific analyses, were recognized in each of the cases. Interestingly, Hertfordshire and Ottawa took different approaches. Hertfordshire did not specifically link SEA and project-level EIAs to ensure that more detailed analyses would be performed for project-level EIAs. However, Ottawa called for stronger links between SEA and project-level EIAs so that SEA could fulfill some requirements of project-level EIAs. • Monitoring and mitigation measures for adaptive environmental management. Each case included mitigation measures. Hertfordshire, San Joaquin, and Ottawa included monitoring programs. ° Substantive, early public involvement. Each of the cases extensively involved citizens.

Challenges and Implications for SEA Results from the case studies show that SEA can be an effective method for integrating sustainability principles into comprehensive planning at the urban level. What can we learn from these cases about the challenges of SEA in comprehensive planning? How can we meet these challenges to improve SEA's contribution to sustainable urban development? That SEA can improve and facilitate the EIAs of individual projects has been one of SEA's selling points since its early days. However, the links between SEA and project-level EIA are not always clear. Participants in each of the case studies advocate strong mechanisms to make sure that sustainability principles in PPPs trickle down to projects. The Hertfordshire case did not specifically link the SEA to project-level EIA because project implementation requires more detailed, quantitative analyses. The Swedish studies point out that SEA's success for sustainability depends on how well the integrated SEA-comprehensive plan is carried down to detailed development plans. The San Joaquin case calls for a two-tiered approach: project-level EIAs will address project-level impacts not adequately as-

SEA FOR U R B A N D E V E L O P M E N T

333

sessed in the SEA. The Ottawa case emphasized a need for SEAs to formally fulfill some project-level EIA requirements. Another challenge is the integration of SEA and comprehensive plans. The cases of Hertfordshire, San Joaquin, and Ottawa demonstrate the value of early coordination. The cases in Sweden demonstrate the value of learning from experience. The researchers learned from the first case (Sollentuna) how to achieve integration of SEA and comprehensive planning in the second case (Karlskoga). The Swedish studies found that SEA needs to be integrated early and simultaneously with comprehensive planning. Notably, each municipality conducted SEA on their own initiative--SEA was not required for comprehensive plans (except in the case of San Joaquin). In the absence of regulations, SEA was implemented to best fit the particular institutional and political circumstances. This supports the premise that SEA guidelines may be preferable to SEA regulations. As Partid~irio and Therivel (1996) suggest, "Whereas regulations may be held back by legal concerns, guidelines can afford to be more exigent in the promotion of best practice." However, some of the studies faced institutional and organizational barriers to SEA. In Sollentuna, barriers resulted from planning consultants' attachments to particular projects. In San Joaquin, developers' proposals appeared to dominate the planning process. The Ottawa case appealed for greater support from government to integrate environmental assessment and municipal planning requirements. As a final note, we recognize that our observations are based on cases that were well developed and reported in the literature. So, our results may not be representative of normal practice. 7 At this time, experience with SEA in comprehensive planning is limited, so generalizations are not warranted. Our aim was to explore the potential for SEA to promote sustainable urban development. Arguably, the key prerequisite for implementing SEA in urban planning is political will. And, the opportunities for SEA to achieve sustainable development will emerge as communities learn by doing. Conclusions

SEA can integrate sustainability principles into urban planning. Case studies from four countries demonstrate the potential of SEA to contribute to sustainable urban development. At the same time, the cases reveal some of the difficulties in fully exploiting the potential of SEA. The absence of formal methods for SEA is evidently not a major barrier to using SEA in 7For example, Curran and Wood (1996) survey cases of SEA in land-use planning in the UK. The outcomes were not as uniformly positive as those in Table 2.

334

ANNE SHEPHERDAND LEONARDORTOLANO

practice. M o r e experience with S E A in c o m p r e h e n s i v e planning will increase the progress already m a d e t o w a r d sustainable u r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t . We are indebted to Riki Therivel for her invaluable assistance and suggestions on this article. We are particularly grateful to her and to Maria Rosario Partid~rio for sharing chapters from the book that they edited, The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, prior to publication.

References Asplund, E. and Hilding-Rydevik, T. 1996. SEA: Integration with municipal comprehensive land-use planning in Sweden. In The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Therivel, R. and Partid~irio, M.R. (eds). London: Earthscan. Carpenter, Richard A. 1996. The case for continuous monitoring and adaptive management under NEPA, In Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future. Clark, R. and Canter, L. (eds). Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie Press. Contant, C.K. and L.L. Wiggins. 1993. Toward Defining and Assessing Cumulative Impacts: Practical and Theoretical Considerations. In Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon (eds). Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers. Curran, J.M. and Wood, C. 1996. Environmental Appraisal of UK Development Plans: Current Practice and Future Directions. Conference Proceedings, I A I A '96, 16th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, June 17-23, 1996, Estoril, Portugal, Vol. I, pp. 33-37. Holling, C.S. (ed.) 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). 1996. Conference Proceedings, I A I A '96: Improving Environmental Assessment Effectiveness-Research, Practice and Training. 16th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, June 17-23, 1996, Estoril, Portugal. L616, S.M. 1991. Sustainable Development: Critical Review. World Development. 19(6): 607-621. McKinnon, D. and Joyner, A. 1996. The Integration of Land Use Planning and Environmental Assessment: An Ontario Case Study. Conference Proceedings, I A I A 1996, 16th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, June 17-23, 1996, Estoril, Portugal, Vol. III, pp. 19-24. Olshansky, R.B. 1996. The California Environmental Quality Act and Local Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3):313-330. Partid~irio, M.R. 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Key Issues Emerging from Recent Practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16:31-35. Rees, W. and Wackernagel, M. 1996. Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable (and why they are a key to sustainability). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16(4--6):223-248.

SEA FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT

335

Rumble, J. and Therivel, R. 1996. SEA of Hertfordshire County Council's Structure .Plan. In The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Therivel, R., and Partid~irio, M.R. (eds). London: Earthscan. Sadler, B. and Verheem, R. 1996. Conclusions and Recommendations of the International SEA Effectiveness Study. Conference Proceedings, IAIA 1996, 16th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, June 17-23, 1996, Estoril, Portugal, Vol. I, pp. 55-62. Skewes-Cox, A. 1996. SEA of the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010, California, U.S. In The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Therivel, R., and Partid~irio, M.R. (eds). London: Earthscan. Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D., and Pritchard, D. 1992. Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan. Therivel, R. 1993. Systems of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 13:145-168. Therivel, R. and Partid~irio, M.R. 1996. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: England. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.