Sustainable Planning and Environmental Assessment Knowledge - SPEAK
Abstract
In Sweden, there is an ongoing debate on the need for change in spatial planning. The basis for the debate is the latest in-depth evaluation of the Swedish environmental objectives and the roadmap for Sweden without greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. In these documents the shortcomings regarding the quality of planning are discussed e.g. how national environmental objectives are implemented, how environmental aspects are considered in planning decisions and how the planning process is designed to follow up environmental impacts.
This debate resulted in a new research program initiated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which aims to generate knowledge about effective spatial planning for sustainable development and thereby strengthen spatial planning as a relevant and comprehensive means of attaining the national environmental quality objectives. Within this framework, the research program SPEAK (Sustainable Planning and Environmental Assessment Knowledge) has been initiated which aims to; (i) identify and analyze obstacles and deficiencies of environmental assessments in contemporary planning practice (ii) identify pathways that can support spatial planning that meets the provisions of the Swedish Environmental Code regarding the promotion of environmental considerations in projects, plans and programmes (iii) generate proposals for developing the planning system and its applications in strategic environmental assessment of plans and programmes and in environmental impact assessment of projects. This paper addresses potential synergies and challenges for spatial planning and the application of EIA and SEA as effective tools to enhance sustainable development.
Keywords: Sustainable planning, Sweden, environmental quality objectives, environmental assessments, implementation gaps
Introduction
Several international policies, directives and conventions have been adoptedin the European Union to meet the challengesforsustainable planning. However, in spite of legal requirements and guidelines there are still gaps in the implementation and hence anticipated potential synergies and changing practices towards sustainable planning are not yet fully developed. Regardingenvironmental assessments the capacity to support the planning process can be further developed in order to strengthen sustainability considerations.
Sweden, that is a member country of the EU,has a national environment policy adopted by the Parliament 1999 and which includes a number of environmental quality objectives incorporated in an environmental quality system. The goals set in the environmental quality system aim to provide guidance to all actors in society on what the Government and the Parliament want to achieve and how the environmental policy interlocks with other policy areas (Ministry of Environment 2013).
According to evaluations of progress towards the Swedish national quality objectives, 14 out of 16 national environmental quality objectives will not be met by 2020 (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). A study made by the Swedish Agency for Public Management(2013) revealed that several national and regional authorities lack significantly in their performance related to the environmental quality objectives and identified a need for better tools for governance. Also at the local level there are shortcomings in the environmental performance of municipalities according to the latest annual ranking (Miljöaktuellt 2014).
Spatial planning is recognized as an important tool for promoting sustainable development (e.g. Albrechts 2010; Carmona 2009: Rydin 2010). In this context municipalities play a crucial role responsible for both comprehensive planning and detailed planning which are regulated by the Swedish Planning and Building Act. However, municipalities are also responsible for a number of sector plans, e.g. municipal energy plans and municipal waste plans. Also at the national and regional a diversity of sector plans are prepared which are connected with the built environment for example related to transport and infrastructure (regional transport plans, national transport plans) and regional development (regional plans, regional development strategies). Furthermore, plans that aim at a sustainable management of natural resources have a direct relation to spatial planning, such as maritime spatial plans and river basin management plans. This results in a 3 multitude of plans, which generally are poorly coordinated. Therefore integrated physical planning and improved collaboration in planning have been identified as two important factors for approaching the generational goal and the environmental quality objectives (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2012).
During recent years the effectiveness of planning has been debated. Related to transport infrastructure planning, several studies have been conducted where funding, complex legal frameworks and lacking coordination are identified as factors for delay (Growth, Environment and Regional Planning 2010). Also for housing development, the extended planning processes have been debated. The political emphasis on shorter planning and decision making processes challenges existing procedures and result in modifications in the legal framework. At the same time, urban planning is becoming more complex (e.g. by-pass Stockholm) and the pressure on urban space is increasing due to the ongoing compact city development. Combining the political intentions with the planning realities require novel approaches in planning and decision making in order to advance towards the environmental quality objectives.
EA in Swedish planning
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) play an important role in Swedish planning practice as they are incorporated in the Environmental Code and hence provide a legally based requirement to "integrate environmental considerations” in planning and decision making (Chapter 6. § 12 Environmental Code).
The purpose of impact assessment in relation to plans and programs is “to identify and describe the direct and indirect effects of the planned activity or action” as well as to enable an overall assessment to be made of this impact on human health and the environment (Chapter 6. § 3 Environmental Code) and thus to contribute to a more sustainable outcome of planning and decision making processes (Cashmore et al. 2010). However, in practice there is a concern that the impact assessment is not functioning as it is intended ( Finnveden and Åkerman, 2014). This has been discussed through the concept of EA (in) effectiveness in the literature during the last few years (Cashmore et al. 2010, Isaksson and Storbjörk 2012).
There is an on-going discussion in the scientific literature on the deficiencies of impact assessment and the needs for improvements (Therivel 2004). A well-known problem is the handling of alternatives in SEA and EIA (Steinemann 2001).
Another problem is the integration of environmental aspects or rather the lack of aspects considered in the assessment. In-depth evaluation of the environmental objectives indicates that the way in which environmental aspects are included in plans is too variable (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2012). Faith-Ell et al. (2012) shows that generally aspects that can be quantified (e.g. noise and air quality) are taken into consideration in the SEA. More complex aspects such as biodiversity (Balforset al. 2005; Mörtberg et al 2006) and climate (European Union 2013, Isaksson and Storbjörk 2012) are less likely to be used in the assessment of municipal detailed plans. The aspect of population is closely connected with planning and is clearly linked to the environmental objective of good built environment. However, today, there is no common understanding among Swedish practitioners what to include and how to assess the aspect of population. For environmental impact assessment at a project level, deficiencies have been recognized regardingthe inclusion of aspects such as health (Kågström, 2009), cumulative effects (Wärnbäck, 2007), and biodiversity (de Jong, Oscarsson et al. 2004, Karlson et al.2014).
Another problem that is commonly stated is that EIA and SEA comes too late into the planning process (Fischer 2007). Consequently, the impact assessment is more used as a means for evaluation rather than a tool that integrates environmental considerations at an early stage. Several studies have explored how SEA and EIA are often used in practice to rationalize preconceived judgements or by other means strengthen prevailing norms (Hilding-Rydevik and Bjarnadóttir 2007; Owens et al. 2004). Other writers have focused specifically on howinstitutional conditions, including formal and informal rules and routines, hamper the effects of EA (e.g. Nykvist and Nilsson 2009). In the Swedish context, several municipalities search for other types of tools for integrating environmental aspects early in the planning process. Environmental assessments are infrequently conducted in detailed planning, because municipalities do not consider it as necessary and state that it demands a lot of work (Boverket 2012: 30).
There is a need for a deeper analysis of problems related to EIA and SEA that also includes an indepth analytical approach to grasp the political nature of EA. There is a need for an interdisciplinary approach which combines different types of knowledge in order to gain a comprehensive and deep understanding of the practice of environmental assessment within the context of planning and decision-making which involves power relations, interest conflicts and behavioral aspects.
New research program – SPEAK
In the autumn of 2014,a new research program was initiated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which aims to generate knowledge about effective spatial planning for sustainable development and thereby strengthen spatial planning as a relevant and comprehensive means of attaining the national environmental quality objectives. Within this framework, the research program SPEAK (Sustainable Planning and Environmental Assessment Knowledge) has been initiated. SPEAK will cover a period of three yearand aims to; (i) identify and analyze obstacles and deficiencies of environmental assessments in contemporary planning practice (ii) identify pathways that can support spatial planning that meets the provisions of the Swedish Environmental Code regarding the promotion of environmental considerations in projects, plans and programmes (iii) generate proposals for developing the planning system and its applications in strategic environmental assessment of plans and programmes and in environmental impact assessment of projects.
The following research questions will be addressed in the research program:
(i) How is planning carried out in practice in relation to legislation?
(ii) Why are there discrepancies between practice and legislation?
(iii) What can be done about such discrepancies?
(iv) What can be learned from planning systems in other countries?
During the project, the multidisciplinary research team, with expertise within environmental, economic, social sciences and law will apply a critical approach towards today’s practice and prevailing perceptions, so as to identify impediments and shortcomings in the application of environmental assessment which adversely affects ongoing efforts to advance towards the environmental quality objectives. This refers not only to discrepancies between the general goals of EA and the legislative framework on one hand and the contemporary practice on the other hand, but also to the existence of power relations and communities of practice which undermine the planning and decision making processes. To cope with the inherent complexity of the research questions, different theoretical concepts will be merged with a broad empirical analysis to achieve a comprehensive understanding of role and impact of environmental assessment in Swedish planning and decision making. In addition, the project will contribute to the theory building by combining theories of power and communities of practice which is a novel approach to the research society within EA and planning.
Integrated physical planning and improved collaboration in planning have been identified as two important factors for approaching the generational goal and the environmental quality objectives (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012), hence providing a possibility to close the persistent and continuous implementation gaps.In the SPEAK project we will investigate the potential synergies and challenges for spatial planning and the application of EIA and SEA as effective tools to enhance sustainable development.
References
Albrechts, L. 2010. More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2010. 37: 1115 – 1127.
Balfors, B., Mörtberg, U, and Gontier, M. 2005. Impacts of region-wide urban development on biodiversity in strategic environmental assessment. Journal of Environ. Assessment Policy and Management 7: 229-246.
Carmona, M. 2009. Sustainable urban design: principles to practice. Int. J. Sustainable Development, 12: 48-77.
Cashmore M, Richardson T, Hilding-Rydevik T, Emmelin L. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of theirpolitical constitution. Environ. Impact Assessment Review 2010;30:371–9.
de Jong, J., A. Oscarsson and G. Lundmark. 2004. "Hur behandlas biologisk mångfald i MKB? (How are impacts on biodiversity analysed in EIA in Sweden?)." Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Uppsala.
Finnveden, G. and Åkerman, J. 2014. Not planning a sustainable transport system. Environ. Impact Assessment Review, 2014, 46: 53-57.
European Commision. 2013. Guidance on integrating climate change and biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment.
Gontier, M., Balfors, B. and Mörtberg, U. 2006. Biodiversity in environmental assessment - current practice and tools for prediction. Environ. Impact Assessment Review26: 268–286.
Growth, Environment and Regional Planning. 2010. SATSA. Förstudie - Verktyg för effektiva planeringsprocesser. Stockholm County Council.
Hilding-Rydevik T, Bjarnadóttir H. 2007. Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation. Environ. Impact Assess Rev 2007;27:666–84.
Isaksson, K. and Storbjörk, S. 2012. Strategy making and power in environmental assessments. Lessons from the establishment of an out-of-town shopping centre in Västerås, Sweden. Environ. Impact Assessment Review, 34: 65–73.
Karlson, M., Mörtberg, U. and Balfors, B. 2014. Road ecology in environmental impact assessment. Environ. impact assessment review 48: 10-19.
Kågström, M. 2009. "Hur ska man hantera det här med hälsa? – en kunskapsöversikt om hälsans roll i konsekvensbeskrivning och transportplanering." Uppsala, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Report 7/2009.
Miljöaktuellt. 2014. Från klarhet till klarhet. Kommunrankning. 2014.06.25. rankning.
Ministry of Environment. 2013. The Swedish environmental objective system.
Mörtberg, U., Balfors, B. and Knol, W.C. 2006. Landscape ecological assessment: A tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment and planning. Journal of Environmental Management , 82,(4) 457-470.
Nykvist B and Nilsson M. 2009. Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainable development? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committee system. Environ. Impact Assess Rev 2009;29:15–24.
Owens, S., Rayner, T. and Bina O. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ. PlanningA 2004;36:1943–59.
Rydin Y. 2010. Governing for Sustainable Urban Development. Earthscan. 155p.
Statskontoret, 2013. Myndigheternas arbete inom miljömålssystemet. Delrapport. 2013:12 Stockholm.
Steinemann 2001. Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. In Environ. Impact Assessment Review, 21: 3–21.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency SEPA. 2012.Steg på vägen, Fördjupad utvärdering av miljömålen 2012. Rapport 6500.
Swedish Agency for Public Management. 2013. Myndigheternas arbete inom miljömålssystemet. Stadskontoret, 2013:12.
Therivel, R. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Earthscan.
Wärnbäck, A. 2007. Cumulative effects in Swedish impact assessment practice. Licentiate thesis, Dept. of Urban and Rural Development Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
1