Bina, O. (2003) Re-conceptualising Strategic Environmental Assessment: TheoreticalOverview and Case Study from Chile. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge,UK.Bina O. and Wellington T. (2005) ’Strategic Environmental Assessment: theory andresearch’. Conference position paper, Experiences and Perspectives in Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment, Prague, Czech Republic, Sept 27–30, 2005.Bjarnadóttir, H. (1999) in Lerstang, T. (ed) (1999) Nordisk Prosjekt om strategiskemiljøvurderinger (<strong>SEA</strong>) for planer og programmer. TemaNord, Copenhagen.Bjarnadóttir, H. (2001) ’EIA-Ruling agains Hydro-Electric Power Plant in Iceland’Journal of Nordregio, Vol 1:3.Bjarnadóttir, H. (2005) ’The introduction of the EU directive on StrategicEnvironmental Assessment into municipal planning: Revolutionary change or business asusual?’. Journal of Nordregio, Vol 5:2.Bjarnadóttir, H. (2006) ’<strong>SEA</strong>, Expectations, implementation and effectiveness:Snapshots from Sweden, Iceland and England’. In: Emmelin, L., (Ed.), Effective EnvironmentalAssessment Tools – Critical Reflections on Concepts and Practice. Blekinge Institute of Technology,MiSt Programme Report No 1, Karlskrona.Bjarnadóttir, H., Bradley, K. (2003) Ny kurs för Norden – planering och hållbar utveckling.Nordregio R 2003:2, Stockholm.Bjarnadóttir, H., Åkerskog, A (2003) ’Sustainable development and the role of <strong>SEA</strong> inmunicipal comprehensive planning in Sweden’. In: Hilding-Rydevik, T. (ed) Environmentalassessment of Plans and Programs. Nordregio R 2003:4, Stockholm.Bolan, R. (1996). ‘Planning and Institutional Design’. In Explorations in Planning Theory,Mandelbaum, S. et al (eds) (1996), New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban PolicyResearch.Bregha, F., Benedickson, J., Gauble, D., Shillington, T., Weick, E. (1990) The Integration ofEnvironmental Factors in Government Policy-Making. Canadian Environmental AssessmentResearch Council, Ottawa.Brown A. and Thérivel R. (2000) ‘Principles to Guide the Development of StrategicEnvironmental Assessment Methodology’. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 183 –190.Böhme, K. (2002) Nordic Echoes of European Spatial Planning: Discursive Integrationin Practice. Nordregio R. 2002:8, Stockholm.Caldwell, L. (2000) Preface. In Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Eds,Partidario, M., Clark, R). Lewis Publishing, London.Cars, G. (1992) Negotiations between private and public actors in urban development.Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology’.Cashmore, M. and Nieslony, C., (2005) The contribution of environmental assessmentto sustainable development: Towards a richer conceptual understanding. Conference paper atthe conference, Experiences and Perspectives in Strategic Environmental Assessment,Prague, Czech Republic, Sept 27–30, 2005.Chaker, A., El-Fadl, K., Chamas, L. and Hatjian, B. (2006) ’A review of strategicenvironmental assessment in 12 selected countries’. Environmental Impact Assessment Review26(1), pp. 15-56.120
Christoferson, I. (ed), (2001) Swedish Planning in Times of Diversity. Swedish Society forTown and Country Planning, Gävle.Curran, J., Wood, C and Hilton, M. (1998) ’Environmental appraisal of UK developmentplans: current practice and future directions’ Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25(3):411-433.Dalal-Clayton, B. and Sadler, B. (2005) Strategic environmental assessment : a sourcebook andreference guide to international experience. London, Earthscan.Eckerberg, K. (2001) ‘Sweden – Problems and prospects at the leading edge of LA21implementation’ i Lafferty, W., (red.) Sustainable communities in Europe. London: Earthscan.Eckerberg, K. and Brundin, P. (2000) Lokal Agenda 21 – En studie av 10 svenska kommuner.Stockholm: Kommentus Förlag, Miljödepartementet och Svenska Kommunförbundet.Emmelin, L. (1998a) ‘Evaluating Environmental Impact Assessment Systems – Part 1:Theoretical and Methodological Considerations’, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 15,129-148.Emmelin, L. (1998b) ‘Evaluating Environmental Impact Assessment Systems – Part 2:Professional Culture as an Aid in understanding Implementation’, Scandinavian Housing andPlanning Research, 15, 187-209.Emmelin, L. (2005): ’Att synas utan att verka – miljömålen som symbolpolitik?’. InLundgren, L. and Edman, J. (eds) (2005) Konflikter, samarbete, resultat. Perspektiv på svenskmiljöpolitik. Festskrift till Valfrid Paulsson. Brottby: Kassandra.Emmelin, L. [ed] (2006) Effective tools for environmental assessment – critical reflections on conceptsand practice. BTH research Report 2006:3.Emmelin, L. and Lerman, P. (2005) ’Problems of a Minimalist Implementation of <strong>SEA</strong> – TheCase of Sweden’. In: Schmidt, M, João, E and Albrecht, E (eds) (2005) Implementing StrategicEnvironmental Assessment. Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg.Emmelin, L. & Lerman, P. (2008) Environmental quality standards as a tool inenvironmental governance – the case of Sweden. In Schmidt, M. Glasson, J. Emmelin, L. &Helbron, H. [eds.] Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment. Springer Verlag.Emmelin, L., and Nilsson, J-E. (2006) ’Integration of Environment into RegionalGrowth Policy – the Lack of Environemtnal Considerations in implementation)’. In:Emmelin, L., (Ed.) (2006), Effective Environmental Assessment Tools – Critical Reflections on Conceptsand Practice. Blekinge Institute of Technology, MiSt Programme Report No 1, Karlskrona.Fischer, T. (2002) ’<strong>SEA</strong> Performance Criteria – The same Requirements for EveryAssessment?’ Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 4(1): 83-99.Fischer, T. (2003) ’Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times’.Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(2): 155- 170.Fischer, T. and Seaton, K. (2002) ‘Strategic environmental assessment – effectiveplanning instrument or lost concept?’ Planning Practice and Research, 17(1): 31-44.Flynn, A., Cowell, R., Marsden, T., Bishop, K. (1999) Editorial, Journal of EnvironmentalPolicy and Planning (1): 1 – 5.Flyvbjerg, B. and Richardson, T. (2002) ‘Planning and Foucault: In Search of the DarkSide of Planning Theory’. In Allmendinger, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M., eds. Plannign Futures:New Directions for Planning Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2002: 44 – 62.121
- Page 1 and 2:
sea in the context of land-useplann
- Page 4 and 5:
Blekinge Institute of Technology Li
- Page 7:
AcknowledgementsThis thesis has dev
- Page 10 and 11:
CHAPTER 5 INTRODUCTION OF SEA TO TH
- Page 13:
PART I - Introduction to the resear
- Page 16 and 17:
In this research the introduction o
- Page 18 and 19:
my studies and work in the area as
- Page 20 and 21:
FIGURE 1.1. BASIC TYPES OF CASE-STU
- Page 22 and 23:
• Process/Strategy Model; i.e. co
- Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 2The SEA Directive 2001/42/
- Page 27 and 28:
was extended again to also encompas
- Page 29 and 30:
The plans and programmes referred t
- Page 31 and 32:
effects), with less attention given
- Page 33 and 34:
widespread voluntary application of
- Page 35 and 36:
assessment instruments such as Risk
- Page 37 and 38:
3.1.4 The origins of SEA and its re
- Page 39 and 40:
3.2 Relevance of planning theory fo
- Page 41 and 42:
development of its central ideas an
- Page 43 and 44:
aspects of environmental considerat
- Page 45 and 46:
FIGURE 3.2. SEA TOOLS IN RELATION T
- Page 47:
planning theory in respect of envir
- Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 4 Introduction of SEA to th
- Page 53 and 54:
to the ordinance (2005:356), the fo
- Page 55 and 56:
planning area and the 0-alternative
- Page 57 and 58:
4.4 Preparation work for SEA applic
- Page 59 and 60:
Housing and Planning has argued tha
- Page 61 and 62:
Municipal comprehensive plans (öve
- Page 63 and 64:
4.6.2 On-going legal revisionsOn-go
- Page 65 and 66:
municipal comprehensive plans (25 p
- Page 67 and 68:
A pilot study on impact assessment
- Page 69:
despite the committee’s suggestio
- Page 72 and 73:
esources, and the community, includ
- Page 74 and 75:
There amongst it shall be decided w
- Page 76 and 77: Information made available in the r
- Page 78 and 79: Environmental assessment has been i
- Page 80 and 81: Level Authority Type ofplanningDesc
- Page 82 and 83: National initiatives for sustainabl
- Page 84 and 85: limited research that has been carr
- Page 86 and 87: equired by the SEA directive. Simil
- Page 88 and 89: - Setting the context and objective
- Page 90 and 91: Screening (the determination ifthe
- Page 92 and 93: assessment for the EU structural fu
- Page 94 and 95: Level Authority Type ofplanningDesc
- Page 96 and 97: experience of sustainability apprai
- Page 98 and 99: ensuring that environmental assessm
- Page 100 and 101: The second issue that raises some q
- Page 103 and 104: Chapter 7 A Comparative Description
- Page 105 and 106: system. This notion is reinforced b
- Page 107 and 108: Who decides?The authorities respons
- Page 109 and 110: plans at the municipal level (Impac
- Page 111 and 112: experience of assessing the plan’
- Page 113 and 114: preconditions for the introduction
- Page 115 and 116: that the directive has spurred the
- Page 117 and 118: the SEArequirements,i.e. whichplans
- Page 119 and 120: Chapter 8 FindingsThe aim of the re
- Page 121 and 122: importance of improved knowledge an
- Page 123 and 124: At the same time HB has had access
- Page 125: References and documentsAlfredsson,
- Page 129 and 130: Kørnøv, L. (1999) Integrating SEA
- Page 131 and 132: Sheate, W., Byron, H., Dagg, S. and
- Page 133 and 134: European Union’s publicationsEC (
- Page 135 and 136: English documents:Countryside Counc