SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

3.2 Relevance of planning theory for SEASeveral SEA-scholars have identified the weak theoretical basis of SEA as problematic, i.e.that SEA publications have devoted insufficient attention to the development of theinstrument’s theoretical foundations (Bina 2003; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler 1998; Flynn et al1999; Lawrence 2000). Furthermore, the view has been expressed that SEA would benefitfrom drawing on theory from other disciplines such as planning as well as developments inthe field of sustainable development. According to Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005) thesefields and SEA rarely interact, and “…use different terminology for approaches and processes that havemuch in common and could benefit from sharing experiences and lessons.” According to Lawrence(2000) environmental assessment and planning theory have developed along parallel butseparate paths. Despite the similarities in principle and in the main steps of the SEA andplanning processes, only a handful of scholars have explicitly addressed planning theory intheir writings, and furthermore relatively little attention thus far has been given to planningtheory or to the policy and decision making processes (Kørnøv and Thissen 2000). Theimportance of understanding planning and planning theory is however now recognised by agrowing number scholars who have addressed the connection between planning theory andenvironmental assessment (e.g. Lawrence 2000; Richardson 2000, 2005; Hildén et al 2004).Many of the issues addressed in an SEA context in recent years, such as the best way ofinvolving the public in the decision-making process, and the question of how to handleinformation in a highly politicised context etc, have of course previously been discussed atsome length in the sphere of planning theory. Of key relevance here are Habermas’ theoriesof discourse ethics and communicative rationality, which provide the theoretical cornerstonesto the communicative planning movement. Moreover, many of these issues are of the essenceof the concept of SEA (Wiklund 2006).The following section provides some insight into recent developments in planningtheory with regard to its potential relevance for the study of SEA. There is however as yet noconsensus within the Environmental Assessment research community over how SEA shall beintroduced into the planning system, or in respect of what the desired effects of the directiveare. As an example of these differences in opinion, one line of argument is that SEA shouldbe flexibly adapted to the planning process, whereas others argue for a separate SEAprocedure independent from the planning process. Furthermore, the conceptions of the roleof planning often differ markedly, and that there are several different schools of planningrepresenting different ideas of ‘what planning is’, i.e. what is its purpose and what can beachieved through the application of the planning instrument. In the following sections someexamples are given of the linkages between issues found in planning theory discourseconsidered to be of relevance to the current SEA discussion.3.2.1 Recent discussions in planning theory of relevance for SEAPlanning theory has developed as an academic field alongside the establishment and evolutionof planning as a separate profession since the mid-20 th century. However, the extent to whichplanning theory exists as a separate theoretical sphere is argued among academics in theplanning field. Planning as an activity covers a wide field, both with regard to actions that areregulated by planning which occur at different administrative levels as well as different stagesof the planning process and the wide scope in types of plans being prepared. Furthermore,the legislation that sets the framework for the national planning system differs betweencountries. Planning as a profession is based upon other professional disciplines such asarchitecture, engineering and geography and effective in a social and political sphere, the viewof the profession and its function differs between institutional and organisational contexts.According to Richardson (2000) major efforts have been made to define what planning is,through the development of paradigms of planning thought. “However, we have yet to see a33