SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

More documents

Recommendations

Info

universally accepted paradigm. Planning can therefore either be understood by its products, by its processes, orby its modes of thought” (Richardson 2000). This difficulty of establishing planners’ professionalidentity is addressed by Bengts (2005) who argues that planners have a professional dilemmadue to a lack of a particular body of theoretical knowledge that would distinguish them fromother professions or academic faculties. “The ‘theory of planning’ has, as such, emerged by fusingtogether bits and pieces of social and political science, economics, psychology, geography, art history, aesthetics,etc. It is, however, questionable to what degree ‘planning theory’ forms an autonomous body of thought, whichwould be distinct from all of these sources of inspiration from other academic faculties.” (Bengts 2005:3).The questioning of the existence of a distinct planning theory is partly shared byAllmendinger, who recognises that planning theory does not provide a blueprint for planning,and it is even debated whether planning theory can be regarded as an endogenous theory, asplanning theory is essentially based upon other disciplines (Allmendinger 2002). Allmendingermakes a fundamental distinction between theories of natural and social sciences, buthighlights the blurriness between the two categories for the field of planning, which involvesaspects of both natural science and social sciences. Theories he classifies as particularlyrelevant are exogenous theory, framing theory, social theory and social scientific philosophicalunderstandings (See table 3.1).Exogenous theory; refers to the various theories that planners draw upon that, while not beingspecifically concerned with planning per se, have a relevance for space, policy processes orgovernance. Such theories include, e.g. theories of democracy, implementation theories, regime andregulatory theory etc. Some of these theories have been developed into specific planning theories (i.e.indigenous planning theory, see below), while others provide a more general understanding of planningand space. Exogenous theories do not provide a holistic or general theoretical understanding of societybut focus instead on a particular element of society, e.g. the relationships between observedphenomena.Framing theory seeks to frame our understanding of planning. They are worldviews that shape attentionand bias towards issues and, crucially, other kinds of theories (from Allmendinger 2002). Planningdoctrine is an example of framing theory, which reflects the cultural and historic understanding ofplanning practice. Other kinds of framing approach include how we perceive the purpose and the goalsof planning itself.Social theory has developed from sociology and relates to a set of reflections upon and understandingsof society. The theories can be largely classified in two main groups; i.e. ‘top-down’ structuralistapproach and the ‘bottom-up’ interpretative understandings. In recent years the third group hasdeveloped, i.e. through the works of Habermas and Giddens, theorising the relationships between thetwo.Social scientific philosophical understandings that come under the broad categorising of, i.e. positivism,falsification, realism, idealism that have an implication for the understanding of the relationshipsbetween the planner and the structures within which she works. All social theories make a number ofassumptions regarding philosophical arguments.TABLE 3.1. THE THEORETICAL GROUNDS FOR PLANNING THEORY (BASED UPON ALLMENDINGER, 2002)As such, it can be argued that development of planning theory has not been about theadoption of a central paradigm, but rather about the engagement with theory. In this contextthe result is a debate between different perspectives that is gradually providing a set oftheoretical reference points for astute planners and others to work out their basis for action(Richardson 2005). Planning theory and planning doctrine typologies provide a ‘frame ofreference’ for understanding, much in the same way as discourse; they convey a commonunderstanding of a subject area, its methodologies, and the language and history of the34
development of its central ideas and modes of practice. However, Allmendinger argues thatthis can form a post-positivist typology for planning theory, e.g. an indigenous planning theorywhich draws on the other theories where space, time and institutional and governmentalcontexts play an important role. Extracting from exogenous planning theory that forces thatshape function, spaces and policy processes; framework theory to defining the understandinggo what planning is, or has the potential to be; social theory based upon the reflections withinthe planning system, as well as the way that indigenous planning theory deals with theintroduction of new issues and emphasis such as environmental integration or sustainabledevelopment.According to Allmendinger (2002) planning theory has witnessed an explosion oftheoretical thinking in the past 20 years. Different scholars have deployed the variety ofplanning thought and practices in different ways. However, certain groupings of planningparadigms recur in the planning theory literature. These include synoptic or rationalisticplanning theory, incremental planning, advocacy planning and communicative planningtheory. Furthermore, increasing attention is being paid to the ‘dark-side of planning theory’,i.e. focusing on the political forces at play in planning, including the application of power etc.,based on political analysis and particularly the theories of Foucault (e.g. Flyvberg andRichardson 2002). What is included and understood by these groupings or categories differsbetween different scholars. A variety of planning arenas also exist, e.g. spatial planning, urbanand regional environmental planning and land use planning etc, where the differentparadigms may co-exist on different administrative and governmental levels, even within thesame planning legislation. Regarding the classification of planning styles, Sager (2001)identifies the different modes with the different organisational features matching theirinherent values and norms. According to Sager, although communicative planning is the mostdiscussed style during the last decade, the other modes, although emerging in the 1950s and1960s have much common with recent planning approaches. In this way, synoptic planning isaffiliated with strategic planning, instrumentalism with the strategic choice approach andadvocacy planning with equity planning. Despite the variety, and in some ways conflictingviews of planning traditions and thought, there is however a general consensus that instrumentalrational planning as the ruling paradigm in planning theory has been abandoned.Rational planning as a theoretical basis is challenged by the other theoretical views and hasindeed, in part been replaced by other ‘post-positivist’ paradigms, and most notably, bycommunicative planning theory (Allmendinger 2002; Richardson 2000). This means that thebasis for planning has moved from the idea of planning as an instrumental process focusingon achieving ends and goals with the planners as experts steering the process, towards aplanning doctrine based upon communicative planning involving citizens that are given thetools to fully participate in the planning process. The reasons for the shift of emphasis inplanning theory is debated among different scholars; according to Allmendinger (2002) canthe shift from rationalistic to communicative planning be regarded as a part of a broader shiftin social sciences. According to Healey (1997), the change of emphasis is a result of a growthin awareness that the instrumental rationality of modernism embedded in procedural planningdid not help planners to make better predictions or better plans which led to examination ofthe positivist foundation of scientific though and methods and led to a development of a newapproach to planning. Those theorists that supported the idea of communicative planning(e.g. Healey, Innes, Forester) have drawn upon the work of the German philosopher andpolicy theorist Habermas, and in particular his ‘Theory of Communicative Action’ (Habermas1984). Forester argues that planning is, more than anything else an interactive, communicativeactivity (Sandercock 1998). Innes (1995) argues that planning as a communicative action turnsits back on the model of technocratic rationality and systematic analysis in the favour of amore qualitative and interpretive mode of inquiry, seeking to understand the unique and35
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: 3.2 Relevance of planning theory fo
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 and 126:
References and documentsAlfredsson,
Page 127 and 128:
Christoferson, I. (ed), (2001) Swed
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
show all

SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?