SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

contextual rather than developing general rules of practices. The view of the importance ofunderstanding the social and historical context of reality and thought is also supported bySandercock (op.cit.) in her writings on post-modern planning.“Whatever the reasons for the shift in emphasis; a change within planning itself, or influence of a shiftin the change of thinking on a wider front, the importance of public participation and an effort inunderstanding the context and preconditions has achieved widespread acknowledgment and acceptancein planning circles.”3.2.1 Rationality, integration and contextWhen reviewing the planning theory literature, a handful of concepts recur in the planningdiscussions that were regarded as particularly relevant for the SEA discourse 6 and deserved aclose examination of their meaning and their relevance to planning. These are: Rationality,Integration and Context.The term ‘rationality’ appears through the examination of SEA and planning literatureand it becomes clear that term has different interpretations. The term in relation to decisionmaking has its origins in the field of policy analysis and strongly influenced by the early workof Herbert Simon (1945) whose research of operational administrative decisions stressedsynoptic analysis, i.e. a comprehensive or general approach of the whole and its components,regarding decision making as the means of identifying the best possible course of action.Simon identified certain factors as constraints of rationality, e.g. resources, information andtime that are available for making decisions which he terms ‘bounded rationality’. Whenapplied to planning, Hudson (1979) provides a definition of the traditional understanding ofrationalistic planning, i.e. as a planning process including the following four elements: goalsetting; identification of policy alternatives; evaluation of means against ends andimplementation of decisions. In her examination of SEA and decision making processesKørnøv (1999) applies the distinction between substantive rationality; i.e. rationality of theoutcomes of the process and procedural rationality; i.e. rationality of the process itself. Thisentails that when referring rationality in decision making it can apply either to the one or bothof these elements and a rational procedure does not automatically lead to a rational decision.Rydin (2003) argues that in the case of environmental planning three main sources ofrationality are used to legitimate policy and decisions, scientific, economic and communicative. Shealso highlights the differences in which those are applied between substantive and proceduralrationality. Understanding the rationality on which the national planning system is based is ofdirect relevance for understanding the procedural framework for the implementation of theSEA directive and will be addressed in the national overviews in the following proceedingchapters.Environmental integration in planning is one of the main objectives of the SEA directiveand of SEA application generally. The demand on integration of environmental aspects inplanning forms a part of a broader challenge to planning for greater environmentalconsideration, e.g. as a part of the demands on sustainable development which has becomeintegrated into much planning work in recent years. On the basis of the strategy work carriedout during the last decade in the field of planning at the international, European and nationallevel, it can be concluded that there are great expectations of the achievement of integrating6 Discourse means either ‘written or spoken communication or debate’ or ‘a formal discussion or debate’.Compact Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus and Wordpower Guide [2001], Oxford University Press, New York.36