SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

aspects of environmental consideration and sustainability principles into planning practice.Integration and sustainable development are reflected in international agreements, Europeanstrategy documents, national sustainability strategies, planning documents at regional level, aswell in planning documents and several sustainability initiatives (e.g. co-operation betweenmunicipalities or groups at the local level in target or pilot projects, Agenda 21 work etc).However, this does not necessarily implicate that there is a common understanding of what ismeant by integration or how it is translated into action. The meaning of integration can differbetween the different levels of planning, as well as the different sectors. According toAsplund (2001) integration means to unite something entirely, and that the integration ofsomething is achieved through a simultaneous and mutual adaptation on equal terms of thedifferent parts that are intended to be united. A different understanding of the term isprovided in Bolan (1996):“Assimilating new to old is at the core of integration. This is accomplished through the linguisticimposition of logic onto the assimilation process creating an edifice of recursive rationalization and,hence legitimation. In short, the vehicle of integration is legitimation.”In the case of the integration of environmental considerations to spatial planning, theapproach of the different aspects on equal terms is usually not the case. Experiences fromintegration of environmental issues in physical planning in local authorities in Sweden,(Asplund and Hilding-Rydevik eds 2001, Håkansson, 2005) illustrate that environmentalaspects are most often introduced into an existing rationality of understanding and practice ofthe existing planning processes that continue dominating the process. The ambiguity, or the‘elastic quality’ of what is meant by environmental integration can however also be regardedas a factor that has contributed to the way it has penetrated in planning and political rhetoric,i.e. it can be understood and suited for different purposes.“The new environmentalism is now a wide-ranging popular moment, with significant political leveragein western societies. It has changed policy agendas and regulatory practices, altered business strategiesand affected everyday behaviour, particularly among middle-income groups. It is recasting the policiesand practices of spatial planning, reviving traditional meanings of ‘environment’ and bringing in newconceptions, new stakeholders and new claims for policy attention. It is also fostering new practices –of audit, impact appraisal and negotiation over mitigation measures, and of consultation andparticipation. This ‘transformative wave’ illustrates well the power of ideas and arguments to mobiliseforces to change ways of thinking and ways of acting.” (Healey 1997:193).Meanwhile many terms that were intended to lead to change in practice in the wayenvironmental aspects were dealt with in planning, can be indicted of having become‘watered-down’ and focusing on introducing general concepts that can be easily accepted anddo not provide an obstacle to leading social economic development towards long terminterests. Owens compares the new environmental debate to a transformatory Trojan horse’that permeates planning debate and practice (Owens 1994) and that the new conceptions maycome to be reinterpreted in the languages of the old. On the basis of this it could beconcluded that to have an impact on planning processes and the outcomes of these,environmental considerations need to be assimilated to existing practices and their underlyingrationality.The importance of ‘Context’ has been highlighted in the field of planning research, oftenin connection with institutional theory. In 1970, Faludi addressed the role of context inplanning where his explanatory categories were, the level and pace of development,institutional structure, political system and administrative structure, norms and values,37