This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]On: 23 January 2012, At: 08:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Theory & PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20

Enhancing Environmental AppraisalEffectiveness: Towards an Understanding ofInternal Context Conditions in OrganisationalLearningPaola Gazzola a , Urmila Jha-Thakur b , Sue Kidd b , Deborah Peel c &Thomas Fischer ba School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne, UKb Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKc Built Environment Research Institute, University of Ulster, JordanstownCampus, Newtownabbey, County Antrim, UK

Available online: 11 Aug 2011

To cite this article: Paola Gazzola, Urmila Jha-Thakur, Sue Kidd, Deborah Peel & Thomas Fischer (2011):Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness: Towards an Understanding of Internal Context Conditions inOrganisational Learning, Planning Theory & Practice, 12:2, 183-204

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.581008

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Enhancing Environmental AppraisalEffectiveness: Towards anUnderstanding of Internal ContextConditions in Organisational LearningPAOLA GAZZOLA1, URMILA JHA-THAKUR2, SUE KIDD2,DEBORAH PEEL3 & THOMAS FISCHER2

1School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 2Departmentof Civic Design, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK and 3Built Environment Research Institute, University ofUlster, Jordanstown Campus, Newtownabbey, County Antrim, UK

ABSTRACT Part of a wider comparative European research project on developing the learningpotential of appraisal in spatial planning in the UK, Germany and Italy, this paper aims to explorewhether context conditions can facilitate internal organisational reforms and changes, triggerappraisal effectiveness, and facilitate organisational learning. The discussion comprises a synthesisof the environmental appraisal and organisational learning literatures and illustrates the relevanceand applicability of this body of work for wider planning practice through an examination of theComune of Ravenna, Italy. The insights from the case study suggest that sensitivity to internalcontext conditions is critical to understanding the capacity for organisations to learn, andillustrates how the potential for learning might exist if an organisation is open to nurturing it.

Keywords: Organisational learning; context; environmental appraisal; Comune of Ravenna; internal conditions

Introduction

The role of appraisal frameworks in ensuring that environmental, social and economicconcerns are taken into account in policy making for sustainability is increasingly beingacknowledged. As a consequence, normative and procedural requirements for environmen-tal appraisal in particular, such as strategic environmental assessment (SEA), have beenintroduced into the legal and policy frameworks ofmany international organisations (see forexample CEC, 2001; IUCN, 1980; OECD, 2006; UN, 2007; WCED, 1987; World Bank, 1987).Scholars have also highlighted the expansionof environmental appraisal systemsworldwide(Dalal-Clayton&Sadler, 2005;Lee&George, 2000;Wood,2003). Inparallel, goodpractice casestudies, methodological frameworks, principles, criteria, and key elements have beendeveloped to support practitioners in their attempt to achieve effectiveness in environmentalappraisal, and to help planners shape policies, plans, and programmes (Fischer & Gazzola,2006). In policy terms, there is a growing belief that appraisal frameworks can support policymakers in the development of environmentally sustainable outcomes (Fischer, 2002;Partidario & Clark, 2000; Sadler, 1996; Therivel et al., 1992).

Correspondence Address: Paola Gazzola, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, ClaremontTower, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. Email: Paola.Gazzola@ncl.ac.uk

Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 12, No. 2, 183–204, June 2011

1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/11/020183-22 q 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2011.581008

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Notwithstanding the perceived benefits of environmental appraisal, and theirwidespread international promotion (Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2005; Dusik et al., 2003;Therivel & Brown, 1999; Wood, 2003), the “real” effectiveness of appraisal frameworksremains contested. This perception may be a consequence of the untested nature ofthese frameworks (Nitz & Brown, 2001; Runhaar & Driessen, 2007; Sadler, 1996;Thissen, 2000), although expanding practical experience of environmental appraisalhas encouraged scholars to continue to explore its effectiveness. This is done toestablish whether such frameworks add value to policy-making processes, and toidentify in what ways appraisal methodologies support decision makers and planners(Barker & Wood, 1999; Fischer & Gazzola, 2006; Hilden et al., 2004; Petts, 1999; Retief,2007). These studies of effectiveness highlight an extensive number of areas for furtherinvestigation. The research in this paper concentrates on the degree to which anappraisal exercise can realise defined goals (Etzioni, 1964; Hall, 1980) and the extent towhich it can contribute to the search for more sustainable patterns of development(Campbell, 2000). In particular, it focuses on contributing to debates about learningwhich are currently receiving particular academic attention, not least in the pages ofPlanning Theory and Practice. This reflects a widespread recognition that planning is, inessence, a learning activity and that the nature of the learning that takes place is likelyto be an important determinant of the form of planning outputs and appraisals of theireffectiveness.

Certain studies have indicated that environmental appraisal tools are having a relativelyweak influence on decisionmaking (Bartlett &Kurian, 1999; Cashmore et al., 2004; Jay et al.,2007; Jensen & Richardson, 2004). Indeed, Owens et al. (2004) argued that appraisaltools have not lived up to the expectations defined by legal and policy frameworks.Furthermore, they note that appraisal tools have failed to integrate social, economic, andenvironmental concerns into policymaking and to provide ameans for bridging knowledgebetween different sectors and departments, and between planning and appraisal processes.

In reviewing the literature on effectiveness, it is evident that increasing attention hasbeen drawn to the need for a better understanding of the external context in whichappraisal is applied and implemented (Kørnøv & Thissen, 2000; Nitz & Brown, 2001;Fischer, 2005; Gazzola, 2008). Context is held to be all important, as it is deemed critical tobe sensitive to the cultural circumstances that frame and legitimise learning in policy anddecision making (Bennett & Howlett, 1992; Cardoso, 2005; Kaza, 2006). This line ofthinking resonates with arguments relating to collaborative planning (Healey, 1997), andwith the work of authors who stress the importance of providing adequate deliberativespaces to debate issues, options, actions, results, and solutions, whilst attending to thecontextual dynamics of power and influence (Forester, 2000). In practice, this means beingalert to the contextual realities of policy-making systems (e.g. different legal andadministrative approaches and styles); the attitudes and traditions within which planningis practised and decision making occurs; and the way in which the environment is takeninto account, historically and culturally (Berkhout et al., 2003; Gazzola, 2008).

The contention that environmental appraisal and policy-making systems are uniqueand embedded in context-specific sets of legal, administrative, and political circumstances(Jones et al., 2005) mirrors established thinking in spatial planning (Cardoso, 2005; Sykes,2008; Vigar et al., 2000). Here, the case is made for sensitivity to place and institutions, asauthors find new ways to operationalise planning in diverse locales, and to understandthe social relations that structure institutions. It follows that the depth of understanding ofcontext and how context is interpreted are critical. Yet, in policy-making systemscontextual characteristics and qualities may be more or less visible.

184 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

When evaluating the potential effectiveness of appraisal within a specific policy-makingcontext, Wood (2003) indicated that the more overtly committed an institution is to theconsideration and incorporation of environmental concerns into policy making, the moreinfluence appraisal frameworks are likely to have over decision making within thatsystem (see also Gezelius & Refsgaard, 2007). Indeed, Caldwell (1989) argued thatenvironmental appraisal is most effective where environmental values are implicit andconsensual in the national culture and explicit in public law and policy. Importantly, then,it is held that a solid understanding of the roles, strategies, conventions, forms, andstructures of the organisation in which an environmental appraisal is conducted, maycontribute to the achievement of appraisal effectiveness and support the development ofenvironmentally sustainable outcomes (Bartlett & Kurian, 1999; Nykvist & Nilsson, 2009;Owens et al., 2004). Moreover, in addition to being alert to these institutional andorganisational features, recent evidence suggests that a sound awareness of the rules,routines, priorities, attitudes, traditions, and values of a specific societal and culturalframework and policy-making system is fundamental to understanding and promotingthe effectiveness of the overall policy-making process, since these qualities define, guide,and formalise the development of environmental appraisal practice (Gazzola, 2008;Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadottir, 2007). Equally, much consideration has been given to theorganisational setting in which planning takes place and how this moulds the interactionsbetween different actors and influences learning outcomes. This has stimulated reflectionon broader patterns of governance and the role of spatial planning in fostering, forexample, civic engagement, democratic debate, and social learning (Booher, 2008; Healey,2008; Torfing & Sorensen, 2008), as well as consideration of matters of a more internalnature related to the cultural norms and practices of planning organisations themselvesand particularly how these affect organisational and individual learning (e.g. Carmona &Seih, 2005; Rydin, 2007). It follows that learning should not be framed simply againstexternal and institutional features (the legal, administrative, and political elements) butalso against the associated internal conditions that shape policy thinking and decisionmaking. This research study was specifically devised to identify and examine whetherappraisal was enhanced by a deeper understanding of the external and internal influencingopportunities for dialogue, communication, and learning within an organisation.

Purpose of the Research

Prompted byOwen et al.’s (2004) call for further empirical research to better understand howdeliberative models of learning through appraisal may have the potential to enhanceenvironmental understanding and foster attitudinal and behavioural change, the researchfocused on two aspects of learning. First, the pilot study sought to explore the extent towhichenvironmental appraisal procedures are able to enhance environmental understanding inpolicy making by bridging different kinds of knowledge (Radaelli, 1995), working acrossknowledge boundaries (Rydin et al., 2007), and fostering different types and levels oflearning.1 Second, the study sought to explore theways inwhich the internal cultural contextof learning influences how appraisal tools are applied and with what effects. The studydeveloped a conceptual framework for learning through a review of organisational andexperiential learning literatures in order to establish the external and internal dimensions ofthe subject. These are briefly introduced below and then discussed in more detail in thesubsequent sections. This framework is then used to discuss a detailed study of theoperationalisation of learning through appraisal in the Comune of Ravenna, Italy.

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Informed in part by the notion of government as a learning system, the work of Kolb(1984) and Argyris & Schon (1974, 1978) highlighted the formal and informal elements,intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, that can influence organisational learning. Importantly,the interest in theories of learning continues to be influential in, for instance,environmental appraisal (Owens et al., 2004; Sinclair et al., 2008), transport planning(Vigar, 2006), sustainable construction (Rydin et al., 2007), and spatial planning practices(Innes, 1995). A common feature of such interests is the suggestion that the learningdimension of environmental appraisal and planning merits conscious nurturing, and thenotion that adjustments to the context within which appraisal and planning areundertaken to take account of related theories could be helpful (e.g. Vigar, 2006; Breda-Vazquez et al., 2010). This both invites the cross-fertilisation of appraisal and planningliteratures (something that is currently acknowledged to be relatively limited (Lawrence,2000)) and reflects the inter-professional context of environmental decision making in amanner that encourages integration between the two.

Notwithstanding a widespread enthusiasm for learning as both a normative goal andprocess in public policy, theories of learning are complex, contested, and elusive. Mindfulof the extensive literature in relation to learning, the theoretical model and researchfindings reported here are limited to exploring whether a deeper appreciation of anorganisation’s external and internal context can help appraisal tools to be more effective inintegrating environmental concerns into policy-making knowledge and processes. Suchorganisational learning can be facilitated by:

1. bridging knowledge between different sectors and departments of an organisation; and2. creating opportunities for dialogue, communication and learning.

In proposing a theoretical framework for understanding how an organisation’scontextual and cultural conditions can support the effectiveness of appraisal tools andenhance organisational learning, and then illustrating this through a case-study, the paperseeks to provide a generic model which can inform policy making and enhance thepotential for trans-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder learning and communication aboutthe ways in which appraisal is applied to environmental planning contexts.

Understanding “Context” in Policy Making and Appraisal

Authors have highlighted different aspects of the relationship between context andenvironmental appraisal. For example, Kørnøv & Thissen (2000) and Nitz & Brown (2001)emphasise the complexity of different decision-making contexts and the significance ofpolitical factors. Gazzola (2008) draws attention to the ways in which different planningcultures affect the context in which environmental appraisals are applied. Fischer (2002),Hilden et al. (2004), Jones et al. (2005) and Fischer & Gazzola (2006) stress the significanceof legal and administrative matters, which have important procedural and methodologicalimplications for environmental appraisal. Risse et al. (2003) and Hilden et al. (2004) arguethat, in order to achieve effectiveness, environmental appraisal should be tailored andadapted to specificpolicy-making contexts. Todate, however,whendiscussing “context”, theenvironmental appraisal literature has mainly emphasised the wider governance context inwhich organisations develop and implement environmental appraisals, rather than attendto the specific organisational context in which appraisal tools are developed, and in whichpolicies, plans, and programmes are formulated and decisions made. This emphasis onexternal context potentially obscures and underplays the significance of internalorganisational dynamics as an important consideration in appraisal and a key determinant

186 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

of learning outcomes. Yet there is an established and rich body of theory on organisationallearning (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Crossan & Guatto, 1996; Easterby-Smith, 1997; Levitt &March, 1988; Pedler et al., 1989; Senge, 1990; Shrivastava, 1983), which appears to offerimportant insights for those undertaking a more systematic appreciation of this area withinenvironmental planning. This section selects specific ideas from that literature in order toshed light on learning for appraisal.

Organisations are complex and highly differentiated, and have different capacities forlearning. Argyris (1960) described a “learning organisation” as a plurality of parts thatmaintain themselves through their interrelatedness and achieve specific objectives, whilealso adapting to the external environment. More recently, Simon (1997) suggested that anorganisation may be regarded as a system of communicational entities that have thepotential to achieve consensus and learning through cooperative behaviours and thecoordination of views. Whilst this emphasises the need for reflexivity within organisations(Berkhout et al., 2003), it is also clear that such a perspective requires that a number of pre-requisites for shared learning are in place. This is particularly pertinent to environmentalplanning contexts where different interests and organisations are involved.

In broad terms, organisations can be considered as social systems in which groups ofpeople (departments or parts) work towards shared goals. These systems provideenvironments (contexts) in which learning takes place (Di Bella et al., 1996). Thedevelopment of implicit or explicit organisational conventions related to situations, rules,and behaviours may be more or less conducive to learning in general, and to learningabout environmental and sustainability matters in particular (Koumakhov, 2009). Further,research has highlighted that different types of organisations have different characteristicsand learning styles (Shrivastava, 1983) and that individuals within an organisation willexhibit different learning preferences (Kolb, 1984). It therefore seems that a deeperappreciation of an organisation’s context may enable environmental appraisal to be moreeffective in delivering learning related to the environment and sustainability. A review of theorganisational learning literature revealed a number of theories that could inform complexdecision- and policy-making contexts, providing insights on external and internalorganisational dimensions, and enhancing organisational learning through environmentalappraisal. Their usefulness was then examined through a case-study.

From a management perspective, Di Bella et al.’s (1996) seven “orientations” describe thecontextual factors and processeswhichmay facilitate or impede learning, and thus define anorganisation’s learning capability. These orientations are expressed in bipolar continuums.Summarised in Box 1, they can be usefully deployed in policy-making organisations andappraisal contexts to alert actors to the knowledge sources, modes of operation, and focus ofactivity that, together, may affect the nature and potential of the learning environment.

Each of these dimensions may be illustrated via application to an appraisal context. Theorientation “knowledge source” could represent the extent to which an organisation preferstodoanenvironmental appraisal in-house, rather thanout-sourcing toconsultants. “Product-process focus” could represent the extent to which an organisation conducts an appraisalusing technical or deliberative methodologies. The “documentation mode” could reflect anorganisation’s institutional memory in terms of the skills and knowledge stored within itspersonnel, and theoutputs anddocumentationsproduced frompolicy-makingandappraisalexercises. Formal or informal communication, participation, and working methods used inan organisation, particularly between sectors, units, or departments involved in policymaking and appraisal processes, couldbe associatedwith the “disseminationmode”. Finally,whilst appraisal follow-up, monitoring procedures, and opportunities for critical reflectioncould describe the “value-chain focus” orientation, the “skill development focus” could be

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

represented by the number of people and teams an organisation employs in appraisal orpolicy-making exercises, and how these people and teams collaborate together and aresupported in these activities through mentoring and training. Based on an assessment of itsperformance, an organisationmay then choose to change an orientation pole to enhance andfacilitate learning (Di Bella et al., 1996).

Writing in a business management context, Muller and Siebenhuner identify externaland internal contextual conditions influencing the effectiveness of organisations infacilitating sustainability-orientated organisational learning. Whilst the first refer to“market pressures, customers’ demands, media coverage and political regulations thatrequire responses from an organisation”, the latter include elements representing cultural,structural, and behavioural conditions (2007, p. 235; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Interpreting thesewithin an environmental appraisal situation, external conditions can be taken to mean anorganisation’s wider policy-making context, whilst internal conditions refer to theintrinsic interests (attitudes and behaviours) of a policy-making and appraisalorganisation, and its concomitant tendency to comply with conditions that are externallydetermined, such as environmental and planning regulations and requirements,environmental impacts, or stakeholder interests.

Internal Context Conditions in Policy Making and Appraisal Organisations

In an overview of appraisal theory, focused particularly on Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA), Bartlett and Kurian (1999) suggested that an organisation’s internalconditions are critical influences on policy processes. Within the context of theorganisational politics model of policy making, they go on to suggest that “internalvalues, cultures, structures, processes and even the personnel” working in an organisationcan influence the effectiveness of policy making (pp. 421-422). This assertion is based on

Box 1. Orientations defining an organisation’s context in terms of learning capability.6

1. Knowledge source, i.e. the extent to which an organisation prefers to develop newknowledge internally versus the extent to which it is more likely to seekinspiration in ideas developed by external sources

2. Product-process focus, i.e. the preference for accumulation of knowledge relatedto product and services versus a preference to invest in knowledge about basicprocesses that underlie or support various products

3. Documentation mode, i.e. variations in what constitutes knowledge and therepositories of knowledge

4. Dissemination mode, i.e. the difference between establishing an atmosphere inwhich learning evolves and one in which amore structured, controlled approach istaken to induce learning

5. Learning focus, i.e. whether learning is concentrated on methods and tools toimprove what is already being done versus testing the assumptions underlyingwhat is being done7

6. Value-chain focus, i.e. which core competencies and learning investments (i.e. allpersonnel and money allocations to develop knowledge and skill over time) arevalued and supported

7. Skill development focus, i.e. the orientation towards individual versus collectivelearning

Source: Di Bella et al. (1996, pp. 372–375).

188 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

the assumption that the degree of an organisation’s internal change (and hence the extentof organisational learning) is directly related to the way in which appraisal tools influencepolicies. However, in practice, Bartlett and Kurian (1999, p. 421) warn that the extent ofinternal change and organisational learning that can occur is often “minimised byextensive use of contract consultants” in undertaking appraisal exercises. Whenaddressing the potential constraints impeding the building of adaptive capacity toclimate change within organisations, for example, Pelling et al. (2008) drew attention to therelatively more hidden, internal, and implicit patterns of behaviour of organisations (seealso Nykvist & Nilsson, 2009). Drawing on Stacey (1996), Pelling et al. (2008) suggestedthat there are formal and informal aspects to organisations living in a shadow system.Whilst the formal aspects include formulated and visible elements, “subject to rationalcontrol and management through public institutional frameworks”, e.g. legislation orguidelines, informal aspects include “intangibles such as cultural norms and values”,which give shape to “customary behaviour” (Pelling et al., 2008, p. 869; see also Simon,1997). Understanding how formal and informal aspects interact could provide importantreflexive key resources for policy making as well as opening up new opportunities forinnovation and learning (Pelling &High, 2005). Moreover, following this line of reasoning,it has been suggested that internal changes within organisations could be conceptualisedas a continuous shift from government to governance (Evans et al., 2006; see also Bartlett &Kurian, 1999, based on Taylor, 1984). Significantly, then, there is potential for the internaland informal conditions and orientations of an organisation to be negotiated, reformedand changed to be more supportive of sustainability. This requires sensitivity to internalcultural conditions and a willingness and capacity for cultural change. Three dimensionsare identified as important.

Internal Cultural Conditions

Organisations possess very different individual cultures formed by particular values,views, norms, and beliefs. Following Argyris (1960), these dimensions are based onexperiences and past traditions, and developed by those involved in an organisation’sactivities via debate, negotiation, and mutual interaction in an inter-dependent manner.Nevertheless, the distribution of power and authority are critical characteristicscontributing to the dominance of a set of views within an organisation. For Simon(1997), the hierarchical internal structure of many organisations means that intellectualresponsibility for decisions, and the values, norms, and beliefs that prevail, often liewith those who hold the highest positions. In a spatial planning context this couldinclude, for example, senior planning or other public sector officers, politicians whomay have very strong views on the nature of planning processes, and the role ofenvironmental appraisal within both planning and in relation to environmental andsustainability.

In any spatial planning situation it is unlikely that environmental- and sustainability-driven values will be shared equally across the organisation (Kørnøv & Thissen, 2000;Fischer & Gazzola, 2006). As indicated earlier, appraisal tools, such as SEA, have gainedlegislative support as advocacy mechanisms designed to promote environmentalconsideration in policy making. It is suggested they can foster learning not only inrelation to the plan which is the immediate focus of attention, but also over time, byproviding recurring opportunities to reflect and challenge established attitudes,perceptions and routines in policy-making cultures (Fischer, 2007). However, the inherentpotential of the tool in advocacy termsmay not be sufficient to effect change in the cultures

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

and practices of those involved in policy making and appraisal exercises and/or theassociated decision making. Muller & Siebenhuner (2007) suggest that for moretransformational learning to occur, there must be individuals working in an organisationwho are sustainability advocates, promoting a change of values and shared beliefs withinan organisation, and mobilising cultural change towards more sustainability-orientatedviews (March & Olsen, 1989). Arguably though, where relatively weak environmentalvalues, views, norms, and beliefs are held by those with power and influence and there islittle corporate commitment to more sustainable patterns of development, this is likely tolimit the effectiveness of environmental appraisal tools and outcomes. The implicationsare that cultural beliefs are dynamic, internalised, and communicated by individuals andhave the potential to shape an organisation’s ethos and be conducive to learning moregenerally.

Internal Structural Conditions

In addition to cultural conditions, the internal structure of an organisation can alsoinfluence the effectiveness of environmental appraisal in promoting more sustainablepatterns of decision making. First, an organisation’s set-up can determine the degree ofcoordination and collaboration between departments and different disciplinaryperspectives in terms of the distribution of functions, power and responsibility. Wherestructures are strongly disciplinary, this may hamper SEA efforts to encourage greaterconsideration of environmental matters in decision making beyond the immediate focusof the environmental appraisal exercise, and militate against more ambitious learningoutcomes. The reverse is, of course, equally true (Jordan, 2002; Nykvist & Nilsson, 2009).Second, integration and coordination are not simply dependent upon organisationalstructure: established processes and procedures can also be significant, and can impacton the learning that may be gained from appraisal tools (Gazzola, 2008; see Bartlett &Kurian, 1999). Third, the structure of an organisation’s information systems and itsapproach to information exchange is likely to affect the way in which environmentaland sustainability-related understanding is derived through environmental appraisalexercises and then accumulated, processed, and diffused (Muller & Siebenhuner, 2007).Finally, structural conditions can determine an organisation’s willingness to collaboratewith, and engage in, dialogues and debates with external stakeholders, reflecting itsopenness to new thinking and ideas (Simon, 1997; Molnar & Mulvihill, 2003).Importantly, internal structural conditions can therefore not only affect the learningcapability and capacity of an organisation, but can affect the nature of its outreach andexternal engagement, and therefore also the wider social learning that may flow fromenvironmental appraisal exercises.

Internal Behavioural Conditions

Appraisal and policy-making processes are guided and influenced by the routines, values,and traditions of an organisation. According to Nykvist and Nilsson (2009), the ways inwhich methods, approaches and tools are traditionally used in organisations imposelimitations to appraisal effectiveness. Paradoxically, appraisal methodologies rely onindividuals questioning the traditions embedded in an organisation’s culture. Yet,organisational behaviour is often routinised, based on past experiences. Organisationalbehaviour is also influenced by future aspirations, as organisations are orientated bytargets (Levitt & March, 1988) and influenced by social representations of reality (Simon,1997; Koumakhov, 2009). Following Argyris and Schon (1974), if the potential for learning

190 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

is to be enhanced and the effectiveness of appraisal tools improved, it follows thatorganisations should be open-minded and flexible, encourage reflective dialogue, andallow for prevailing routines, values, and traditions to be changed where necessary.However, openness to learning and challenge is not enough on its own to facilitatelearning. Organisations must also recognise that the day-to-day demands on individualsmay inhibit learning and therefore provide space for reflection, and opportunities andincentives for experimentation and innovation (Small & Irvine, 2006). Whilst appraisalmethodologies implicitly invite these qualities and activities, it is clear that organisationalreflexivity towards established contextual factors and processes, and the internal cultural,structural, and behavioural features which may facilitate or impede learning, are allimportant (see Schon, 1983).

The three dimensions are summarised below (Box 2). These are then examined througha case study in order to explore how such conditions can facilitate internal organisationalreform and change, and encourage a shift towards more sustainable processes andoutcomes. This means that it is possible to identify which conditions are necessary forenhancing the effectiveness of appraisal tools and facilitating organisational learningprocesses.

Methodology

This study forms part of a wider comparative European research project aimed atdeveloping the learning potential of appraisal in spatial planning. Three pilot case-studieswere selected as examples of good appraisal and planning practice within their respectivecountries (Jha-Thakur et al., 2009) in the UK (Southampton City Council), Germany(Brunswick City), and Italy (Comune of Ravenna). Each case-study involved a detailedreview of the organisation’s policy literature, appraisal documents, and reports; alongsidesemi-structured interviews with personnel directly involved in specific spatial planningand appraisal exercises. The objective was to explore aspects of learning orientations andinternal conditions. Following some brief contextual remarks relating to the externalstructural dimensions of the Comune of Ravenna, this paper then focuses on the internalcultural, structural, and behavioural context conditions of the Italian case-study, drawingon secondary and interview data.

The Comune of Ravenna

The case study of the Comune of Ravenna is set within the context of the European SEADirective. Formally introduced in the European Union in 2001 and brought into effect on21 July 2004, the SEADirective requires Member States to subject a wide spectrum of plansand programmes to an environmental appraisal (CEC, 2001). The SEA Directive’srequirements were transposed into the Emilia Romagna region’s legal framework throughthe region’s planning law (no. 20/2000) and incorporated into the so-called VALSAT, i.e. apre-SEA Directive environmental appraisal tool (Gazzola & Caramaschi, 2005). This isillustrative of the Comune’s early engagement with this appraisal process and is notrepresentative of practice across Italy.

Italy is constituted of 20 regions, subdivided into 110 provinces and 8102municipalities (the so-called Comuni). These four government tiers (national, regional,provincial, and local) correspond to matching decision-making levels. Ravenna issituated in the Emilia Romagna region and is acknowledged as one of the leading andinnovative regions of Italy, for its “good” planning practices and for the way in whichenvironmental and sustainability issues are taken into account in policy making

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

(Gazzola & Caramaschi, 2005). There are nine provinces in the Emilia Romagna region,

one of which is the Province of Ravenna. The city and Comune of Ravenna has a

population of 147,654 inhabitants. At 652.89 km2, it is the second largest comune in Italy,

with over 60 wards. Once serving as the seat of the Western Roman Empire and later the

Ostrogothic Kingdom, the city is today the capital of the Province of Ravenna.

Box 2. Internal context conditions and learning in environmental appraisal.

Culturalconditions

† Dominant values, views, norms andbeliefs related to policy making andappraisal practice

† Dedication to the environment andsustainability, at an organisational level(e.g. corporate social responsibility) andindividual level

† Openness to future aspirations, basedon the relationship between past experi-ences and outcomes and anticipations ofthe future

† Learning focus

Structuralconditions

† Organisational set-up, in terms offunctions, structure, power andresponsibilities

† Processes and procedures, e.g. theprocesses and procedures necessary tosupport the development of environ-mentally sustainable policies, plans andprogrammes

† Information systems, including the for-mal diffusion and storage of informationand knowledge related to environmentalappraisal

† Stakeholder dialogue and dissemination,provision of structured and/or unstruc-tured opportunities for participation

† Internal and external cooperation,between an organisation and externalindividuals and organisations

Behaviouralconditions

† Encouragement of individual reflectionand reflective dialogue

† Ability to change and experiment, i.e.willingness to acknowledge thedemands of individuals, openness tonew knowledge and innovation

Based on: Fiol & Lyles (1985), Levitt & March (1988), Di Bella et al. (1996, pp. 372–375),Muller & Siebenhuner (2007, p. 239).

Relationship to:

Who is involved inenvironmentalappraisal?

How is environmentalappraisal undertaken?

With what effect?Individual learningOrganisational learning

192 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Cultural Conditions

The Comune of Ravenna has a unique planning tradition in Italy. It is held to be a leader inspatial planning due to its consolidated and innovative planning tradition and itsenvironmental consciousness (Nigro, 2007; Stringa, 2007). As early as 1973, ahead of manyother Italian policy-making organisations, the Comune made a cultural planning shift,from policies aimed at development and resource consumption to policies seeking topreserve, limit, and control resource use. According to Poggioli, (2007), planning inRavenna is about improving and guaranteeing a better equilibrium between developmentand the environment. What makes Ravenna a particularly unique case are the Comune’sefforts to enhance community trust in its planning instruments, and thus in itsgovernance. Moreover, since 1973, and in the light of changing territorial, social, andeconomic conditions, the Comune of Ravenna has provided planning continuity byupdating its planning instruments every ten years, thereby providing a secure basis for theterritory’s future development, government, and governance. Importantly, this responsiveand flexible approach also emphasises early community involvement.

That the Comune of Ravenna is dedicated to the achievement of environmental andsustainable outcomes is evident in its active engagement with SEA. It was the first Comunein the Emilia Romagna region to comply with law 20/2000, which defines planningobjectives, contents, and innovative instruments. Furthermore, law 20/2000 acknowl-edges and distinguishes baseline information from forecast information, and the need tocollect the former to develop the latter. Within this context, law 20 aims to develop aplanning system able to promote coherence between the characteristics and status of theterritory and the plan’s predictions; and to achieve a balanced relationship betweendevelopment and protection, based on consensus. Law 20 introduced strategic planningand the Comune of Ravenna was the first provincial capital to develop a strategic plan inthe form of a Piano Strutturale Comunale, PSC.2 Under the VALSAT procedure, law 20introduced environmental appraisal and complied with the SEA Directive (theSEA/VALSAT). Through the SEA/VALSAT, provincial and local governments wereprovided with an instrument with which the sustainability of environmental andterritorial planning choices could be assessed and defined. As will be discussed, theComune of Ravenna’s commitment to securing environmental sustainability and fosterlearning is particularly evident through the establishment of an inter-sectoral office forEnvironmental Education and Local Agenda 21 (LA21).

Structural Conditions

The Comune of Ravenna has a unique organisational set-up in Italy for the formulation andimplementation of policies, plans and programmes. In functional terms (Figure 1),Ravenna’s Extended Planning Unit (Unita di Piano), instituted in 1971, brings togetherunder one common organisational framework several competencies, services and officeswhich are considered central to strategic policy making. Within this extended framework,the core of the Unit is represented by the Planning Unit (Area 6), which comprisesplanning, management, environmental appraisal, and sustainability-related activities andoffices. Moreover, in organisational terms, the teams and competences constituting thePlanning Unit are physically located in the same building, which is equipped with acommon area used for meetings, discussions, and information exchange. During thedevelopment and environmental appraisal of Ravenna’s PSC, the Planning Unit teamsworked together, systematically meeting before the production of an output or the making

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

of a decision. This enabled the cross-fertilisation of understanding and a joinedup approach to decision making on a day-to-day basis.

Notwithstanding the existence of the Planning Unit, the Comune of Ravennatraditionally seeks the support and collaboration of external consultants in policymaking. For the case of Ravenna’s PSC, three consultants were hired:

1. A general consultant who supervised the overall methodology and general strategyand who worked closely with the head of the Planning Unit;

2. An operative/executive consultant who coordinated operational matters andelaborated specific planning outputs; and

3. An environmental appraisal consultant who coordinated the SEA/VALSAT process.

The consultants worked in parallel and in progress with the Planning Unit, and werephysically based in the Unit for two or more days out of every fifteen and working withthe Comune’s personnel, enabling them to facilitate discussion and to exchangeexperiences and perspectives.

External collaboration in this way is viewed as important for the Planning Unit, addingto its territorial knowledge; providing inputs based on a wide and diverse array ofexperiences; and ensuring that the organisation does not become “autocratic”. Moreover,it is felt that by working in, and with, the Planning Unit, external consultants can facilitatethe exchange and comparison of experiences and perspectives within the organisationitself and (more indirectly) with the community, ensuring an on-going reinvention of theUnit’s thinking tools, policies, and practices. The organisation’s openness towards internaland external cooperation is embedded within the Comune’s culture. Importantly, thePlanning Unit has collaborated in this way with external consultants since it was first

Technical and administrative service Area 2. Economic development and programming

Commerce, craftsmanshipand public exercises

Tourism andcultural activities

Economic development andpolicies for enterprises

Area 4. Services for citizensArea 3. Support, youth and sport

policies

Support policies andrelationship withconsortiums andhealth services

University andhigher

educationpolicies

Youth,voluntary, equal

opportunitiespolicies

Area 5. Balance, finance and properties

Services for properties

PLANNING UNITArea 6. Territorial Planning

Urban managementand public housing

Building managementand control

Environment andgreen spaces

Infrastructuresand transport

Building management Building Environmentalprotection and

assessment

Urbangreen

Environmentaleducation,

LA21,sustainable

development

Maintenanceand roads

Area 8. Childhood and educationArea 7. Civil infrastructures

RoadsIntegrated

hydrological cycleGeology and civil

protectionInnovative projects Public education

EXTENDED PLANNING

Figure 1. Comune of Ravenna’s organisational set-up. The Planning Unit (area 6), within Ravenna’sExtended Planning Unit (simplified).

194 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

instituted in the early 1970s. Although the personnel have changed over the years, thebelief in the importance of being open-minded towards forms of external cooperation isdeeply rooted in the Comune’s institutional memory and carried forward by the Comune’semployees.

The Comune’s openness towards external inputs and perspectives is also reflected in itsinteractions with stakeholders, in particular in terms of its methods for communication,dissemination and dialogue. For the development and appraisal of Ravenna’s PSC,various methods were used, including the European Awareness Scenario Workshop. Anin-depth analysis of the local community’s needs was conducted in order to define futurescenarios that could contribute to meeting these. Other participatory methods includedLA21 and LA21 junior, interactive tools such as the Comune of Ravenna and Agenda 21websites, and innovative and experimental tools such as Matilde, an interactive piece ofsoftware in which a little girl, Matilde, explains and seeks inputs on the PSC and onRavenna in a child-friendly manner.

The organisation also created an Urban Centre in the heart of the historical city. This is aphysical space for meeting, communicating, informing, and debating the futuredevelopment of Ravenna and the wider territory. Open to the entire community, theUrban Centre aims to promote continuous collective participation during each of thedifferent formulation and approval phases of the Comune’s planning instruments.3 In threeyears the Centre received over 350,000 visits. Other methods of dissemination includedthe Comune’s monthly magazine, Ravenna Oggi, the newsletter Ravenna Informa, and thePlanning Unit’s magazine, Territorio News. Stakeholder-specific and “open” conferences,workshops, and seminars on the PSC and on the environmental appraisal were alsoorganised, with communication tables in lay language to ensure wider communityunderstanding. All stakeholder information, participation, and consultation exerciseswere carried out via the Comune’s LA21 process, and coordinated by the sustainabilityteam based at the Office for Environmental Education and Agenda 21.

Behavioural Conditions

The Comune of Ravenna strives to achieve good governance by turning values and ideasinto practice. Here, learning through environmental education, considered as theapplication of good practice sustainability, is part of the organisational ethos and ischampioned by strong political leadership. LA21 is used as the methodology fordelivering good governance within the organisation’s different sectors and offices, andwithin the wider community. Ravenna’s Office for Environmental Education and Agenda21 fulfils a key role in providing opportunities for reflection and for facilitating learningthrough the potential for change. Through education, the Comune aims to develop acommon understanding of what the environment and sustainability represent forRavenna as a whole, as well as for its different sectors and offices. Through their differentsectoral roles, responsibilities, and tasks, officers tackle and address policies that, directlyor indirectly, have environmental and/or sustainability implications. These have beenidentified and classified by the Office for Environmental Education and Agenda 21through a methodology called CLEAR (City and Local Environmental Accounting andReporting). This enabled the development of an environmental/sustainability frameworkto which all departments and offices could refer. The purpose of the framework was tohelp the Comune’s personnel to act, think, and work with a solid environmentalunderstanding and to produce outputs (including planning and environmental appraisaloutcomes) following common strategic environmental/sustainability goals. Further

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

evidence of shared approaches and critical reflection and evaluation includes an appraisalof the Comune’s administrative and political mandate, and the publication of a documentsummarising the institution’s environmental and sustainability goals (Environmental andSustainability Policies for the Comune of Ravenna 2007-20114). This was also conducted bythe Office for Environmental Education and Agenda 21, reinforcing and consolidating thisoffice’s leadership role for learning within the culture of the organisation.

The Comune’s structural and cultural conditions, and its specific commitment to engagein external dialogue and relations, appear to be critical in determining the way in whichemployees think and behave, particularly in terms of their willingness to critically reflecton current behaviours, and to experiment and potentially change their modus operandi.This is encapsulated by one interviewee who, when discussing the relationship betweenexternal consultants and the Comune, stated:

It’s wrong to make plans completely in-house, because (a) plans risk beingdeveloped through inertia, i.e. just for the sake of it; and (b) the Comune coulddevelop a resistance to change, where planners are happy to do maintenanceinterventions correcting what is wrong, rather than making progress andchange.

Can Internal Context Conditions Trigger Organisational Learning and AppraisalEffectiveness?

Based on the Comune of Ravenna case-study, this section further examines whetherinternal context conditions can support organisational learning and appraisal effective-ness in terms of 1) bridging knowledge and 2) creating opportunities for dialogue,communication, and learning.

Bridging Knowledge Between Different sectors and Departments

Environmental appraisal tools, such as SEA, are said to be failing both to integrateenvironmental concerns into policy making and to overcome the boundaries of differentsectors and departments. Yet, the SEA/VALSAT of the Comune of Ravenna specificallyestablished an integrating structure (the Planning Unit) that brought the organisation’sdifferent sectoral and departmental interests together, physically and culturally, in thepursuit of a stated common goal, the development of a more environmentally sustainablePSC. Interviews with members of the Planning Unit confirmed the importance of thisorganisational structure in facilitating the progressive development and coordination ofdifferent planning and appraisal tools, processes, and outcomes. Furthermore, this multi-disciplinary structure and actors’ physical proximity enabled relevant knowledge andskills to be developed through direct contact and daily interaction, avoiding horizontalimpediments such as the conflicts which may arise due to departments “competing” orfocusing on sectoral interests.5 For the Planning Unit, SEA/VALSAT was seen as aprogressive appraisal process, based on extended and thorough analyses involving a widerange of aspects, sectors, and departments. Amember of the Unit summarised the value ofthe SEA/VALSAT as follows:

SEA can improve the links between urban design, planning, management andenvironmental protection at (a) a thematic level in terms of objectives; and (b) atan organisational level in terms of coordinating and linking different teams’skills, knowledge and abilities.

196 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

When discussing the SEA/VALSAT of the PSC, the Comune’s first appraisal exerciseunder the SEA Directive’s requirements, and its first experience with strategic planningunder the requirements of law 20/2000, members of the Planning Unit stressed the addedvalue of SEA as a methodology for systematically and progressively analysing variousplanning components:

[SEA/VALSAT] helped us analyse and synthesise problems in a comprehensiveway. Without SEA, we would have probably approached the problems thatemerged in a more sectoral manner. SEA provided us with a methodology thatmade us deal with competences that were not our own and forced us to deal withsituations and find operational solutions to problems that otherwise we wouldhave tackled differently, if tackled at all. Planning is complex. SEA helped thePlanning Unit analyse various issues and synthesise the various analyses andcomplexities.

Significantly,members of the PlanningUnit acknowledged the importance of theComune’sinternal structural conditions to the achievement of appraisal effectiveness, particularly interms of the position of the Planning Unit within the Extended Planning Unit (see Figure 1):

Without this [organisational] setup, SEA risks being understood and applied asa bureaucratic process, as it would be conducted in a repetitive way [by itsvarious sectors and departments], perhaps generating both internal [within theComune] and external [with the wider community and stakeholders] resistanceand conflicts.

The evidence from the case study about the Comune of Ravenna suggests that internalconditions can directly influence the effectiveness of environmental appraisal in operationaland perceptual terms, thereby instilling confidence in the process, and contributing tocollective accounts of the usefulness of the tool. In addition to the internal structuralconditions, this process also informs cultural andbehavioural conditions in a variety ofways.The case study illustrates that environmental appraisal can help planners to achieveenvironmentally sustainable policies, plans, and programmes, provided that it is legitimisedand championedas a supportive tool formarshalling information, and for critically reflectingand reviewing policy planning practices, and that it is also firmly embedded in a widerculture of environmental governance. In this way, appraisal methodologies can providedecision makers with better quality information; contribute to public policy making, andpotentially changeattitudes, perceptions, andestablished routines andbehaviours.Critically,however, this can only occur if a policy-making organisation is willing to embedenvironmental appraisal within the organisation’s operating context and legitimate theprocess by ensuring that the appraisal informs the subsequent monitoring, thinking, andaction. As the Ravenna case suggests, the support of thosewith power and authority appearsto be key in creating and integrating opportunities for dialogue, communication, reflection,and change (core features of a learning organisation), as well as being vital in terms of thecapacity of the organisation’s learning culture to absorb and influence external participantsand stakeholders, and acculturate new personnel.

Creating Opportunities for Dialogue, Communication and Learning

Argyris (1960) described a learning organisation as a plurality of parts maintainingthemselves through their interrelatedness, achieving specific objectives while accom-plishing and adapting to the external environment. Simon (1997) emphasised the

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

importance of hierarchy in the structure, communication processes and definition ofgroup identities in organisations. With this in mind, it can therefore be suggested that theComune of Ravenna presents the elements of a learning organisation. At one level, thefunctional, structural, and policy interrelatedness of the parts are guaranteed by structuraland cultural internal conditions. Carrying forward the priorities of the Comune’s politicalleadership, the Planning Unit’s organisational setup and working methodology createdopportunities for dialogue, communication, and learning in various ways, providing thescope for different individual learning styles and preferences. In this setting, intervieweesreported that communication and team working skills were improved by bringingtogether different experts, sectors, and departments involved in the PSC and SEA/VALSATprocesses. Through appraisal, the level of environmental awareness of planners andtechnicians was enhanced, as those who were not directly involved in the appraisal processlearned about the purpose, nature, and objectives of SEA. As a result, a wider group ofindividuals beyond the SEA/VALSAT team working in the Extended Planning Unitsupported and legitimised the appraisal process, and critically assumed an advocacy role.Thus, a cultural change in the Comune’s values and beliefs towards more environmentallysustainable views and practices was promoted.

In addition, external interactions with consultants, participatory activities, and aprogramme of education ensured ongoing critical reflection through communication anddialogue. Through these processes, the Comune of Ravenna maintained a state ofinterrelatedness between its parts and promoted its strategic objectives through its internalbehavioural conditions, which emphasised openness, responsiveness, and flexibility.Importantly for the appraisal process, the organisation was able to internalise these inputs.Innovation and organisational learning were fuelled in part by regularly bringingconsultants into the Planning Unit, and working collaboratively with the Unit’s personneltowards the achievement of the environmental and sustainability objectives set out in theComune’s strategic vision forRavenna 2007–2011. The SEAexercisewas core to this iterativeprocess of corrective thinking and action.

The research findings show that the inputs of the external consultants, the Comune’sinnovative traditions, and its consolidated environmental consciousness, coupled with theEmilia Romagna region’s requirements for SEA/VALSATand strategic planning, enabledthe Planning Unit to plan in a systematic, structured, and comprehensive way. Together,this partnership of Comune and consultancy staff provided diverse knowledge sources,stability, continuity, and solidity to the Unit’s processes, activities, and outcomes. Overall,this meant that the value chain of the organisation’s resource allocations was reinforced, inphysical, personnel and procedural terms. This context allowed and encouraged scope forreflection, knowledge, and skills development at the individual level, and innovation andchange at the organisational level. In Ravenna, this melding of expertise appeared to befruitful in stimulating external and internal learning.

Arguably, environmental appraisal can only be as good as the system in which it isapplied, which means that learning is unlikely to occur if an organisation is reluctant tochange. Through its leadership and commitment to establish and resource an integratedExtended Planning Unit, the Comune of Ravenna initiated a structure and modelled aparticular learning culture which then provided a context in which reflection andreflective dialogue could occur both within and between the organisation, externalconsultants, and stakeholders. Different modes of communication, documentation, anddissemination were then encouraged, as was evaluation of outcomes and processes as thebasis for reflexive decision making. Organisational learning was then seen as a positive

198 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

driver in the Comune’s ability to change and experiment, and to remain responsive andflexible to new knowledge and innovation as planning circumstances changed.

Conclusions

The research has illustrated how an appreciation of the external and internal contextconditions for organisational working might be valuable in understanding andenhancing an organisation’s overall effectiveness in terms of its ability to foster andbenefit from learning. This has important implications for learning in appraisal butwould also appear to offer insights for spatial planning more generally where theimportance of cultural change in initiating reform is identified as significant (Shaw &Lord, 2007). Whilst the nature of the external “hard” institutional arrangements isimportant in defining the legal, policy, and administrative frameworks for organis-ational effectiveness, providing statutory and resource legitimacy for action, the internal“softer” dimensions discussed in this paper highlight a set of relatively more informaland intangible elements. These involve the culture, norms, traditions, values and beliefsof a policy-making organisation and are crucial for getting things done. External andinternal context conditions live and interact in a shadow system, determining the“customary behaviour” of an organisation and therefore influencing the effectiveness ofits outcomes. The case study of the Comune of Ravenna illustrates how the interplay ofexternal and internal dynamics enhanced the appraisal process in terms of substantiveknowledge generation and interpretation, as well as procedural and disseminationprotocols and desired outcomes. Critically, an established organisational culture ofengagement and reflection in Ravenna is actively nurtured and resourced, takingaccount of individual and collective needs by providing the time and physical spaces fordiscussion, reflection, and negotiation of meaning. Such a culture takes time to embed.Moreover, the case-study demonstrated that attention needs to be paid to the technical,evidential, and formal aspects of reporting and dissemination, alongside relatively moreevery day popular, informal, and playful modes of communication that integrate withand engage diverse publics. Here, the elaboration of shared goals and the ongoingrefinement of what constitutes desirable environmental/sustainability outcomes arecritical, since external conditions, collective understandings, resource objectives andpersonnel change over time.

The cultural, structural, and behavioural conditions framework (Box 2) highlights howthe existence of certain conditions can contribute to appraisal effectiveness by bridging theknowledge gap between different sectors, departments, and processes and by creatingopportunities for dialogue, communication, and learning. In Argyris’s (1960) terms, theComune of Ravenna promoted appraisal effectiveness by identifying, engaging, andmaintaining the “interrelatedness of the plurality of its parts” through its cultural andstructural conditions, and its methods for systematically internalising new knowledge.Importantly, the culture of the organisation actively encouraged external input,community engagement, experimentation, innovation, and feedback. This openness tolearning adds a different perspective to Bartlett & Kurian’s (1999) observation thatlearning in appraisal may be minimised by the extensive use of external consultants. Theprecise nature of such organisational relationships certainly requires further research,given the multi-stakeholder environment of spatial planning and appraisal. What isinteresting about the Comune of Ravenna example is that the organisational contextmaximised and internalised the learning potential deriving from the use of externalconsultants, ensuring that they worked with the Planning Unit and within the Planning

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Unit. This raises important questions for how learning occurs under conditions of formal(and less formal) partnership working since opportunities for learning are potentiallymore fluid and flow across organisational boundaries. This clearly necessitates asensitivity to, and potentially the active management of, the “hard” edge and the “softer”contextual boundaries of the individual organisations involved.

The insightsderived fromtheComuneofRavenna suggest that external conditionsmightbenecessary but insufficient in legitimising the institutional and procedural conditions forappraisal, but that internal context conditions can support appraisal effectiveness and fosterlearning. Extending this to the wider context of spatial planning, if policy-makingorganisations present the characteristics of a “learning organisation”, and actively seek toembed this ethos within the cultural, structural, and behavioural life-blood of theorganisation, then processes of learning may become more effective and sustainable. In thisway, learning becomes dynamic, interactive, responsive, continuous, and integrative; it thenhas the potential to become habitual and transformative—the way we do things.

Given the complexities of spatial planning and the growing uncertainties andunpredictability of dealing with the environment, it is vital that the effectiveness of policytools, such as environmental appraisal, is enhanced and that policy planning practices areshaped through modes of learning that facilitate critical reflection, review, and, wherenecessary, reform. Environmental appraisal may not be sufficient on its own to address thetensions between social, economic and environmental concerns and to ensure effectiveenvironmental integration in policy making, but the Ravenna case study illustrates howthe potential for learning might exist if an organisation is open to nurturing it. Yet,ultimately, it is the individuals involved that make up learning organisations, and thesupport of those with power and authority is an essential dimension of learning.Individuals can thus play a useful advocacy role for more sustainability-orientated goals,inviting engagement, and demonstrating and communicating effectiveness throughfeedback.

Would the approach be different if we saw these formal appraisal requirements as a keyopportunity to step aside from current norms and practices to engage individuals,organisations and the wider community in consideration of significantly differentdevelopment paths, thereby helping to foster longer term transformatory learning relatedto sustainable development? It can be argued that this ambition is certainly implicit inestablished appraisal theory, which tends to emphasise consideration of alternatives andthe long-term nature of the process, extending beyond the delivery of an appraisal reportto include follow-up, for example in the form of monitoring and review. Equally, it can beenvisaged, and indeed hoped, that many appraisal exercises do stimulate deeperreflection by the individuals and organisations involved and do in fact deliver sometransformatory learning outcomes from time to time. If this is accepted, then the questionarises as to whether this should be regarded as desirable but ancillary to the process orshould it be a key focus of attention? At the very least it seems desirable to pose thesequestions at the outset of an environmental appraisal exercise and develop an approachwhich is consistent with the learning ambitions that are set out.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a pilot project jointly funded by the UK Economic and SocialResearch Council (ESRC) and by the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC),Developing the Learning Potential of Appraisal in Spatial Planning, Award No: RES-182-25-0018. The authors are grateful to the ESRC and to the ASC for their support. The authors

200 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

would also like to thank the Unita di Piano of the Comune of Ravenna (Italy) for theiravailability and for their contributions to the research, and to acknowledge theconstructive comments of three anonymous referees.

Notes

1. This study adopts a positive approach to learning within the context of environmental appraisal, whereby

learning is associated with change and is intended as the process of improving actions through better

knowledge, understanding and skills (Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Kim, 1998). In this study and within the context of

thewider research project underlying this paper, learning is therefore the process of improving the integration

of the environment in policy, plan and programmemaking as a result of enhanced know-how and know-why,

and of achieving effectiveness.

2. At the local level (i.e. the Comune level), law 20/2000 separates the plan’s structural contents from its

programmatic contents, resulting in two local level planning instruments; first, the structural instrument, the

PSC, which defines strategies for the Comune’s territorial asset and development in order to ensure protection

of the physical integrity, the environment and the cultural identity. It consists of three components: 1) the

Quadro Conoscitivo (QC), the baseline information framework which reconstructs the state of the territory; 2)

the Documento Preliminare (DP), the preliminary document defining the plan’s strategic contents; and 3) the

Piano Strutturale, the concluding document. Second, the programmatic and operative instrument, the POC,

i.e. the five year length executive plan which identifies and disciplines the interventions for territorial

protection, valorisation, organisation and transformation.

3. See http://www.urbancenter.ra.it, accessed 21 August 2008.

4. In Italy an administrative and political mandate has a length of four years.

5. See Jordan (2002) for a discussion on “departmental pluralism” within the context of UK environmental

policy integration.

6. Following Di Bella et al. (1996), the seven learning orientations are expressed as bipolar continuums. While a

polemay represent one or two approaches to an orientation, it is expected that most organisations use amix of

both. According to the authors, the use of learning orientations can help develop an understanding of an

organisation’s learning style and provide suggestions on how to strengthen or change that style.

7. Whilst the first is known as single-loop learning, the latter is known as double-loop learning (Argyris &

Schon, 1978).

References

Agyris, C. (1960) Understanding Organizational Behaviour (London, Tavistock Publications).Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley).

Barker, A. & Wood, C. (1999) An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries, EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Review, 19, pp. 387–404.

Bartlett, R.V. & Kurian, P.A. (1999) The theory of environmental impact assessment—Implicit models of policy-making, Policy & Politics, 27(4), pp. 415–433.

Bennett, C.J. & Howlett, M. (1992) The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policychange, Policy Sciences, 25, pp. 275–294.

Berkhout, F., Smith, A. & Stirling, A. (2003) Socio-Technological Regimes and Transitions Contexts, SPRU ElectronicWorking Paper (Brighton, University of Sussex).

Booher, D. (2008) Civic engagement and the quality of urban spaces, Planning Theory & Practice, 9(3), pp. 383–394.Breda-Vazquez, I., Conceicao, P. & Moia, P. (2010) How to learn with urban policy diversity and complexity:Evaluation and knowledge sharing in urban policy, Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), pp. 209–239.

Caldwell, L.K. (1989) Understanding impact analysis: Technical process, administrative reform, policy principle,in: R.V. Bartlett (Ed.) Policy Though Impact Assessment (New York, Greenwood Press).

Campbell, H. (2000) Sustainable development: Can the vision be realised? Planning Theory & Practice, 1(2),pp. 259–284.

Cardoso, R. (2005) Context and Power in Contemporary Planning: Towards Reflexive Planning Analytics, WorkingPaper 128 (London, Planning Department, University College London).

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Carmona, M. & Seih, L. (2005) Performance measurement innovation in English planning authorities, PlanningTheory & Practice, 6, pp. 303–333.

Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D. & Bond, A. (2004) The interminable issue of effectiveness—Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impactassessment theory, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), pp. 295–310.

CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2001), Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effectsof certain plans andprogrammes on the environment.Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia.

Crossan, M.M. & Guatto, T. (1996) Organisational learning research profile, Journal of Organisational Change

Management, 9(1), pp. 107–112.Dalal-Clayton, B. & Sadler, B. (2005) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to

International Experience (London, Earthscan).Di Bella, A.J., Nevis, E.C. & Gould, J.M. (1996) Understanding organisational learning systems, Journal of

Management Studies, 33(3), pp. 361–379.Dusik, J., Fischer, T.B. & Sadler, B. (2003) Benefits of a Strategic Environmental Assessment, REC andUNDP. Availableat http://europeandcis.undp.org/(accessed 10 October 2008).

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997) Disciplines of organisational learning: Contributions and critiques, Human Relations,50(9), pp. 1085–1113.

Etzioni, A. (1964) Modern Organisations (New York, Prentice Hall).Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S. & Theobald, K. (2006) Governing local sustainability, Journal of Environmental

Planning & Management, 49(6), pp. 849–867.Fiol, C.M. & Lyles, M.A. (1985) Organizational learning, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), pp. 803–813.Fischer, T.B. (2002) Strategic environmental assessment in transport and land-use planning (London, Earthscan).Fischer, T.B. (2007) Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment—Towards a More Systematic Approach

(London, Earthscan).Fischer, T.B. & Gazzola, P. (2006) SEA effectiveness criteria—Equally valid in all countries?, Environmental Impact

Assessment Review, 26(4), pp. 396–409.Forester, J. (2000) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (Cambridge, MIT Press).Gazzola, P. (2008) What appears to make SEA effective in different planning systems, Journal of Environmental

Assessment Policy & Management, 10(1), pp. 1–24.Gazzola, P. & Caramaschi, C. (2005) Implementing SEA in Italy—The case of the Emilia Romagna region, in:E. Joao, M. Schmidt & E. Albrecht (Eds) Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment (Berlin, Springer).

Gezelius, S.S. & Refsgaard, K. (2007) Barriers to rational decision-making in environmental planning, Land Use

Policy, 24, pp. 338–348.Hall, R.H. (1980) Effectiveness theory and organisational effectiveness, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 16,pp. 536–545.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London, Macmillan).Healey, P. (2008) Civic engagement, spatial planning and democracy as a way of life, Planning Theory & Practice,9(3), pp. 379–382.

Hilden, M., Furman, E. & Kalijonen, M. (2004) Views on planning and expectations of SEA: The case of transportplanning, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(5), pp. 519–536.

Hilding-Rydevik, T. & Bjarnadottir, H. (2007) Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation,Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, pp. 666–684.

Innes, J. (1995) Planning Theory’s emerging paradigm, Journal of Planning Education & Research, 14(3), pp. 183–190.IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (1980) World Conservation Strategy—Living Resource

Conservation for Sustainable Development (Gland, Switzerland, IUCN).Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P. & Wood, C. (2007) Environmental Impact Assessment: Retrospect and prospect,

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), pp. 287–300.Jensen, O.B. & Richardson, T. (2004) Making European Space: Mobility, Power and Territorial Identity (London,Routledge).

Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Peel, D., Fischer, T.B. & Kidd, S. (2009) Effectiveness of strategic environmentalassessment—The significance of learning, Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 27(2), pp. 133–144.

Jones, C., Baker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M. & Wood, C. (2005) (Eds) Strategic Environmental Assessment and

Land-Use Planning—An International Evaluation (London, Earthscan).Jordan, A. (2002) Efficient hardware and light green software—Environmental policy integration in the UK, in:A. Lenschow (Ed.) Environmental Policy Integration—Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe (London, Earthscan).

Kaza, N. (2006) Tyranny of the median and costly consent: A reflection on the justification for participatory urbanplanning processes, Planning Theory, 5(3), pp. 255–270.

202 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Kim, D.H. (1998) The link between individual and organisational learning, in: D.A. Klein (Ed.) The StrategicManagement of Intellectual Capital (Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann).

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice Hall).

Kørnøv, L. & Thissen, W.A.H. (2000) Rationality in decision- and policy-making—Implications for strategicenvironmental assessment, Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 18(3), pp. 191–200.

Koumakhov, R. (2009) Conventions in Herbert Simon’s theory of bounded rationality, Economic Psychology, 30,pp. 293–306.

Lawrence, D.P. (2000) Planning theories and environmental impact assessment, Environmental Impact AssessmentReview, 20, pp. 607–625.

Lee, N. & George, C. (2000) Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries (Chichester, Wiley).Levitt, B. & March, J.G. (1988) Organisational learning, Annual Review of Sociology, 14, pp. 319–340.March, J.G. & Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics (New York, Free Press).Molnar, E. & Mulvihill, P.R. (2003) Sustainability-focused organisational learning—Recent experiences and newchallenges, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 46(2), pp. 167–176.

Muller, M. & Siebenhuner, B. (2007) Policy instruments for sustainability-oriented organisational learning,Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, pp. 232–245.

Nigro, G. (2007) Il fattore tempo nel processo di piano attivato dal PSC di Ravenna [The time factor in the processof the adopted PSC of Ravenna]. Available at http://fe-bud.mag-news.it/nl/z.jsp?XZ.0.0.te.A.A.A.A (lastaccessed October 10, 2008).

Nitz, T. & Brown, L. (2001) SEAmust learn how policymakingworks, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy &

Management, 3(3), pp. 329–342.Nykvist, B. & Nilsson, M. (2009) Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainabledevelopment? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committeesystem, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(1), pp. 15–24.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2006) Applying strategic environmentalassessment—Good practice guidance for development co-operation, DAC guidelines and reference series.Available at https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/21/37353858.pdf (accessed 20 June 2007).

Owens, S., Rayner, T. & Bina, O. (2004) New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice and research,Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 1943–1959.

Partidario, M.R. & Clark, R. (2000) Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Boca Raton, FL, Lewis).Pedler, M., Boydell, T. & Burgoyne, J.G. (1989) Towards the learning company, Management Education &

Development, 20(1), pp. 1–8.Pelling, M. & High, C. (2005) Social learning and adaptation to climate change. Available at http://learningforsustainability.net/social_learning (accessed 14 August 2008).

Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J. & Smith, D. (2008) Shadow spaces for social learning: A relational understandingof adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations, Environment & Planning A, 40, pp. 867–884.

Petts, J. (1999) Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 1 and 2 (Oxford, Blackwell Science).Poggioli, F. (2007) Il nuovo Piano Strutturale Comunale di Ravenna [The new Structural Plan of the Communeof Ravenna]. Available at http://fe-bud.mag-news.it/nl/z.jsp?XZ.0.0.te.A.A.A.A (accessed 10 October 2008).

Radaelli, C.M. (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process, Journal of European Public Policy, 2(2),pp. 159–183.

Retief, F. (2007) Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa, Journal of

Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(1), pp. 83–101.Risse, N., Crowley, M., Vincke, P. & Wauub, J.P. (2003) Implementing the European SEA Directive—The MemberStates’ margin of discretion, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, pp. 453–470.

Runhaar, H. & Driessen, P.P.J. (2007) What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmentalassessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making, Impact Assessment & Project

Appraisal, 25(1), pp. 2–14.Rydin, Y. (2007) Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory, Planning Theory, 6(1), pp. 52–68.Rydin, Y., Amjad, U. & Whitaker, M. (2007) Environmentally sustainable construction: Knowledge and Learningin London Planning Departments, Planning Theory & Practice, 8(3), pp. 363–380.

Sadler, B. (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World. Final report of the International Study of theEffectiveness of Environmental Assessment (Ottawa, IAIA and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,Ministry of Supply and Services).

Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (London, Temple Smith).Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline—The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation (London, Century Business).

Enhancing Environmental Appraisal Effectiveness 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Shaw, D. & Lord, A. (2007) The Cultural Turn? Culture change and what it means for spatial planning, PlanningPractice & Research, 22(1), pp. 63–78.

Shrivastava, P. (1983) A typology of organisational learning systems, Journal of Management Studies, 20(1),pp. 7–28.

Simon, H. (1997) Administrative Behaviour (New York, Free Press).Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A. & Fitzpatrick, P. (2008) Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmentalassessment: Critical reflections on 15 years of research, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, pp. 415–428.

Small, A. & Irvine, P. (2006) Towards a framework for organisational learning, The Learning Organisation, 13(3),pp. 276–299.

Stacey, R. (1996) Complexity and Creativity in Organisations (San Francisco, Berret-Koehler).Stringa, F. (2007) Gli accordi coi private nel PSC: La concertazione progressive [Agreements with the privatesector in the PSC: A progressive consultation]. Available at http://fe-bud.mag-news.it/nl/z.jsp?XZ.0.0.te.A.A.A.A (accessed 10 October 2008).

Sykes, O. (2008) The importance of context and comparison in the study of European spatial planning, European

Planning Studies, 16(4), pp. 537–555.Taylor, S. (1984) Making Bureaucracies Think—The Environmental Impact Statement Strategy of Administrative Reform(Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press).

Therivel, R. & Brown, L. (1999) Methods of strategic environmental assessment, in: J. Petts (Ed.) Handbook of

Environmental Impact Assessment, vol.1 (Oxford, Blackwell Science).Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D. & Pritchard, D. (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment(London, Earthscan).

Thissen, W.A.H. (2000) Criteria for evaluation of SEA, in: M.R. Partidario & R. Clark (Eds) Perspectives on Strategic

Environmental Assessment (Boca Raton, FL, Lewis).Torfing, J. & Sorensen, E. (2008) Enhancing effective and democratic governance through empoweredparticipation—Some critical reflections, Planning Theory & Practice, 9(3), pp. 394–400.

UN (United Nations) (2007) UN Millennium Development Goals. Available at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.html (accessed 20 June 2007).

Vigar, G., Healey, P., Hull, A. & Davoudi, S. (2000) Planning, Governance and Spatial Strategy in Britain. An

Institutionalist Analysis (Basingstoke, Macmillan).Vigar, G. (2006) Deliberation, Participation and learning in the development of regional strategies: Transportpolicy making in North East England, Planning Theory & Practice, 7(3), pp. 267–287.

Wood, C. (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment—A Comparative Review (Harlow, Prentice Hall).World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future (Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress).

World Bank (1987) Environment, growth and development, Development committee paper no.14 (Washington DC,World Bank).

204 P. Gazzola et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

08:

22 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12