Framework for integration of urban planning, strategic ...

Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

EIR-05690; No of Pages 12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /e ia r

Framework for integration of urban planning, strategic environmental assessmentand ecological planning for urban sustainability within the context of China

Jia He a, Cun-Kuan Bao a,⁎, Ting-Fei Shu b, Xiao-Xue Yun a, Dahe Jiang c, Lex Brwon d

a State Key Laboratory on Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, Chinab Kangqiao Industrial Zone Administrative Committee, Pudong, Shanghai 201315, Chinac UNEP-Tongji Institute of Environment for Sustainable Development, Shanghai 200092, Chinad Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Australia

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 65984220(O), +21 65984220.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-K. Bao).

0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.09.002

Please cite this article as: He J, et al, Framplanning for urban sustainability within th

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online xxxx

Keywords:Urban planningStrategic environmental assessmentEcological planningIntegration

Sustainable development or sustainability has been highlighted as an essential principle in urban masterplanning, with increasing recognition that uncontrollable urbanization may well give rise to various issuessuch as overexploitation of natural resources, ecosystem destruction, environmental pollution and large-scaleclimate change. Thus, it is deemed necessary to modify the existing urban and regional administrative systemso as to cope with the challenges urban planning is being confronted with and realize the purpose of urbansustainability. This paper contributed to proposing a mechanism which helps to make urban planning withfull consideration of issues with respect to sustainable development. We suggested that the integration ofurban planning, SEA and ecological planning be a multi-win strategy to offset deficiency of each mentionedpolitical tool being individually applied. We also proposed a framework where SEA and ecological planningare fully incorporated into urban planning, which forms a two-way constraint mechanism to ascertainenvironmental quality of urban planning, although in practice, planning and SEA processes may conditionallybe unified. Moreover, as shown in the case study, the integration of the three political tools may beconstrained due to slow changes in the contextual factors, in particular the political and cultural dimensions.Currently within the context of China, there may be three major elements which facilitate integration of thethree political tools, which are (1) regulatory requirement of PEIA on urban planning, (2) the promotion orstrong administrative support from government on eco-district building, and (3) the willingness of urbanplanners to collaborate with SEA experts or ecologists.

86 21 65133046(H); fax: +86

l rights reserved.

ework for integration of urban planning, se context of China, Environ Impact Asses Rev

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The 1987 Brundtland Commission and its report “Our CommonFuture”, which called for “development that meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs”, placed the issue of sustainable development atthe core of urban policy and planning concerns (Waston, 2009). Theconcept of sustainable development in turn gave rise to the “greenagenda” in planning and the subsequent development of environ-mental strategies such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)and ecological planning which improve environmental quality ofplanning at initiative stage.

SEA is a mechanism for incorporation of environmental consider-ation into policies, plans, and programs (PPPs). In countries where theSEA system is adopted, the environmental assessment on urbanplanning or spatial planning and the preparation of a SEA report arecompulsorily required. Ecological planning is also widely applied in

the fields of urban planning as an integrative and comprehensiveplanning to coordinate the relationship among regional socialdevelopment, economic growth, technological innovation and envi-ronmental protection (Wang, 2002; Shu et al., 2006a).

Though SEA and ecological planning are widely used forenvironmental protection, their capabilities to influence urbanplanning and achieve urban sustainable development are oftenconstrained. Throughout 1990s, both planners and environmentalistsgrappled with the problem of integrating the issue of sustainabilityinto planning agendas, and in many parts of the world this has yet notbeen satisfactorily achieved. For one reason, planning and environ-mental management often operate in different government depart-ments with different interests and political or legal framework. Forthe other reason, there are increasing conflicts between the greenagenda (environmental concerns), the brown agenda (urban devel-opment) and the red agenda (issues of environmental justice).Moreover, Urban Planning potentially stands at the intersection ofthese conflicts (Allen and You, 2002). Thus it is important for bothenvironmentalists and urban planners to collaborate and develop newapproaches and systems for urban planning as well as environmentalassessment to address the conflicts underlying the planning.

trategic environmental assessment and ecological(2010), doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.09.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.09.002

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01959255


2 J. He et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

On one hand, new urban forms were promoted which respondedto environmental concerns (Breheny, 1992), and new approaches andmeasures in the field of urban ecology and environment were appliedinto urban planning (Ong, 2003; Pickett, 1995; Li et al., 2005). On theother hand, environmentalists tried to propose a mechanism toincorporate environmental consideration into the initiative stage ofdecision-making process. Shu et al. (2006a,b) explained that thepersistent failure of urban planning to deliver environmentalsustainable development is closely linked to the separation ofenvironmental assessment and urban planning system. Lacking ofintegration, the effectiveness of SEA to influence urban planning isquite limited.

Therefore, we proposed a framework in which SEA and ecologicalplanning are fully integrated into urban planning within the contextof China. Under this framework, ecological planning providesecological principles or requirements to guide the planning at a veryearly stage whilst SEA works as an appraisal tool in the end to ensurethat environmental issues are considered in the preferred option(s).

Six parts were contained in this paper: (1) The first part brieflyintroduced the background of this research; (2) Then the definitionsof “urban planning”, “SEA/Planning Environmental Impact Assess-ment (PEIA)”, “ecological planning” and “integration” are elaboratedin the second part; (3) Drives for the integration are analyzed fromtwo aspects, i.e. the changes in the context of urban planning and theevolving understandings of the relationship among them; (4) Wethen proposed integration framework from six aspects, including theintegration of objectives, processes, contents, methodologies, institu-tions and policies. Then, we designed the process which lies largely inthe realm of urban planning, including nine steps, e. g. objective andcontent definition, scoping, option proposal, and environmentalassessment on options, etc.; (5) Subsequently, a case study of “Eco-district Plan of the Chengnan New District of Jintan County in JiangsuProvince” is briefly introduced in the fifth part, which approved thatthe integration framework is applicable and practical within thecontext of China; and (6) Conclusions.

2. Definitions

2.1. Urban planning

While most cities and settlements show forethought and con-scious design in their layout and functioning, urban planning, as anorganized profession, has only existed for the last 60 years. Urbanplanning pertains to the category of spatial planning, which givesgeographical expressions to the economic, social, cultural andecological policies of a society. In the mean time, being a combinationof a scientific discipline, an administrative technique and a policy,urban planning has been developed as an interdisciplinary andcomprehensive approach for a balanced regional development andphysical organization of space in accordance with an overall strategy.Normally, the aspects of urban planning include populations, scales,land uses, urban aesthetics, safety, municipal infrastructures, trans-ports, environmental factors, industries and cultures. However, thecontents often vary in different cases. By far, there are two differentmainstream processes applied in urban planning. One is “top-downprocess” by which plans are created by the urban planners whotypically work for national or local governments. The other isexpressed as “collaborative process”. Its distinctive features includeactive involvement of the stakeholders and long-term flexibleprogramming that may be intervened by different stakeholders.

In China, a set of urban planning system has been developed,which was confirmed by the Law on Urban and Rural Planning (2008)(see Fig. 1). Five plan categories are included in the planning system,and three of them are legislated by the relevant laws or regulations.Urban planning at state- or provincial-level refers to the Urban SystemPlan which defines the population size and spatial distribution of

Please cite this article as: He J, et al, Framework for integration of uplanning for urban sustainability within the context of China, Environ

urban and suburban districts to achieve the rational productivitydistribution and function definition. It usually follows the require-ments of land use plan, and provides principles or rules for the UrbanMaster Planning to follow. Urban planning at municipal- or county-level usually includes two parts, i.e. Master Plan and Detailed Plan.Master Plan guides overall city development and spatial arrangementin a relatively long time span ranging from 5 to 20 years, whilst theDetailed Plan, based on the requirements from Master Plan as well assectoral plans, if any, guides to achieve the rational use of space andland in the near future (i.e. normally 1 to 3 years) through regulatingland use and directing the design and construction of buildings orprojects.

2.2. Strategic Environmental Assessment

SEA is a system for incorporation of environmental considerationsinto policies, plans and programs (PPPs) (EU2001/42/EC). By far therehas been a wide range of applications of SEA throughout the globe,mainly in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) countries as well as in client countries of World Bank, topromote sustainability by influencing planning and decision-makingprocesses at an early stage. Amongst them, 25 countries have formallyset up the SEA system in the form of legislation and developed SEAframework to some extent. In existing SEA systems, SEA mainlyapplies to plans or programs, although it can be applied to policies ifneeded. Thus in most countries like China, SEA can also be referred toas Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (Wang et al., 2003;Bao and Shang, 1999; Xu et al., 2000). Furthermore, according toChina's EIA Law (2003), environmental assessment on Urban Planningis a compulsory requirement. Therefore, environmental assessmentcould be considered as a mandatorily indispensable procedure inplanning process, and urban planning is a key assessment target forPEIA (Li et al., 1998).

In countries where SEA system has been adopted, it is acompulsory requirement to conduct SEA for certain types of plans(i.e. PEIA) or even policies (e.g. PoEA). In China, PEIA for urbanplanning is legislated in the EIA Law (2003). Moreover, it is specified inthe newly promulgated Regulations on Planning Environmental ImpactAssessment (2009) that urban planners and organizations shouldapply PEIA during plan-making process (Articles 2 and 7), prepare aplanning environmental impact statement (PEIS) prior to submissionof the plan for approval (Article 10), and take responsibilities for thequality of the PEIS (Article 10). As shown in Fig. 1, the characteristicsof a plan may differ significantly between a state-level plan and avillage plan, or between Urban-system Planning and DetailedPlanning, particularly in terms of the range of options, the level ofuncertainties to be managed, the level of details that might becontained, and the nature of impact predications (Holger et al., 2004;Au and Lam, 2008). Moreover, these plan attributes have significantimplications for accompanying assessment. Hence, the requirementon PEIA for large-scale or macro-scope plans (e.g. state-level UrbanSystem Plans) will inevitably vary from that for small-sale or micro-scope plans (e.g. Village Plan or Detailed Plan). As is stipulated inRegulations on PEIA (2009) for Urban Master Plans and Detailed Plans,a detailed PEIA report must be prepared during the planning process;however, only a chapter or note should be prepared for conceptualplans or strategic Urban System Plans (Articles 15 and 16).

2.3. Ecological planning

Currently there has been no common definition for ecologicalplanning. In China, ecological planning is a joint name of urbanecological planning, eco-province/-city/-town/-village planning(“eco-district planning” in general), or ecological urban planning(Ma and Yan, 2004; Huang, 2001; Jin, 2002). Broadly speaking, theconcept means an integrative and comprehensive planning to

rban planning, strategic environmental assessment and ecologicalImpact Asses Rev (2010), doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.09.002


Fig. 1. Urban plan system currently adopted in China.

3J. He et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

coordinate the relationship among regional social development,economic growth, technological innovation and environmentalprotection (Bo and Chen, 2000; Wang, 2002), according to ecologicalprinciples and theories. However, narrowly speaking, ecologicalplanning can be expressed as eco-district planning. In this article,we adopted the latter concept in a narrow sense.

An eco-district is a new urban form developed in response toenvironmental issues, which enables its residents to live a life of goodquality where natural resource consumption is minimized to achievesustainable development (Huang and Chen, 1997; Huang, 2004).

In China, eco-district building, particularly at a city level, is highlyadvocated by the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA, nowMinistry of Environmental Protection, MEP) as an environmentalstrategy. The activities of building eco-cities were prevailing around2003when SEPA announced that eco-district building performancewillbe evaluated and outstanding ones will be nominated as eco-cities/-towns (Dong, 2002; Huang and Yang, 2001). According to theevaluation criteria, it is one of the five basic requirements that anecological plan must be developed, reviewed and approved by SEPAexperts. Therefore, ecological planning has drawn tremendous atten-tion from governments and scholars even if there is no legal support inplace. A number of cities, towns, even villages in 19 out of 31 provincesand municipalities have been working on eco-district plans. In mostcases, ecological planning is multidisciplinary (He et al., 2010).

2.4. Integrated/integration

The term integration has become a popular word in recent years. Itis important that integration in the context of assessment should bedistinguished from that in the context of decision-making. In thecontext of assessment, the term often refers to the consideration ofdifferent types of impacts within one integrated assessment or theincorporation of assessment into decision-making at different stagesin the planning cycle (Lee, 2002). In the context of decision-making itfrequently refers to integration of economic, social and environmentalconcerns in a real world. In this article, integration is used in at leasttwo scenarios as mentioned above: (1) the horizontal integration ofdifferent kinds of plans or planning processes; and (2) the integrationof environmental assessments into planning processes. A workshopon integrated assessments proposed three categories of integration,i.e. the disciplinary and methodological integration, proceduralintegration and integration of actors, which can be applied in acombined context of both assessment and decision-making (Envi-ronmental Agency, 2001). In addition, Scrase and Sheate (2009)identified fourteen types of integration in the context of environ-


mental assessment and governance. In a real world, various types ofintegration often exist simultaneously in one integrated process asdifferent aspects. Following these researches, we proposed six aspectsof integration in the context of urban planning, SEA and ecologicalplanning, which included integration of objectives, procedures,contents, methodologies, policies and institutional setups. Each ofthem was elaborated in Section 4.

3. Drives for integration

There are several key drives for investigating and promoting theintegration within the context of China, which include: (1) changes inthe context which influence the urban planning systems, especiallythe political and cultural contexts; (2) evolving understandings of therelationship among urban planning, SEA and ecological planning; and(3) the noticeable inadequacy of partial planning or assessment toachieve urban sustainability.

3.1. Changes in context of urban planning system

Normally, a political system is strongly influenced by the contextwhere it operates. Therefore it needs to take place within anunderstanding of the contextual factors when the future for urbanplanning is taken into consideration. Waston (2009) argued thaturban development is currently faced with a range of urban socio-spatial and environmental issues and trends which are relatively new.Institutionalized urban planning systems and culture in China areabout to change, though their response to any emergency of issues ismuch slower (Sun, 2006).

3.1.1. Decision-making in urban planningThe most commonly recognized change in urban administrative

system is the shift from “government” to “governance” whichrepresents a response to the growing complexity of governing in aglobalizing and multi-scale context, as well as the involvement of arange of non-governmental organizations and public in the process ofgoverning (David andNicholas, 2005; Yang andMin, 2006). This changeshall accordingly have impacts on the decision-making in planning.Currently, it is widely accepted in principle that planning processesshould be transparent, participatory and integrated rather thanarbitrary, procedural and isolated. Collaborative planning has thereforebeen put forward. Many planners (e.g. Healey, 1997; Margerum, 2002)have argued that collaborative planning, with knowledge sharing andcooperation between stakeholders, should lead to better plans andpolicies which are better implemented. Changes from top-down to




collaborative planning over the past decades in the developed worldhavewitnessed the transformation of the role played by urban plannersin planning process with further implication on power reallocation indecision-making process.

3.1.2. Environmental and natural resource challengesAnother notable change is the environmental and natural resource

challenges for planning, which placed the issues of sustainabledevelopment at the core of urban policy and planning concerns. Themost significant environmental issue now is climate change whichmay fundamentally affect the lives on the planet — access to water,food production, health and the environment (Treasury, 2006; Shen,1998). This has important implication for the work of urban planning,including settlement relocation away from flood-prone coastal andriparian areas and those places subject to mud-slides; protection ofexisting forests, agricultural areas and wildland and promotion onfurther establishment of these areas; and development and enforce-ment of local climate protection measures (Waston, 2009). Anothermajor environmental concern is petroleum oil consumption. Theglobal use of oil as an energy source has accelerated urbanization, andits easy access has allowed the appearance of sprawling urban forms(Jenks and Burgess, 2002). There is also a link between an oil-basedeconomy and climate change: vehicle and aircraft emissions contrib-ute significantly to greenhouse gas and hence the global temperaturerise. The current urbanization and city growth are consequentlyexacerbating various environmental impacts regarding climatechange and oil consumptionwhich are of central concerns to planning(UN-Habitat, 1996; Pelling 2005). Therefore, throughout 1990s, urbanplanning grappled with the problem of integrating the issue ofsustainable development into planning agendas.

Overall, urban planning practices and theories shifted significantlywhich responded to the changes in context, although there werestrong continuities as well. Innovations have taken place in thefollowing areas: urban forms (evolving to ecological and compactcities); planning processes (shifting towards more participatory,democratic and integrated processes); planning forms (shiftingtowards strategic planning at different ranges of scales); connectionbetween planning and environment (including concerns of environ-mental issues and application of environmental assessment toolsduring planning processes); and some new directions in administra-tive management of urban planning. In China, notable changes inurban planning system can be found, to certain extent, in thedifferences between the newly promulgated Urban and Rural PlanningLaw (2008) and the Urban Planning Law (1990). One major change inthe new law refers to a requirement of an integrated developmentplan, including the integration of (1) urban planning and ruralplanning, (2) emerging issues such as economic growth, socialdevelopment and environmental protection, and (3) all stakeholders.

3.2. Evolving understandings of relationship among them

3.2.1. SEA and urban planningThe relationship between SEA and decision-making process has

always been a dominant area of interest in the field of SEA, at least sincelate 1990s (Shephed and Ortolano, 1996; Richardson, 2005).With two-decade theoretical study and practical experience, SEA eventuallyevolved to embody much wider range of approaches and methods, butmost importantly, it moved from the so-called technical and rationaldomain of assessment and evaluation to embrace the diverse realm ofgood governance, social and policy learning (Wallington et al., 2007;Bina, 2008a,b). In addition, the SEA development has becomeincreasingly influenced by the evolution of theories on policy,decision-making and planning processes, which are defined ascontextual dimension of SEA (Fischer, 2003; Partidario, 2000; Brownand Thérivel, 2000). As mentioned above (see Section 3.1), the mostremarkable change is the introduction of collaborative planning process


characterized by absence of power and agreement reached by allparticipants through rational arguments. In this context, SEA should beimproved, in particular the SEA process design. Though there is stillcriticism, many SEA experts (e.g. Bina, 2008a,b; Sadler, 2008) havecurrently argued that the objective-led/procedural SEA approachesshould be abandoned. The ideal process should be more flexible andadaptable, independent of whether a policy, plan or program isconsidered. It is recommended that SEA at policy-, plan- andprogram-level should be developed as an arena (or known as “idealcommunicate situation”) for conversations among policy/planningmakers, environmentalists and the public, instead of being used as anappraisal tool in the end (Wuet al., 2010). SEA shouldbe fully integratedinto the whole process for better knowledge of the decision-makingprocess, and an SEA practitioner should play the role of a consultant atthe key moment who optimizes the final decisions, rather than a judgewho merely evaluates or an opponent who criticizes and goes againstthe options (Environmental Agency, 2001). Whether SEA is integratedinto the decision-making process is put forward as a performancecriterion (IAIA, 2002). Sadler (2008) and Bina (2008a) even proposed toredefine the SEA as EA in Strategy, rather than EA of Strategy.

3.2.2. Ecological planning and urban planningEcological planning is applied widely in the fields of urban

planning as an integrative and comprehensive approach to coordinatethe relationship among regional social development, economicgrowth, technological innovation and environmental protection(Chen and Xu, 2001). Six-year practical experience revealed the factthat ecological planning is easier to be developed than effectivelyimplemented due to obstacles such as lack of legislative support,government attention and capacity building, etc. Recently, interests ofscholars with regard to ecological planning have shifted from planmaking to plan implementation or mechanism for long-termmanagement of eco-cities (Li et al., 2005). They concluded that,though highly advertised, ecological planning in China met constraintin its capacity due to several obstacles. Firstly, the plan contains toomany issues, or the targets defined are too difficult to achieve.Secondly, emphasis is placed on plan making rather than on planexecution. There may be a mismatch between the capacity to developan ecological plan and that to well implement the plan. Finally andmost importantly, there is no clear or authoritative definition on therelationship between ecological plans and existing plans (e.g. urbanplanning, in particular), which may cause limited accordance or lessconsistency between them, and ultimately, less political or adminis-trative support to carry out this emerging type of plans (Shu et al.,2006a; Lü and She, 2006).

Though eco-city planning plays an indispensable role in eco-cityconstruction, it remains only a non-legal planning, and has not yetbeen included in the mainstream plan system in China. On thecontrary, urban planning is a legal plan with compulsory require-ments on principles, procedures, planner qualification, contents, planreview and maintenance. The inconsistency between eco-city plan-ning and urban planning may jeopardize eco-city planning, causing itto be consequently abandoned. Therefore on one hand, advocators ofecological planning call for a legal justice and enhanced administra-tive capacity. On the other hand, the initiative of integration providesus an alternative and win–win strategy that eco-city builderscollaborate with urban planners to validate eco-city planning byincorporating the essence of eco-city planning into urban planning.

3.2.3. SEA and ecological planningSEA and ecological planning are both environmental strategies

highly promoted by MEP. Their integration can offset inadequacy ofthem being individually applied and create a “double-constraint me-chanism” to ensure that issues relevant to sustainable developmentare considered in urban planning. On one hand, though it is recentlyhighlighted in the SEA debate that SEA should intervene in decision-


http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.010



making at an initiative stage, in most cases, it is still behind theproposal of planning alternatives, and serves as only an appraisal toolat the end of plan-making process (Ma et al., 2000; Sadler, 2008).Therefore, Fischer (2003) suggested that it is premature for SEA toadopt a more flexible, adaptable and integrated new process due toslow changes in contextual dimensions. On the other hand, ecologicalplanning may be set in a very awkward situation due to itsinconsistency with existing planning system. The capacity of ecolog-ical planning or SEA is quite limited if working solely (Bao et al., 2004).However, a “two-way constraint” of urban planning can be formedthrough integration (see Fig. 2). Under such framework, ecologicalplanning provides ecological principles or requirements to guide theplanning at a very early stage and SEA functions as an appraisal tool inthe end to ensure that environmental issues are considered in thepreferred option(s). Moreover, Shu et al. (2006a,b) explained thatecological planning, which takes all issues relevant to sustainabledevelopment into account, may effectively supplement SEA as thelatter is only an appraisal tool partially focused on environmentalissues. Therefore, in return, SEA may help to evaluate or select thepreferred options based on their potential impacts, and monitor orreview the real environmental impacts arising from the delivered plan,and ultimately form a feedback mechanism for the improvements ofecological planning.

Overall, the integration of urban planning, SEA and ecologicalplanning may to some extent respond to persistent failure of urbanplanning to deliver social and environmental justice as well asconstrained effectiveness of SEA and ecological planning.

4. Aspects of integration and framework

4.1. Aspects of integration

The integration of urban planning, SEA and ecological planningwas elaborated in six aspects, i.e. the integration of actors, procedures,contents, methodologies, institutional setups and policies (see Box 1),which can also be referred to as generic criteria to review the processof integration.

4.2. Framework

4.2.1. Framework designFig. 3 presented a diagram of the steps described as an integrated

planning and assessment process. The framework presented the

Fig. 2. Double-constraint mechanism for urban planning.


ecological planning, SEA and urban planning in a unified way;however in practice, the degree to which planning and SEA processesmay be consolidated depends on specific circumstances.

The framework was developed on the basis of literature review,analyses of urban planning process, SEA process and ecologicalplanning process, as brainstormed among the project team. Weadmitted that there was perceived inadequacy of this diagram to welldeliver the framework.

Firstly, the diagram showed a framework for general situations butfailed to indicate its adaptation features. In reality, integration patternvaries in degrees and categories depending on the context in which itoccurs. Thus, the proposed framework in practice needs to be tailoredto the particular circumstances involved in each individual case.

Secondly, it is vital to recognize that this framework lies largely in therealm of urban planning rather than SEA or ecological planning,although the diagram defined the relationship among the three, andindicated how SEA and ecological planning would work as supportingtools in the cycle of planning process. Accordingly, it could also betransformed into a framework from the viewpoint of SEA practitioners.

Last but not least, the diagram did not present the possibility thatPEIA could be fully integrated into urban planning to impact theoutcome of decision-making as PEIA has potential capacity to guidethe value orientation of stakeholders involved, thereby to influencetheir alternative selection accordingly.

4.2.2. Steps of the frameworkThe framework is a circular process which contains nine steps

including assessment steps. As such, each step in the framework maybe driven primarily by the planning process or by the PEIA process.Each step in the framework is introduced as follows.

(1) Define the objectives.An objective is what a planner seeks to accomplish or obtain.Moreover, an objective generally indicates the direction inwhich we should strive to do better (Keeney and Raiffa, 1993).The objectives guide the entire planning process since theyprovide the basis for generating and evaluating alternatives. Inorder to accurately define the objectives, it is necessary toclearly identify the key issues that need to be resolved inpriority. Thus a full-scale status-in-quo survey might be wellconducted. However, the objectives may not be set in stone,and may be altered or modified as a result of the assessment.It should be noted that the objectives of the urban planningsystem and those of SEA or ecological planning may not be thesame. There are even conflicts between one another, given thatthe progress in relation to one objective may only beaccomplished at the cost of another. However, for the goal ofurban sustainable development, objectives in different realmsshould be consolidated as one (Shu et al., 2006b). Trade-offsbetween competing objectives may therefore be necessary.Hence in most cases, the objectives set might be an outcome ofcompromise between stakeholders.

(2) Define plan contents.As plan functions are quite different, contents of urban plansdiffer from those of ecological plans accordingly even if theirconcerned issues are similar. Take spatial distribution forinstance. Urban planning focuses on its economic and socialrationality whilst ecological planning concerns more about itsecological security. Through systematic integration, essentialcontents of ecological plans (e.g. the form of eco-security patternand ecological zoning, etc.) should be incorporated in theplanning system. Yu et al. (2005) argued that, based on theintegration of ecological measures or issues into urban planning,a newplanning approach— negative planning— can be achievedthrough strict prohibition of construction activities in sensitiveecological zones.



Box 1Six aspects of integration.

Integration of actors — participation of different actors into the assessment and plan-making process (e.g. stakeholders such as urbanplanners, eco-city builders, SEA experts, governmental departments and the public) and possibly effective interaction among stakeholders;integration of their value orientation, skills, knowledge and interests; outcome as integrated goals/objectives, or multi-value orientedstandard to select preferred scheme.Integration of procedures — the integration of different procedural requirements and approval/licensing requirements of urban planning,ecological planning and SEA, to maximize collaboration and minimize repetitive work.Integration of contents — integration of focused issues; integration of information and data; integration of report contents to avoidredundancy. Normally, the final report should cover all the key contents of urban planning, ecological planning and SEA and highlight theirshared parts.Integration of methodologies — the integration of urban/spatial and ecological planning approaches; the integration of environmental,economic and social assessment approaches; the integration of assessment and planning approaches; the integration of the differentapplications and experiences with the use of particular tools; the integration and clarification of terminologies and disciplines.Integration of institutions — the provision of capacity to cope with the emerging issues and duties; the definition of a governmentalorganization to ensure integration; the exchange of information and possibilities of interventions between different sectors; the definitionof leading and participating agencies and their respective duties and responsibilities.Integration of policies — the integration of sustainable development as overall guiding principle in planning and EIA; the integration ofspecial laws; the integration of sector regulations; the integration of sector strategies; the provisions of political interventions to ensureintegration.


(3) Define scope.As SEA is integrated into urban planning, the scope should beappropriately defined. Scoping essentially involves determin-ing the issues or impacts upon which the SEA will focus. Inorder that resources are best allocated, the potential environ-mental impacts and alternatives investigated should includethose considered to be most significant. A range of issues maybe resolved at this stage, which include (1) identification of thepotential key impacts and sources; (2) decision on the availableinformation for the purpose of EIA; (3) identification of keystakeholders; (4) selection of appropriate methodologies; (5)establishment of in-depth impact investigation to be under-

Fig. 3. Framework of the integrat


taken; and (6) determination on the spatial and temporal scopeof the assessment.

(4) Identify optional schemes or alternatives.Alternatives or options are targets of SEA and raw materials fordecision-making.Several factors should be considered at this stage: (1) Optionsmayinclude “do-nothing option” for SEA purposes as they provide thebaseline scenarios; (2) Some stringent standards in the objectives,in particular the environmental standards or eco-city require-ments, should be applied to eliminate deficient alternatives forefficiency purposes; and (3) In some cases, a package of preferredoptions is contained rather than a single option.

ed planning and assessment.




(5) Assess the optional schemes/compare alternatives.It is at this stage in the framework that SEA is strongly involved.A range of impact dimensions should ideally be considered,such as impacts that are direct or indirect, positive or negative,cumulative or non-cumulative, permanent or temporary, etc. Inthis framework, the significance of identified impacts can bemeasured through expert judgment, dialogues with stake-holders, threshold of environmental/ecological carrying capac-ity and references to legislations, regulations and technicalguidelines such as environmental standards and eco-citycriteria. There is an apparent trend that a package of options,instead of a single option, is formed during the planningprocess. Therefore, SEA may well evaluate competing options,rank them and conclude on preferred option(s).

(6) Select the preferred options/modify the options.This is the point at which a decision is made as to which of theoptions under evaluation best meets the objectives and shouldbe taken forward. As mentioned above, trade-offs betweenvarious objectives and compromise among different stake-holders may be necessary to reach a decision. In addition toSEA, decision-makers have to take into consideration a varietyof other factors (e.g. operability, public acceptability, economiccost and benefit, etc.) before reaching a decision on a preferredoption. If a preferred option cannot be identified for whateverreason, it may be of necessity to revisit the options to makemodification or possibly return to the initiative stage so as toredefine the objectives.

(7) Implement and monitor.Real impacts of the plan could be monitored when it isimplemented. SEA can support the monitoring process, as onone hand, it identifies the most significant potential impactsthat may need observation and recommends indicators whichprovide a miniature of the degree of possible changes; on theother hand, another type of SEA, defined as follow-up SEA, maybe used to monitor and evaluate the actual impacts of the planon issues relevant to sustainable development. In China, thenewly promulgated PEIA Regulation (2009) requires in Chapter4 that “soon after a comprehensive plan or a special plan whichis likely to have significant adverse impacts on the environmenthas been implemented, the planner should organize follow-upassessment for the PEIA”, and the follow-up assessment of SEAat planning level should include the following contents asdefined by the PEIA Regulation (2009): (1) comparative analysisand evaluation between those environmental impacts thatactually occurred due to the implementation of a plan andthose impacts documented in the PEIS; (2) analysis andevaluation on effectiveness of those counter measures andsolutions adopted in the plan aimed at preventing or reducingadverse environmental impacts; (3) the public comments toenvironmental impacts associated with implementation of theplan; and (4) conclusions of the follow-up assessment.

(8) Review and evaluate.The performance of the preferred option should be reviewedand evaluated based on monitoring results and this should bean ongoing process throughout the lifecycle of an urban plan orpolicy. Amendment and modification to the overall objectivescan be conducted based on the review and evaluation findings.Retrospective SEA can be usefully applied in support of reviewand evaluation on environmental impacts of the plan. ManyChinese scholars are now advocators for retrospective SEA.They explained that as the history of development is muchlonger than that of SEA, there were quite a lot of plansimplemented all over China that did not embrace any SEAinvolvement. Therefore, retrospective SEA appears equallyimportant to the predictive SEA with respect to clean-up ofhistoric debts.


(9) Stakeholders involvementMajor questions in undertaking this step includewho should beinvolved, when to involve and in what capacity? In theory, asshown in the framework, different actors (i.e. urban planners,eco-city builders, SEA experts, governmental departments andthe public, etc.) should all be involved in the entire planninglifecycle to ensure that the assessment and decision-makingprocess is transparent, honest and fair, and to obtain somedegree of understanding and support from the involvedstakeholders, in particular, the public. However, the followingaspects may vary dependent on circumstances and character-istics of the planning in real cases: (1) the extent to whichstakeholders are involved in; (2) the way in which they areengaged; and (3) what capacity should they have to influencethe decision-making.

5. Case study— eco-district plan of ChengnanNewDistrict of JintanCounty, Jiangsu Province

5.1. Background

Jintan County, under jurisdiction of Changzhou City, is located inthe southern portion of Jiangsu Province. The planning scope coveredChengnan New District, which is located south of downtown Jintanand bordered by the northern boundary of Qianzidang Lake. It isstated in the Urban Conceptual Plan that this district is planned to bebuilt as an eco-district with residential communities, administrativecenters and entertainment areas.

As the planned area is immediately bounded by Qianzidang Lake,an ecological sensitive zone used as a back-up drinking water sourcefor Jintan, the planning organization invited environmentalists andSEA experts to work on this issue at the initiative stage to guideconstruction activity, ensure protection of the ecological sensitivezone for urban sustainability, and more importantly, meet require-ments stipulated in environmental protection laws and regulations.

5.2. Process

As shown in Fig. 4, the team firstly proposed the concept of eco-district and its dimensions within context of Chengnan New District.Environmental assessment on existing Concept Plan and Detailed Planfor Chengnan New District were simultaneously conducted. Secondly,with reference to the findings of PEIA and Criterion for eco-district atcounty-level, i.e. the eco-county, the environmental rationality ofurban planning were analyzed. Finally, an ecological-oriented urbandesign and a regulatory planwere developed on the basis of ecologicalprinciples. In addition, the plan mainly focused on issues of spatialarrangement and control, transport organization, conservation ofwater environment and landscape design, which were all regarded askey factors in this case to achieve urban sustainability.

5.3. Outcomes

5.3.1. Ecological principles to guide the planThe fundamental ecological principles to guide urban planning and

design of new districts are raised through reference to researches inthe fields of eco-city and heated arguments between urban plannersand SEA experts, which include the following aspects:

(1) For spatial arrangement and land use: Chengnan should bebuilt into a “compact city” (Jenks and Burgess, 2002; Register,1987; Roseland, 1997) with mixed, multiple functions. Landdevelopment intensity must be strictly regulated, in particularthe area located in immediate proximity to Qianzidang Lake.

(2) For transport planning: Road and traffic systems are designedto meet the needs of city residents. Pedestrians, bicycles and



Fig. 4. Process of Jintan eco-district planning.


public transport are highly promoted to achieve a low-carbon,human-oriented transport system.

(3) For energy use: Energy resources must be utilized in a highlyefficient way. Furthermore, uses of new energy sources areencouraged.

(4) For social and community development: Environmental-friendlylifestyle is strongly recommended. Ecological building and eco-communities should be promoted which enable residents to livea good life with minimum energy consumption.

(5) For landscape design: Ecological functions should be taken intoconsideration during landscape design process. Ecosystemintegrity and health need to be preserved, in particular theriparian system in Jintan.

(6) For environmental protection: Environmental protection mea-sures, such as fugitive source control, wastewater reuse andwater ecosystem recovery need to be integrated into the plan.

5.3.2. PEIA conclusions on existing Concept and Detailed PlansConclusions as follows are mainly based on findings from PEIA on

Chengnan New District Concept Plan and Detailed Plan.

(1) On positioning of Chengnan District: It is considered prior andreasonable to position Chengnan New District as an ecologicaland livable town with residential communities, administrativecenters and recreation functions, which may require a higherlevel of environmental protection and resource conservation.

(2) On building density: The density of buildings in Chengnan NewDistrict is too low to support multiple functions and efficientuse of transport system or municipal infrastructure. Hence, weproposed to raise building density in administrative andresidential areas for economic efficiency considerations, whilelower it in the ecological protective zone surrounding the lake.

(3) On spatial arrangement: On one hand, the Concept Planproposed a spatial pattern described as “one lake with twobanks, one landscape axis with four patches” which placedQianzidang Lake in the center of the overall development area.This arrangement would have significant adverse impacts on


the environmental and ecosystem of Qianzidang Lake. On theother hand, the property distribution was too scattered tomeetthe ecological requirement of building a compact city. Incontrast, the Detailed Plan is considered to be more reasonablewhich proposed a pattern of “one belt with three patches”withstrict control on the land area for construction purposes. Inaddition, this arrangement would be beneficial for the controlon the non-point discharge sources around the QianzidangLake.

(4) On environmental protection strategy and measures: Firstly,some major issues relevant to water environmental protectionwere not included in the plan, such as the minimumrequirement of water surface area maintained, water systemdesign and bank resource utilization. Secondly, the plan failedto protect the natural wetland area due to lack of controlmeasures for non-point discharge sources, and it failed to fullyutilize the wetland's ecological functions and efficacy tonaturally purify water bodies. Overall, the issues of lakeenvironmental protection were not sufficiently considered inthe plan.

(5) On traffic design: The transportation system designed inConcept and Detailed Plans is not in accordance with theprinciple, which was presented as “priority should be given topassengers and public traffic system”.

(6) On project location and schedule: Firstly, as presented inConcept and Detailed Plans, the administrative center is locatedimmediately adjacent to the lake, which may have greatimpacts on water environment and ecosystem; secondly, thequantity and distribution of municipal facilities (e.g. schoolsand hospitals, etc.) are rational and satisfactory whichmatchedthe community arrangement; thirdly, as bridge constructionmay cause serious environmental issues, the project needs tobe redesigned after detailed environmental assessment on thespecific project.

5.3.3. New eco-district plan after modificationThe Concept and Detailed Plans were modified according to

ecological principles as well as findings from PEIA, through which apreferred option to build eco-district was formed. The key contentsare concluded from five aspects in the following section:

(1) Spatial regulationThe regulation was defined to ensure conservation of Qianzi-dang Lake. Therefore human activities in the surrounding areasof the lake were strictly regulated in the following ways, asillustrated in Fig. 5.Firstly, the development intensity is varied according thedistance away from the Qianzidang Lake. For example, thebuilding density is lowest in the area close to the lake, andhighest in the administrative center which is far away from thelake, as shown in Fig. 5a. Secondly, the less distance to the lakeit is, the higher protection level it applies (Fig. 5b). Thirdly, theuse of fertilizers and pesticides should be controlled inneighboring areas of the lake with the aim to mitigateagricultural non-point discharge sources (see Fig. 5c). Lastbut not least, on the northern bank, conservative landscapedarea should be established, while the building altitude (b15 m)and plot ratio (b0.8) are restricted within 500 m from the bank(Fig. 5d).

(2) Ecological traffic and road systemPriority should be considered when it comes to the passengersand public traffic in the planning of ecological transportationsystem. Additionally, associated requirements were proposedin terms of designs for road system and supporting facilities(e.g. parking lots) (see Table 1).



Fig. 5. Spatial regulation of Chengnan eco-district.


(3) Wastewater control for villa areas on the western bank ofQianzidang LakeDomestic wastewater from villa areas could not be dischargedinto the lake unless it is collected and pre-treated to meetrelevant discharge limits, thereby to minimize adverse impactson surface water environmental quality of the lake. Differentenvironmental-friendly treatment processes (e.g. artificialwetland and earthworm ecological filters, etc.) could beapplied to realize advanced treatment of domestic wastewater.

(4) Ecological stormwater collection systemA dynamic multi-level stormwater collection system isdesigned, which consumes no secondary energy (e.g. power)but relies on efficient use of gravitational potential energygenerated by elevation differences between each level. Asshown in Fig. 6, the stormwater collection system should beinstalled in each community. When the collection tanksinstalled in each community are filled, excessive stormwatercould flow to the collection system in public areas (e.g. roadsand squares, etc.) due to gravity. This mechanism could ensurethat stormwater is collected in different levels of the above-mentioned system. Detailed requirements for design andconstruction are as follows: ① The elevation of hardstandingroads should be higher than that of the landscaped area, whilstthe elevation of landscaped area should be higher than that ofthe water surface (see Fig. 6); ② Water flow system amongdifferent levels should be connected; ③ In addition to accessroads for vehicles, the other parts of hardstanding areas should

Table 1Requirement for design and construction of traffic facilities.

Facilities Ecological-oriented requireme

Parking lots In core areas (including adminIn non-core areas: Priorities shInside communities: Parking l

Road design Roads within communities: PrMinor roads: Sidewalks for peMajor roads: Bus lanes need t

Fields surface For parking lots: road surfaceFor pavements and corridors:For plaza and public space: w


be equippedwithwater permeable layers to facilitate drainage;④ Landscape water bodies should be all connected withnearest stormwater collection system; ⑤ Bank revetment forwater bodies should be ecologically designed and built tominimize the use of concrete pavement or other hardstandingmaterials.

(5) Landscape designA two-mile artificial wetland corridor could be established inthe eastern portion of the Qianzidang Lake (as shown in Fig. 7)given the local natural wetland resources. This project not onlyhelps to improve the landscape quality of Chengnan NewDistrict, but also contributes to the treatment of domesticwastewater generated from old town area.

5.4. Case critique

In this case, the eco-district plan development was collaborated byurban planners and SEA experts, at an initiative stage, to achieveurban sustainability. It showed that the proposed framework is anapplicable, flexible and effective mechanism to improve the environ-mental quality of urban planning as well as to enhance the effec-tiveness of SEA and ecological planning.

From the review of the integrated planning process againstthe generic criteria (see Box 1), several key issues have emerged.Firstly, in the case, the integration of actors was generally confined toprofessionals and government agencies, which indicated lack of publicinvolvement in the planning. In addition, it was mainly planners and

nts

istrative centers and conservative areas): Aboveground parking lots are prohibited;ould be given to the underground parking lots;ot location should follow the “easy access” principle.iorities should be given to pedestrians and bicycle riders;destrians and bicycle riders should be designed.o be designed.must be laid with water permeable materials.water permeable materials are encouraged to use.ater permeable materials are required to use.



Fig. 6. Ecological-oriented stormwater collection and drainage system.


planning authorities who took the leading role in the whole process.The integration of different actors was considered insufficient, whichmay lead to less understanding and support from other stakeholdersduring the plan implementation. Secondly, there was limited rangefor options, which only consisted of two choices, the Concept Plan andDetailed Plan. This limitation may, to some extent, affect the quality ofoutcome as strategies to achieve the objectives were not completelyinvolved. Therefore, there is a high possibility that the best plan maynot be included, and that the outcome refers to a modified optionrather than a selected preferred option(s). Finally, we mainly focusedon the integration of the process and contents in this case. Theintegration of institution or policy is difficult to achieve if the context,in particular the political and cultural dimensions, has not beenevolved in response to the change in process design. Hence, insubsequent process such as plan implementation, more efforts shouldbe made to facilitate the institutional or political integration.Additionally, this inadequacy informed us that the follow-up andretrospective SEA must be done to ensure that the integrated plan iseffectively implemented and its real impacts on environment areacceptable.

Also with the case experience, we discovered that there are threekey factors to catalyze the application of integrated framework,including the legal requirement of PEIA on urban planning, thepromotion or strong administrative support from government on eco-

Fig. 7. Wetland corridor functioning as landsc


district building as well as the willingness of urban planners to colla-borate with SEA experts or ecologists.

6. Conclusion

Although the traditional planning and SEA approaches should notbe prematurely abandoned, it does not mean they should stayunimproved. This paper argued that the integration of urban planning,SEA and ecological planning may be a response to persistent failure ofurban planning to deliver social and environmental justice, and suchintegration helps to promote the effectiveness of SEA and ecologicalplanning. All these achievements owe to this framework which notonly goes beyond independent ecological planning or SEA, but alsoseeks to input the environmental and ecological considerations intothe urban planning and design process.

This integration model highlights the collaboration betweenplanners and SEA professionals and ecologists. In this model, actorswith different knowledge, from different departments with distin-guished interests could have the opportunities to communicate andbargain, thus to reach a “consensus” in which both environmentalistsand planners, on behalf of environmental authorities and planningauthorities, respectively, will work together to produce a “red andgreen urban plan”which not only concerns city development but alsoenvironmental protection and social justice. In consequence, this“integratedmechanism”may help to break the “institutional barriers”existing for long between urban planning authorities and environ-mental authorities in China. Transformed from a review approachused by environmental authorities into an internal assessmentmechanism in the plan process, SEA would not anymore be regardedas a political tool by environmental authorities to intervene or hinderplanning authorities to utilize their power, but as a measure toimprove plan quality by incorporating environmental considerations,and thereby to incrementally improve effectiveness of the planningitself. Thus the long-term opposition from urban planning authoritiestowards the plan environmental impact assessment will be reversed,not forcibly by legal requirements, but by the change in their mindset.

Moreover, the relationship between ecological plans and urbanplans would also be transformed if we make efforts to formulate anecological urban plan, ormake urban plansmore ecological, rather thanseparate ecological plans from legally required urban plans. Throughthis integration process, the previous “competitive” relationshipbetween these two plans would be changed into “collaborative” and

ape and wastewater treatment facilities.




“mutually supportive”. On one hand, the core purpose of developing anecological plan, i.e. to build an ecological city or to develop the city in amoreecologicalway,would be achieved throughurbanplanningguidedbyecological principles. On the other hand, the “grey”urban planning ordevelopment strategies would be optimized into “green” and “red”urban plans if they were formed entirely based on ecological principlesand regulated by the SEA process.

In conclusion, this integration model aims to unify the “separated”three subjects into a “combined” one, which can help change long-terminconsistency or even “fighting” relationship between ecologicalplanning, urban planning and SEA, and incrementally have positiveimpacts on facilitating “harmony” between key stakeholders involvedin the process, i.e. the administrative departments (e.g. environmentalauthorities and urban planning authorities), ecologists, urban planners,and SEA professionals. However, the practical case study furtherdemonstrated that implementation of this mechanism, which attemptsto improve their effectiveness by influencing the context where theecological planning, urban planning and SEA operate (i.e. the planningculture, political and institutional dimensions) is also influenced by thecontextual dimensions. Regulatory requirement, strong political oradministrative support, and evolving understanding of urban sustain-ability from officials (e.g. particularly those who have the power todominate urban construction and planning development, such as theofficials from urban planning authorities, etc.) are three key elements tofacilitate the integration of SEA and ecological planning into urbanplanning in China. Though the contextual dimensions have not fullyevolved for effective implementation of this integration mechanism,the situation is about to be changed since the large promotion of eco-civilization construction in 2008. The attempts to promote the PEIApractice in China, as reflected by the promulgation of PEIA Regulation in2009, will also help improve the contextual elements to implement thisintegration mechanism.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks for fund support from the National Science Fundcommission as well as the National Development and InnovationCommission on this project.

References

Allen A, You N. Sustainable urbanisation. Building the green and brown agenda.London: Development Planning Unit; 2002.

Au E, Lam K-C. SEA and the spatial planning process in the Hong Kong specialadministrative region. In: AuWK, et al, editor. International experience on strategicenvironmental assessment. Second ed. Beijing: State Environmental ProtectionAgency; 2008. p. 42–56.

Bao C-K, Lu Y-S, Shang J-C. Framework and operational procedure for implementingstrategic environmental assessment in China. EIR Rev 2004;24:27–46.

Bao C-K, Shang J-C. The theory of SEA and practical advancement. Guiding Newspaper1999;6:1–5.

Bina O. Context and systems: thinking more broadly about effectiveness in strategicenvironmental assessment in China. Environ Manage 2008a;42:717–33.

Bina O. A context-specific interpretation of SEA in China. In: Au WK, et al, editor.International experience on strategic environmental assessment. Second ed.Beijing: State Environmental Protection Agency; 2008b. p. 57–81.

Bo Y, Chen X-X. Exploring the methods of ecocity planning. J Zhibo Coll Nat Sci Eng2000;2:94–6.

Breheny M, editor. Sustainable development and urban form. London: Pion; 1992.Brown A, Thérivel R. Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental

assessment methodology. Impact Proj Appraisal 2000;18:183–9.Chen X-H, Xu Y-L. On ecocity planning: case study of Dafeng City of Jiangsu. Mod Urban

Res 2001;2:22–4.David R and Nicholas F. Wang J and Shan Y-H, the translator. Building Homeland for

twenty first Century: sustainable urban community of neighborhood. Beijing:China Architecture and Building Press; 2005.

Dong X-J. On Ecocity. China: Social Science Press 2002:16–44, 219–256.Environmental Agency. Strategic integrated appraisal methods. Environmental Agency

R&D Project No, E2-044. Bristol: Environmental Agency; 2001.Fischer TB. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environ Impact

Assess Rev 2003;23:155–70.


Healey P. Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke:Macmillan Press; 1997.

He J, Bao C-K, Xie J, Shu T-F, Jiang D-H. On evaluation index system for effectiveness ofecological plan with case of Taicang Eco-city Plan. Resource and Environ in theYangtze basin 2010;19(9):985–90.

Holger D, Rodrigo JH, Bongardt D. Analytical strategic environmental assessment:developing a new approach to SEA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:385–402.

Huang G-Y. Development of eco-city planning and construction in China. UrbanEnviron Urban Ecol 2001;14:6–8.

Huang G-Y, Chen Y. On ecocity concept and ecocity planning methods. Urban Plann1997;6:17–20.

Huang G-Y. The review and prospect of ecocity researches. Urban Dev Stud 2004;11:40–7.Huang Z-Y, Yang D-Y. Review on ecocity theories. Urban Plann 2001;25:59–66.Jenks M, Burgess R, editors. Compact cities: sustainable urban forms for developing

countries. London: Spon Press; 2002.Jin X. On ecocity development in China. Eng Des CAD Intellect Arch 2002;5:4–9.Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives–preference and value tradeoffs.

Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993.Lee N. Integrated approaches to impact assessment: substance of make-believe?

Environmental assessment yearbook 2002 by Institute of Environmental Manage-ment and Assessment. University of Manchester: Lincoln and the EIA Centre; 2002.

Li F, Wang R-S, Paulussen Juergen, Liu Xusheng. Comprehensive concept planning ofurban greening based on ecological principles: a case study in Beijing, China.Landscape Urban Plann 2005;72(4):325–36.

Li W, Yang ZF. SEA oriented to the sustainable development. China Environ Sci 1998;18:66–9.

Lü B, She G-H. The integration of ecological planning and urban planning. Urban PlannForum 2006;4:15–9.

Ma J-G, Yan Y-C. Theoretical studies on ecocity. J Lanzhou Univ Soc Sci 2004;32:108–17.Ma W-C, Lam K-C. SEA and its research advancement. Environ Sci 2000;21:107–12.Margerum R-D. Evaluating collaborative planning: implication from an empirical

analysis of growth management. J Am Plann Assoc 2002;68(2):179–93.Ong B-L. Green plot ration: an ecological measure for architecture and urban planning.

Landscape Urban Plann 2003;63(4):197–211.Partidario M. Elements of an SAE framework-improving the added value of SEA.

Environ Impact Assess Rev 2000;20:647–63.Pelling M. Current issues and trends in urban safety. An unpublished review

undertaken for the Policy Analysis Synthesis and Dialogue Branch. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. 2005.

Pickett STA. Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating theecological, socio-economic and planning realms. Landscape Urban Plann 1995;33(1–3):211–25.

Register R. Eco-city Berkeley: building cities for a healthy future. Berkeley: NorthAtlantic Books; 1987.

Richardson T. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories aboutpower, multiple rationality and ethics. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2005;25:341–65.

Roseland M. Dimension of the future: an ecocity overview. In: Roseland M, editor. Eco-city dimension. Easthampton: New Society Publishers; 1997.

Sadler B. International trends and developments in SEA process and practice. In: AuWK,et al, editor. International experience on strategic environmental assessment.Second ed. Beijing: State Environmental Protection Agency; 2008. p. 14–41.

Scrase I.J. and Sheate W.R. Integration and integrated approaches to assessment whatdo they mean for limited. [online] http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/regional_po-licies/planning/tourism_strategy/sustainablity_appraisal-final%20report.doc(accessed November 2009).

Shen Q-J. Urban ecology and urban environment. Shanghai: Tongji University Press; 1998.Shephed A, Ortolano L. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable urban

development. EIA Rev 1996;16:321–35.Shu T-F, Bao C-K, Lu Y-S, Wang S-P. The relationship between the planning EIA and

ecological planning. J Tongji Univ Nat Sci 2006a;34:382–7.Shu T-F, et al. The integration of urban planning and planning environmental impact

assessment. Urban Plann Forum 2006b;4:23–5.Sun A-J. Interview of Sun Anjun, deputy director of urban and rural planning

department, Ministry of Construction on the revision of the “Urban PlanningMaking-Methods”. City Plann Rev 2006;5:9-12.

Treasury HM. Short executive summary: stern review on the economics of climatechange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

UN-Habitat. Urbanizing world: global report on human settlements. China: Construc-tion Industry Press; 1996.

Wang Y, Morgan RK, Cashmore M. Environmental impact assessment of projects in thePeople's Republic of China: new law, old problems. Environ Impact Assess Rev2003;23:543–79.

Wang X-R. Concept, Ration, and case studies of ecocity planning. Planners 2002;18:12–5.Wallington T, Bina O, Thissen W. Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh

perspectives and future challenges. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007;23:569–84.Waston. The planned city sweeps the poor away: urban planning and 21st century

urbanization. Prog Plann 2009(72):151–93.Wu J,Chang I-S, BinaO, LamK-C,XUH. Strategic environmental assessment implementation

in China — five-year review and prospects. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.010.

Xu H, Zhu T, Jia C-R. SEA Implementation in China — regional environmentalassessment. Urban Environ Urban Ecol 2000;13:4–6.

Yang B-J, Min X-Y. Interpreting the revision of the “Urban Planning Making-Methods”.Urban Plann Forum 2006(4):1–7.

Yu K-J, Li D-H, Liu H-L. On negative planning. Beijing: China architecture & BuildingPress; 2005.


http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/regional_policies/planning/tourism_strategy/sustainablity_appraisal-final%20report.doc

http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/regional_policies/planning/tourism_strategy/sustainablity_appraisal-final%20report.doc


ssessment Review xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

He Jia, Ph D candidate in the College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering inTongji University with doctor dissertation in the subject of SEA.

Bao Cunkuan, Professor in the College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering andthe Deputy Director of the Research Center for Environmental Impact Assessment inTongji University, with research focus on SEA and Environmental Planning.

Shu Tingfei, Former lecturer in the College of Environmental Sciences and Engineeringin Tongji University, and now assistant to General Manager of ManagementCommission of Shanghai Kangqiao Industrial Park.

Yun Xiaoxue, Graduate from the College of Environmental Sciences and Engineeringin Tongji University in 2009, and now an associate environmental specialist inShanghai Environmental Engineering & Technology Company.

12 J. He et al. / Environmental Impact A


Jiang Dahe, Professor in the College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering andthe Deputy Director of UNEP-Tongji Institute for Environment of SustainableDevelopment, with research focus on fluid dynamics, action plan to adapt to climatechange and ecological plan.

Lex Brown, Professor in the Griffith School of Environment, with research focus onenvironmental assessment and planning, project environmental appraisal, EIA andSEA, transportation and so on.



Framework for integration of urban planning, strategic ...

Documents

Transcript of Framework for integration of urban planning, strategic ...