Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

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

Learning through EC directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from theBrunswick Region in Germany

Thomas B. Fischer a,⁎, Sue Kidd a, Urmila Jha-Thakur a, Paola Gazzola c, Deborah Peel b

a Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, UKb School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, Jordanstown campus, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, UKc School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University, Claremont Tower, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: fischer@liverpool.ac.uk (T.B. Fischer)

0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.03.001

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 September 2008Received in revised form 4 March 2009Accepted 6 March 2009Available online 15 April 2009

Keywords:Strategic environmental assessmentLearning potentialSEA directiveSpatial planning

This paper presents results of an international comparative research project, funded by the UK Economic andSocial Research Council (ESRC) and the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC) on the ‘learning potential ofappraisal (strategic environmental assessment— SEA) in spatial planning’. In this context, aspects of ‘single-loop’and ‘double-loop’ learning, as well as of individual, organisational and social learning are discussed for emergingpost-EC Directive German practice in the planning region (Zweckverband) of Brunswick (Braunschweig),focusing on four spatial plan SEAs from various administrative levels in the region. It is found that whilst SEA isable to lead to plan SEA specific knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and analysis (‘single-looplearning’), it is currently resulting only occasionally in wider synthesis and evaluation (‘double-loop learning’).Furthermore, whilst there is evidence that individual and occasionally organisational learning may be enhancedthrough SEA, most notably in small municipalities, social learning appears to be happening only sporadically.

© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction — learning in order to improve SEA effectiveness

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is commonly under-stood as a systematic, objectives-led, evidence-based, pro-active andparticipative decision-making support instrument for the formulationof environmentally sustainable policies, plans and programmes (PPPs;see e.g., Fischer, 2007; 2003; Brown and Therivel, 2000; Sadler andVerheem, 1996). Through application of a range of suitable, situationspecific methods and techniques, SEA is supposed to add rigour to thedecisionmaking process. Its main aim is to ensure due consideration isgiven to environmental aspects in PPP making above the project level.Ultimately, SEA should lead to changes in PPP processes and outcomesby reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing positiveenvironmental action. Fischer (2007) linked the potential effective-ness of SEA in leading to a better consideration of the environmentalcomponent in PPP making to the following three functions:

(1) SEA provides decision-makers with better information;(2) SEA enables attitudes and perceptions to change through

participation and involvement;(3) SEA changes established routines.

All of these functions can be interpreted as turning on the qualityof knowledge and learning in order to enhance decision making

.

l rights reserved.

processes, promoting more environmentally conscious outcomes.Based on more comprehensive information provided through SEA,instrumental learning is supposed to occur, with better knowledgeleading to a higher level of comprehension by individuals, organisa-tions, and possibly the wider population, and ultimately to envir-onmentally adjusted PPPs. This may be connected with what Argyrisand Schön (1978) in their seminal work on organisational learningdescribed as ‘single-loop’ (‘know-how’) learning. In addition, trans-formative learning may also be happening, leading to changes inattitudes, perceptions and routines of individuals and organisations,based in particular on wider synthesis and evaluation. In this context,SEA may have positive impacts beyond a specific policy, plan orprogramme, leading to changes of individual and organisationalvalues and norms. This can be connected with what Argyris and Schön(1978) called ‘double-loop’ (‘know-why’) learning.

The learning literature – particularly of the transformative kind– hasalready become an established feature of environmental planning,resourcemanagement, and alternative dispute resolution practices (seee.g., Keen et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl andHare, 2004). However, to date, thelearning dimension of SEA activities has been held to be relatively weakand immature (Owens et al., 2005). Overall, it is probably fair to say that‘learning’ has had only a patchy appearance in the SEA (andalso the EIA)literature (Saarikoski, 2000; Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Sinclair et al.,2008; see also Jha-Thakur et al., forthcoming). The key assumption hereis that learning is necessary in order to improve SEA's effectiveness inleading to a more balanced consideration of economic, social andenvironmental aspects in PPP making.

422 T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

2. Research project underlying the paper

This paper reports on some of the results of a UK Economic andSocial Research Council (ESRC) and the Academy for SustainableCommunities (ASC) funded project, ‘exploring the learning potentialof appraisal in spatial planning’, conducted by a research team ofLiverpool University in 2007/2008. The purpose of this researchproject was twofold:

(i) to develop a theoretical understanding of the learning dimen-sion of SEA through a comparative examination of aspects oflearning in England, Italy and Germany; and

(ii) to identify the types of learning happening on the ground witha view to providing an evidence base of learning through SEA.

Overall, the project aimed at examining ways for improving thelearningoutcomes associatedwith SEA in spatial planning and, based onthis, ultimately to enhance SEA's effectiveness. In this context, theproject drew upon experiences with local spatial planning documents,which were subjected to the requirements of the European Union'sStrategic Environmental Assessment Directive (EC/2001/42; EuropeanCommission, 2001). In order to be able to examine the learningpotentialof differing appraisal methodologies, practice at the local level in morethan one country was considered, including Southampton (UK),Ravenna (Italy) and the planning region (Zweckverband) of Brunswick(Braunschweig, Germany). Following an earlier ESRC funded researchstudy (Owens et al., 2005), this project sought to contribute to the futureresearch agenda in this field and inform the activities of the UK ASCregarding the skills and knowledgeneeded to support planning formoresustainable places. The empirical data collection comprised:

(1) choosing the case study; establishing and reviewing relevantspatial plan SEAs;

(2) interviews revolving around various forms and levels of indi-vidual, organisational as well as social learning aspects inappraisal/SEA with spatial plan making and SEA actors, includ-

Fig. 1. Single and double loop learning throug

ing representatives of authorities, consultants and observers/academics; and

(3) written questionnaires with those actors mentioned under(2) on aspects of individual and organisational learning.

This paper focuses on the results of parts (1) and (2) for theBrunswick case study. Results of part (3) are discussed in a comparativemanner for the three countries by Jha-Thakur et al. (forthcoming; fora project overview, see also Kidd et al., forthcoming). Besides identifyingand discussing the perceived learning potential of SEA, this paper alsoprovides for a first insight into emerging post Directive SEA practicein Germany, a country with a long established and strong pre-SEADirective environmental planning and management tradition. In theinternational professional literature, to date post Directive SEA practicein Germany has mainly been dealt with in a generic, but not in a casespecificmanner (see e.g., Fischer, 2007; Scholles and vanHaaren, 2004).In this context, the paper also shows what problems may arise whenattempting to research post-SEA Directive practice.

3. Theoretical framework

The first part of the research project involved the development ofa theoretical framework, which was then used as the basis for theempirical research. A ‘taxonomy of learning in SEA’ was designed,relating individual, organisational and social learning aspects to Argyrisand Schön's (1978) concept of ‘single and double loop’ learning, asintroduced above. Furthermore, the taxonomy also depicts differentlevels of understanding, drawing on Bloom's (1956) work on educa-tional objectives (see Fig. 1; Kidd et al., forthcoming). In this context,single-loop learning can be associated with knowledge acquisition,comprehension, application and analysis connected with a specific SEA.Double-loop learning in comparison can be associated with widersynthesis and evaluation, with implications going beyond the specificSEA case.

All aspects of the theoretical framework were covered in theempirical research. In interviews, questions were asked on the extent

h SEA. Source: Kidd et al. (forthcoming).

423T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

to which individuals and organisations learn through SEA. Further-more, questions on the levels of understanding were asked, in orderto establish whether there is single- or double-loop learning hap-pening, i.e., whether learning is only of an instrumental, or also of atransformatory type. Finally, whether wider social learning may occurwas established, particularly in terms of sharing perspectives withother authorities, stakeholders and the wider community (see e.g.,Bandura, 1977; Webler et al., 1995).

4. Choice of a suitable German case study

The initial idea was to investigate post-EC Directive SEA practicefor local statutory spatial/land use plans of cities with a population ofbetween 250,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. Whilst in theory, this shouldhave been a straightforward exercise almost four years after theDirective came into force, in practice finding a suitable case study inGermany proved more difficult than anticipated. This is mainly ex-plained by the fact that in Germany, opposite to practice in e.g., England,there are no statutory requirements to prepare local land use plans atregular intervals. For this reason, in the Länder (states) of formerWesternGermany,manymunicipalities still have land use plans in placethat were prepared back in the 1970s and 1980s, with up to severalhundred subsequentupdates related to specific landuse changes.Whilstupdates also fall under the requirements of the SEADirective, associatedassessments are more EIAs than SEAs in that they focus on singledevelopments only. Whilst municipalities in the states of the formerGerman Democratic Republic (GDR) have more recent statutory landuse plans from the 1990s and early 2000s, most were prepared beforeSEA Directive requirements became effective.

Although local land use planning SEA practice in Germany was thusstill verymuch at the experimenting stage at the beginning of 2008 (foran example, see Saad and Schneider, 2006), practice at the regional levelwas much better established (Scholles, personal communication; UVPreport, 2006). As early as 2002, for example, there had been a researchstudy of regional spatial plan SEA, funded by the Federal EnvironmentAgency and a range of completed case studies had been mentioned inthe professional literature (Gather and Schmidt, 2002; Hanusch andGlasson, 2008). It was decided to investigate the nature of the learningdimensionwithin a city regional case study where the main city wouldfall into the category of roughly 250,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. Thiswas of a comparative size with the English and Italian case studies.

Table 1Spatial and landscape planning framework for the Brunswick region.

NB: coloured/shaded cells = SEA case studies underlying this paper.1 Older local land use plans were at times prepared at a scale 1:10,000. However, many pl

This makes project planning very slow, as every small change required a land use plan alterabeen subject to 120 plan alteration procedures by 2008.

Braunschweig (English name Brunswick) with a population ofroughly 250,000 inhabitants lies in the state of Niedersachsen (LowerSaxony). The Brunswick planning region (Zweckverband Braunschweig)had completed both, a regional spatial plan and an EC-Directive basedSEA between 2004 and 2008 (Zweckverband Braunschweig, 2008a,b).The regionhas a population of just over 1Mand consists of threeunitarycities; Braunschweig, Wolfsburg and Salzgitter, as well as five counties;Helmstedt, Gifhorn, Peine, Wolfenbüttel and Goslar. The counties eachconsist of several medium size and smaller municipalities.

5. Spatial/ land use planning and SEA in Germany and theBrunswick region

In Germany, spatial/land use planning is regulated through theFederal Building Code (Construction and Spatial Planning Act/Bauge-setzbuch) from 1960, last amended in 2006. Spatial/land use planning isa responsibility of the 16 German states, with spatial/land use planningframeworks differing substantially throughout Germany. Spatial/landuseplans andprogrammesarepreparedatdifferent administrative tiers,and normally include state, regional/county, municipal and neighbour-hood tiers. Furthermore, landscape development plans and pro-grammes (Landschaftspläne und – programme) are prepared at thedifferent tiers. These serve as state of the landscape/environmentreports, and provide for the landscape/environmental baseline forspatial plans and their related SEAs. Furthermore, being based on theprecautionary principle, they set overall landscape/environmentaldevelopment aims and objectives and formulate landscape/environ-mental developmentmeasures for the areas they cover. Landscape plansand programmes share many aims and objectives with SEA (Fischer,2005) and there is some extensive overlap of both, procedural andsubstantive coverage (Scholles and van Haaren, 2004; Hanusch andFischer, 2009). Spatial planning in the state of Lower Saxony is regulatedthrough the Lower Saxony Spatial Planning Law (NiedersächsischesGesetz über Raumordnung und Landesplanung — NROG) of 2007.Furthermore, landscape – and thus environmental – planning isregulated through the Lower Saxony Environmental Protection Law(Niedersächsisches Naturschutzgesetz — NNatG) of 1994, amended in2003.

Based on the requirements of Directive EC/2001/42, SEA wasformalised in German spatial planning in 2004 through the ‘Act toAccommodate EURequirements in the Federal ConstructionAct’. AnSEA

anners feel that this shows too much detail, and eg every single playing field is included.tion process. In the city of Wolfsburg, for example, the 1977 statutory land use plan had

424 T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

Framework Lawwithin the context of EIA legislation (first established in1990) came into force one year later on 29 June 2005 (Gesetz zurEinführung einer Strategischen Umweltprüfung und zur Umsetzung derRichtlinie 2001/42/EG — SUPG). All formal spatial and land use plansnormally require SEA. In addition, landscape plans and programmesmay also require SEA, mainly if they are not prepared in parallel withspatial and land use plans. Federal guidelines for spatial/land use planSEAs are currently being developed. Regarding SEA for spatial plans andprogrammes in Lower Saxony, a preliminary guidance document wasreleased by the responsible ministry in 2007 (NiedersächsischesMinisterium, 2007).

SEA-type assessment practice in Germany predates the European SEADirective. Whilst procedural aspects of SEA are reflected in plan makingitself, many substantive aspects are covered by the landscape planningsystem. Local landscape plans prepared during the latter half of the 1990sin the state of Brandenburg, for example, were identified to meet therequirements of the then SEA Directive proposal to the largest extent of arange of UK, Dutch and German spatial/ land use plan SEA typeassessments (Fischer, 2002). In Lower Saxony, there is a state widespatial programme in place (Landesraumordnungsprogramm) from2007. Furthermore, a state-wide Landscape Programme (Landschaft-sprogramm) from 1989 is also in place. Regional level spatial andlandscape framework plans are also prepared. As explained above, theBrunswick planning region covers five counties and three unitary cities.All of these have landscape framework plans in place (see BfN, 2008).Furthermore, there are landscape plans at municipal levels and finally,open space master plans (Grünordnungspläne) for master plans(Bebauungspläne) within municipalities. Table 1 shows the spatial/land use and landscape planning framework for the Brunswick region.

The coloured cells indicate the spatial/land use plan SEAs coveredin this paper. In addition to the regional spatial plan SEA and the localland use plan SEAs of the municipalities of Wolfsburg (population120,000; Stadt Wolfsburg, 2008) and Wolfenbüttel (population56,000; Planungsamt Stadt Wolfenbüttel, 2007), a local landscapeplan (Königslutter; population 17,000; BfN, 2005) was also consid-ered, as this was prepared with some above average financial andresearch support in an interactive, communicative and web-basedmanner. Taken together, these various plans provided for a useful setof examples for examining the learning potential of SEA. Fig. 2 showsthe location of the Brunswick city region in Germany and LowerSaxony, as well as the SEA case study areas investigated.

Fig. 2. The Brunswick city region a

6. Questionnaire survey

The initial research idea was to conduct between 10 and 15interviews on the SEA for the Regional Spatial Plan (RegionalesRaumordnungsprogramm) Brunswick. However, whilst three con-tacts were quickly established, namely with the persons responsiblefor plan and SEA preparation in the regional administration, as well asthe consultant preparing the SEA, it was difficult to identify furtherinterview partners. Whilst, in theory, representatives of the environ-mental authorities from the counties and unitary cities were involvedat various stages of the SEA process, the two regional planners saidthat in practice, these were somewhat passive, as it was an entirelynew experience for them. Similar problems regarding the identifica-tion of a large enough set of people to be interviewed on SEAwere alsoexperienced in the other two case studies of Southampton andRavenna. This is probably an indication that even in the post ECDirective era, SEA is still not a mainstream and fully institutionalisedinstrument, but rather one that is largely confined to the realms oftechnical experts. This in itself is an important finding, making itsomewhat questionable whether wider social learning is indeedcurrently happening through SEA to any large extent.

At this stage, a decision was made to also look at other (local) landuse plan SEA practice in the region in order to find out more about therole of the regional spatial plan SEA in other spatial/land use planningand SEA exercises in the region. Interviews were conducted with eightplan and SEA representatives in the first week of March 2008. Inaddition, interviews with four academics which had a good knowl-edge of spatial plan SEA practice in Germany and the Brunswick regionwere also conducted.

The questionnaire survey was semi-structured and consisted offive main parts. The first part included questions regarding theinterviewee on age, experience, education and plan making res-ponsibility, as well as on the role in the SEA process. The second partincluded questions regarding the SEA process and its fit with otherplanning processes. The third part explored the methodologicalapproach, looking in particular at the methods and techniques usedin assessment. The fourth part raised questions regarding the learningpotential of SEA in spatial planning, including aspects of:

(a) comprehension, application and analysis; i.e., does SEA lead toadjustments of the spatial plan?

nd other SEA case study areas.

425T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

(b) Individual learning; i.e., has the interviewee learned somethingpersonally from the SEA?

(c) the potential for SEA to lead to organisational and sociallearning in terms of:• better communication and co-operation of authorities,individuals, institutions and organisations;

• changes in attitudes towards environmental issues of indivi-duals, institutions and other stakeholders/ the general publicinvolved in the planning process,— potentially also regardingfuture plan making exercises;

• changes of an organisation's values/objectives/goals/mission;(d) barriers to learning through SEA.

Finally, the fifth part raised questions regarding the overallperceived effectiveness of SEA and necessary changes in order toimprove current practice.

The 12 interviewees included:

- For the Brunswick regional spatial plan SEA; two representatives ofthe regional planning authority (responsible for the plan and SEAmaking process) and the SEA consultant.

- For the Wolfsburg local land use plan SEA; one representative ofthe local planning authority (responsible for both, plan and SEApreparation) and two representatives of the SEA consultant.

- For the Wolfenbüttel local land use plan SEA; the local authorityrepresentative responsible for the preparation of both, the localland use plan as well as its SEA. Here, no consultant or otherauthority were involved.

- For the landscape plan Königslutter; the local authority represen-tative responsible for the landscape plan preparation.

- Four University academics with a good understanding of spatialand land use plan SEAs, and landscape plans and programmes inGermany and the Brunswick region.

All the interviewees had a planning/environmental assessmentrelated university higher education background.

7. The learning potential through spatial plan SEA in the Brunswickregion — emerging evidence

In the Brunswick region, all spatial/land use plan SEAs have aproject related focus; ie focusing on impacts of specific changesin land use. The information provided by the 49 local (unitary cityand municipal) land use plans and the eight unitary city and countywide landscape framework plans (see Table 1), as well as theBrunswick region's ‘Free Spaces Development Concept’ (a type ofstrategic development outlook plan) were the main evidence basefor the regional spatial plan SEA, combining aspects of bottom-upand top-down tiering in plan making. This is in line with the‘counter-current approach’ applied in German spatial planning (seeFischer, 2002). In local land use plan SEAs, which use landscapeframework plans as an important environmental baseline, so calledarea letters (Gebietsbriefe) are prepared for all those areas poten-tially subject to land use changes. These consist of tables outliningimpacts and potential mitigation measures for various environmen-tal aspects. In this context, the basis for an estimation of impacts isfrequently GIS based overlay maps of the various environmentalelements.

The regional spatial plan SEA used a GIS based (1:50,000)estimation of impact significance in table format for all individualanticipated land use changes in the Brunswick region on theenvironmental components as specified in the SEA Directive, takinginto account overall environmental protection and development aimsand objectives. In this context, a total of 317 individual changes wereassessed for areas of (note that housing and commercial develop-ments are covered within municipal local land use plans; these,

however, need to consider e.g., protected areas and associateddevelopment restrictions, established in the regional spatial plan):

- raw material extraction (152 areas);- light railway (4 cases);- roads (16 cases);- forest extensions (103 cases);- electricity lines (5 cases);- wind energy (37 cases).

Furthermore, cumulative effect estimation was provided in 80cases of potential significant environmental impacts. Spatial plan andSEA processes were fully integrated and followed the requirements ofthe EC SEA Directive (Zweckverband Braunschweig, 2008b).

7.1. Learning through SEA

Overall, all the interviewees agreed that there was scope forlearning through SEA. This was principally through the integration,participation and monitoring functions of the instrument. Thetransparency created by SEA and, as a consequence, the potential of,for example, social learning was also mentioned by the interviewees.

All the interviewees stated that SEA had led to single-loop learningin terms of knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application andanalysis, and that as a consequence spatial/land use plans had beenchanged. This included changing boundaries of planned or anticipatednew settlements and areas of raw material extraction as well as togreen ‘buffer zones’ (i.e., green belt) between settlements. Further-more, the rejection of certain infrastructure project proposals (e.g.,road bypasses) was mentioned as being a consequence of the SEAprocess. In terms of a possible quantification of substantive changes tothe spatial plan, the consultant of the Brunswick regional spatial planSEA estimated that between 5% and 10% of the areas for raw materialextraction had changed, based on SEA. Furthermore, he said that atotal of 13 land use changes arose based on comments made duringSEA consultation. SEA induced land use changes were also observed inthe Wolfenbüttel local land use plan SEA and were expected in theWolfsburg local land use plan SEA, which at the time of the interviewshad just started. Furthermore, the interactive, communicative andweb-based Königslutter landscape plan process was said to have led tonumerous concrete land use relatedmeasures and actions not initiallyanticipated.

Whilst all those interviewed without exception stated that theyhad learned something from SEA personally, opinions as to whetherSEA was leading to organisational and wider social learning in termsof:

• better communication and co-operation of authorities, individuals,other institutions and organisations;

• changes in attitudes towards environmental issues of persons,institutions and other stakeholders/the general public involved inthe planning process, — potentially also regarding future planmaking exercises; and

• changes of an organisation's values (objectives, goals, mission).

were more varied.Whilst, on the one hand, consultants and most academics

consistently said that SEA was indeed potentially leading to all ofthese changes, representatives of the planning authorities weresceptical as to whether SEA was able to lead to changes in attitudesand values. In this context, importantly, it was argued that attitudesand values regarding environmental issues had changed over the pastfew years, anyways, based e.g., on the debates on climate change,deforestation, and other environmental stresses, as well as on theintroduction of new environmental policies and procedures. Thelatter, however, would also include the introduction of SEA. Regardingthe existence of a better communication and co-operation betweenparties, the planning authority representatives interviewed thought

426 T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

that a positive impact of SEAwas likely. In this context, it was claimed,for example, that health agencies only became involved in spatial planmaking through SEA (see also Kørnøv, 2009). Increased communica-tion was observed, for example, in the case of the Brunswick cityregional plan making process between the city of Wolfsburg and theBrunswick regional planning authority. This revolved around SEAinduced development restrictions for settlements that were formu-lated in the regional spatial plan, but which were rejected by the cityof Wolfsburg. Finally, whilst both, consultants and academics thoughtthat Directive based SEA was currently already an effective environ-mental planning instrument, which offered a wide scope for learning,this conviction was only shared by the interviewees speaking for thesmall to medium size municipalities.

7.2. Barriers to learning

A number of barriers for learning through SEA that were directlyrelated to the instrument itself were identified by the interviewees.Existing barriers included the repetition of tasks by SEA that werealready done elsewhere, particularly in landscape planning. Here, itwas argued that there is a need for SEA to be applied flexibly, focusingonly on those issues that were not yet already covered somewhereelse in the planning system. This includes, for example, theconsideration of development alternatives. Furthermore, it wassuggested that SEAwas probably trying to cover too many substantiveissues, and that there was a need to focus on those issues that wereclearly of impact significance. One of the academics interviewed alsosuggested that the absence of requirements to prove positive impactswithin SEA is an important barrier to learning. A further barriermentioned by most interviewees included the perceived weak legalstatus of SEA, mainly in terms of substantive assessment require-ments. Here, the implicit suggestion was that the focus of SEA shouldbe broadened, from ensuring that the process is undertaken toensuring that an influential quality SEA has been achieved. In thiscontext, the ‘taxonomy of learning in SEA’ introduced above may playan important role. Finally, the local authority representative fromWolfenbüttel said that a barrier for learning through SEAwas also thatwider societal economic and social impacts currently did not receivethe same attention as environmental aspects, suggesting that socio-economic assessment should be conducted next to SEA.

In addition to barriers resulting from the way the instrument itselfis applied, institutional barriers werementioned. Several intervieweessuggested that obstacles to learning included an unwillingness ofmany institutional actors to change established practices. Further-more, it was suggested that there was too much of a sectoral focus inthe current planning system too early on. As a consequence, there wasa lack of support for an instrument such as SEA, which by its verynature is intended to be inter-disciplinary, integrative and pro-active.Finally, the ‘ever increasing speed with which SEA is supposed to bedone’ was seen as problematic for SEA to develop its full learningpotential, as learning was thought to require time.

Other possible barriers for learning through SEA were alsoidentified. These, however, may be case specific. For example, learningwould be inhibited by the ‘wrong’ person conducting SEA, e.g., a poorfacilitator or someone with a poor understanding of environmentalissues.

7.3. Changes needed to enhance the learning potential of SEA

A range of suggestions were made by the interviewees on whatchanges were needed in order to enhance the learning potential ofSEA in spatial planning. Most of these were of an institutional nature.Importantly, they include the need also to apply SEA at the conceptuallevel (e.g., to the city structure concept shown in Table 1), withoutwhich it was felt SEA was a truncated and incomplete instrument.Furthermore, it was suggested that local land use plans should be

prepared more regularly, as otherwise SEA would not be able to fullydevelop its proactive role and learning potential. It was also proposedthat SEA's success should be measured in the context of e.g., SEAspecific monitoring.

In addition to these points, made by the local authorityrepresentatives and consultants, the academic interviewees suggestedthat additional resources were needed, both in terms of finances andtime in order for SEA to be applied effectively and to develop itslearning potential. The Königslutter local landscape plan appears tosupport this suggestion. Based on some above average funding andresearch support, this was perceived by the interviewees as a highlysuccessful case, with many stakeholders, interest groups and thegeneral public being involved and changing their opinions/attitudes.Furthermore, interviewed academics considered a more consistentand compulsory consideration of environmental targets/standards tobe of importance. Finally, it was felt that cumulative aspects needed tobe considered better and that, in this context, a clearer distinctionbetween SEA and EIAmethodological approaches was needed. Here, itwas suggested that if SEA was doing the same as EIA, then the addedvalue would be small.

Overall, consultants and academics felt that SEA was worth theeffort and money. Whilst this feeling was also shared by the personresponsible for the preparation of the local landscape plan for thesmall local authority of Königslutter, the representatives of theWolfsburg and Wolfenbüttel local plan authorities were somewhatskeptical. In this context, it is important that authorities of largermunicipalities had often been involved in other, non-statutoryenvironmental baseline generation, development and planningexercises, before SEA was introduced, such as municipal environ-mental atlases or green area development plans (see e.g., Herberg,2008; City of Braunschweig, 2009). Therefore, SEA's added value wasseen with greater scepticism.

In the case of the interactive landscape plan Königslutter, the localauthority representative thought that it had been embracing all typesof learning from knowledge acquisition and comprehension, overapplication, analysis to wider synthesis and evaluation (see Fig. 1). Inthis pilot landscape/environmental plan for a small municipality(17.000 inhabitants), which received additional funding from theFederal Agency for Environmental Protection (Bundesamt für Nat-urschutz; see BfN, 2005), as well as academic support from a researchteam of the University of Hanover, a highly communicative andinteractive approach was applied. Different stakeholders, interestgroups, and the general public were extensively involved onindividual environmental protection and development decisions.Involvement efforts included the organisation of a range of work-shops, school and market information days, computer-based gameson environmental issues, organised nature walks and other activities.These meant that the general public was enabled to learn aboutenvironmental problems and issues. Furthermore, in the plan makingexercise, interactive maps were used, which enabled consultees towork their comments directly into the various maps of the landscapeplan. According to the interviewees, for the Königslutter landscapeplan, this led to improved communication and co-operation, and, as aconsequence to changes not only in attitudes, but also in values. Oneexample includes local farmers, who had previously been highlyskeptical of environmental protection and development measures.However, through the landscape plan making exercise, the farmerswere said to have started to see benefits, for example, regardingmeasures for reducing soil erosion. Importantly, these were found tobe in line with other suggested environmental development mea-sures, e.g., planting of hedges. The local authority representativeresponsible for the landscape plan argued that its perceived success isclearly connected with the substantial funding and support provided.However, she also suggested that the size of the municipality mayhave also been important, as personal and group networks wererather strong in this small town of 17,000 inhabitants.

427T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

8. Discussion

The results of the interviews on SEA practice in the Brunswickregion indicate that the extent of SEA's learning potential, both, interms of single and double loop learning may depend on a range ofaspects, including:

(1) the type of plan (or programme) for which SEA is conducted;(2) the size of the area for which the spatial/land use plan is

prepared;(3) the extent of plan makers' engagement in the SEA process;(4) availability of financial and time resources for SEA;(5) an overall ability to engage and communicate with

stakeholders.

These aspects are further discussed below.

(1) The type of plan for which SEA is conducted appears to be ofparticular importance, not just in terms of the perception of thegeneral role of SEA, but also regarding its learning potential. In awell established systemwhere environmental implications hadbeen an important consideration in routinely prepared spatialplans for some considerable time, the added value of SEA isbound to be perceived as being smaller than in a systemwhichis underdeveloped, newly developing or where the considera-tion of environmental aspects is weak. In the case of theBrunswick regional spatial plan, SEA clearly led to someconsiderable individual and organisational learning. In thiscontext, it is important that the Brunswick region is a newconstruct, for which a spatial plan and associated SEA had beenproduced for the first time. Furthermore, there was no regionallandscape plan, i.e., a ‘duplication’ of effort was not a problemhere.

(2) In Germany, the size of the area for which the spatial/land useplan is prepared has some importance, as larger municipalitiestend to apply a wider range of environmental mapping,development and planning instruments than those requiredon a statutory basis. In this case, comparatively speaking, theadded value of Directive based SEA and its learning potentialappears to be somewhat smaller if it is applied along with arange of other similar instruments, including e.g., environ-mental atlases and green area development plans. In thiscontext, the necessity of applying SEA flexibly, focussing onmajor impacts or areas where there may be weak under-standing in order to be useful was stressed. Furthermore, thechance to engage and communicate with stakeholders, interestgroups and the general public in smaller municipalities is lesscomplex and more straightforward than in larger areas.

(3) If plan makers as well as other stakeholders play an importantrole in SEA preparation and fully engage with the instrument, itis likely that they experience a stronger personal/individuallearning experience, which in turn is likely to have a widerorganisational and potentially also social learning effect. In thecase of the medium size municipality of Wolfenbüttel, forexample, the local authority representative responsible for planmaking was also responsible for the preparation of SEA,experiencing individual learning through SEA. However, hisopinion on the ability of SEA to lead to changes in, for example,organisational attitudes and values towards the environmentwas similarly skeptical as those of the regional and large localauthority representatives, mainly because other stakeholderswere too disengaged from the process. For the representativesof the regional and large local authorities, SEAwas just ‘anotherpiece in the puzzle’ of various environmental planning andmanagement instruments. Also, in spatial plan SEAs preparedby larger municipalities, consultants play an important role,particularly in generating SEA baseline data and preparing SEA

documentation, therefore making the SEA experience moredetached from the plan making authority's other activities.

(4) Availability of sufficient financial and time resources appearscrucial for enhancing the learning potential of SEA. The ‘everincreasing speeds with which planning and appraisal is to beachieved’ (academic interviewee) was seen as being particularlyproblematic. In this context, a look at the interactive andcommunicative landscape plan for the small municipality ofKönigslutter was very useful. This had received some substantialfunding by the Federal Agency for Environmental Protection andresearch support by the University of Hanover. Based on theresources provided, themunicipalitywas enabled to engagewiththe general public to an extent, which would have not normallybeenpossible. The general publicwas thus enabled to learn aboutenvironmental issues, problems and solutions. Scale and sub-sidiarity in decision making therefore play an important role.

(5) Stakeholders, interest groups and the general public are likelyto be more willing to engage in SEA, if they understand theimplications for them. This requires SEA to domore than simplyinforming e.g., through generic leaflets. Instead, target groupspecific communication is required. How this can be achievedwas shown by the Königslutter landscape plan. Overall,research results indicate that a communicative approach toSEA, similar to the one applied in Königslutter, clearly has manypositive outcomes. However, even in a small municipality thisapproach has shown to require a lot of effort and somesubstantial funding, as otherwise extensive communicationwith the general public would not be possible. A moretraditional approach towards public consultation, e.g., basedonwritten leaflets with attached questionnaires has frequentlyshown to result in only low participation levels. For example, inthe Wolfenbüttel case (municipality with 54,000 inhabitants)only five comments from the general public were obtained byapplying a traditional consultation approach. In the Brunswickregional spatial plan example (representing a population ofover 1M) about 100 comments were received (i.e., in these twocases on average 1 comment per 10,000 inhabitants wasobtained). Finally, if consultees feel that their input does nothave an impact on decision making, their willingness tobecome involved may be greatly reduced. In this context, itwas suggested that a low participation rate was also connectedwith frustration on the Local Agenda 21 process, which did notresult in any implementation of concrete projects, as well as ageneral decline in interest in political and public questions (seealso Oels, 2000).

9. Conclusions

Emerging EC Directive based SEA practice in the planning region ofBrunswick in Germany indicates that SEA currently results in variousforms of learning, including single-loop learning (SEA specificknowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and analysis) aswell as to a lesser extent, double-loop learning (wider synthesis andevaluation). Learning particularly occurred at the individual level andoccasionally at the organisational level. Wider social level, however,was unlikely to have occurred in most cases. Overall, there is somescope to further enhance SEA's learning potential. Interviews with keyactors of the SEA processes for the regional spatial plan Brunswick, thelocal land use plans Wolfsburg and Wolfenbüttel, as well as the SEAlike landscape plan Königslutter indicate that the current mainmethodological approach taken (ie site specific GIS and ‘area letter’based assessment of specific development options/projects) gives riseto single-loop learning, leading to various changes of planned landallocations and boundaries. This methodological approach also meansthat proving the impact of SEA on the plan is fairly straightforward.Wider participation and enhanced communication is happening to

428 T.B. Fischer et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428

varying degrees. Whilst all SEAs led to wider involvement with otherstakeholders, only in the case of the Königslutter landscape plan wasthere some substantial wider public participation. Through SEA,attitudes and possibly values of individuals as well as occasionallyorganisations appear to have changed and health authorities haveonly started to be involved in spatial/land use plan making exercisesthrough SEA.

For learning through SEA to happen, interviewees suggested that arange of conditions were important, many revolving around theinstrument's institutional context. For example, the strategic/con-ceptual approach to planning was deemed to need further develop-ment, also considering SEA in this context. In the Brunswick region,this was said to be underdeveloped and planning was observed to bemainly project focused. Furthermore, it was suggested that theinstrument of SEA itself needed to be strengthened, particularly itssubstantive (as opposed to its procedural) elements. In this context,one of the local authority representatives said that the main problemis that environmental impacts are only presented, but not necessarilyavoided or mitigated. Regarding the involvement of other bodies,stakeholders and the general public, it is clear that target groupspecific communication is crucial. In this context, those who getinvolved in SEA need to see how they had an impact on the process.Also, in order for wider involvement to be effective, sufficientresources (funding and support) were said to be of crucial importance.Currently, in plan making, sectoral interests are defined too early on,which should be avoided. Furthermore, the frequency with whichspatial plans are prepared in Germany currently appears to be tooirregular.

Overall, emerging practice in the Brunswick region indicates thethere is a need for SEA to be applied flexibly and that it should gobeyond what EIA is already doing today. In order to avoidinefficiencies, it should not repeat what is already done elsewhere.Finally, for SEA to fully develop its organisational and social learningpotential, it will need to become more mainstream. Currently, toooften, it appears to be still largely confined to the realms of technicalexperts.

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on a pilot project jointly funded by the UKEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and by the Academy forSustainable Communities (ASC), “Developing the learning potential ofappraisal in spatial planning”, Award No: RES-182-25-0018. Theauthors are grateful to the ESRC and to the ASC for their support. Theauthors would also like to thank the interviewees in the BrunswickRegion for their time and cooperation.

References

Argyris C, Schön DA. Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1978.Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1977.BfN – Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Interaktiver Landschaftsplan Königslutter am Elm,

Naturschutz und biologische Vielfalt, Heft 24, Bonn – Bad Godesberg; 2005 (seealso http://www.koenigslutter.de/landschaftsplan.php).

BfN – Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Landschaftsrahmenplan Niedersachsen 2008; 2008.www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB//documents/themen/landschaftsplanung/ni_lrp.pdf;last accessed 08/08/08.

Bloom B. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals.Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain. London: Longman; 1956.

Brown AL, Therivel R. Principles to guide the development of SEA methodology. ImpactAssess Proj Apprais 2000;18(3):183–90.

City of Braunschweig. Umweltatlas; 2009. http://www.braunschweig.de/ umwelt_naturschutz/infos/umweltatlas/index.html; last accessed: 19/02/09.

Diduck A, Mitchell B. Learning, public involvement and environmental assessment:Canadian case study. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2003;5(3):339–64.

European Commission. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans andprogrammes on the environment. Off J Eur Communities 2001;L197:30–7 published21.7.2001.

Fischer TB. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land Use Planning.London: Earthscan; 2002.

Fischer TB. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environ ImpactAssess Rev 2003;23(2):155–70.

Fischer TB. Germany. In: Jones C, Baker M, Carter J, Jay S, Short M, Wood C, editors.Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan;2005. p. 79–96.

Fischer TB. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment — towards amore systematic approach. London: Earthscan; 2007.

Gather, M. and Schmidt, C., 2002. http://www.erato.fh-erfurt.de/vt/projekte/umwelt-pruefung.pdf; last accessed 08/08/08.

Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. SEA and Landscape Planning, in: Sadler B., Aschemann, R.,Dusik, J., Fischer, T.B., Partidário, M. and Verheem R. (eds). Handbook of StrategicEnvironmental Assessment, Earthscan, London; 2009.

Hanusch M, Glasson J. Much ado about SEA/SA monitoring: The performance of EnglishRegional Spatial Strategies, and someGermancomparisons. Environ ImpactAssessRev2008;28(8):601–17.

Herberg A. Relevant baseline data for use in SEA — examples from Germany. In: FischerTB, Gazzola P, Jha-Thakur U, Belcakova I, Aschemann R, editors. 2008. Environ-mental Assessment Lecturers' Handbook, ROAD Bratislava; 2008.

Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Kidd, S., Peel, D. and Fischer, T. (forthcoming). SEA effectiveness– the significance of learning, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal.

Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R. Social learning in environmental management. Towards asustainable future. London: Earthscan; 2005.

Kidd, S., Fischer, T., Gazzola, P., Jha-Thakur, U. and Peel, D. (forthcoming), 'Developingthe learning potential of appraisal in spatial planning' Project Report, availableat http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/esrcinfocentre/viewawardpage.aspx?award-number=RES-182-25-0018.

Kørnøv L. Strategic environmental assessment as catalyst of healthier spatial planning:the Danish guidance and practice. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2009;29(1):60–5.

Niedersächsisches Ministerium für den ländlichen Raum, Ernährung, Landwirtschaftund verbraucherschutz. Vorläufige Arbeitshilfe für die Strategische Umwetlprüfung(SUP) bei Raumordnungsplänen. Hannover; 2007.

Oels A. “Let's get together and feel alright!” Eine kritische Untersuchung von “Agenda21” Prozessen in England und Deutschland. In: Heinelt H, Mühlich E, editors. LokaleAgenda 21- Prozesse. Erklärungsansätze, Konzepte und Ergebnisse, Leske undBudrich, Opladen; 2000.

Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practiceand research. Environ Plann A 2005;36:1943–59.

Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M. Process of social learning in integrated resources management.J Community Appl Soc Psychol 2004;14:193–206.

Planungsamt Stadt Wolfenbüttel. Flächennutzungsplan der Stadt Wolfenbüttel –Begründung und Umweltbericht; 2007. CD-Rom.

Saad S, Schneider T. Umweltprüfung zum Flächennutzungsplan der Stadt Leipzig – EineZwischenbilanz. UVP-Rep 2006;2006(1+2):25–33.

Saarikoski H. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a collaborative learning process.Environ Impact Asses Rev 2000;20(6):681–700.

Sadler B, Verheem R. Strategic Environmental Assessment - Status, Challenges and FutureDirections No. 53. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordeningen Milieubeheer (VROM); 1996.

Scholles, F., personal communication, University of Hanover, 5 March 2008.Scholles F, van Haaren C. Co-ordination of SEA and landscape planning. In: Schmidt M,

João E, Albrecht E, editors. Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment.Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2004. p. 557–70.

Sinclair AJ, Diduck A, Fitzpatrick P. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability throughenvironmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. EnvironImpact Asses Rev 2008;28(7):415–28.

Stadt Wolfsburg. Flächennutzungsplanung; 2008. http://www.wolfsburg.de/verwaltung/bauberatung/stadtplanung/nutzungsplanung/; last accessed 08/08/08.

UVP report. Special issue on spatial/ land use plan SEA, 2006: 1+2; 2006.Webler T, KastenholzH, RennO. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning

perspective. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1995;15(5):443–63.Zweckverband Braunschweig. Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm für den Grossraum

Braunschweig, Beschreibende Darstellung; 2008a. http://www.zgb.de/barrierefrei/content/regionalplanung/rrop2008_zd.shtml; last accessed 08/08/08.

Zweckverband Braunschweig. Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm für den GrossraumBraunschweig, Umweltbericht; 2008b. http://www.zgb.de/barrierefrei/content/regionalplanung/rrop2008_u.shtml; last accessed 08/08/08.