1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA ) is a process that requires developers to follow in order to be granted permission for a development and was foremost introduced in European Union ( EU ) in 1985 ( Glasson, 1999 ) . The guidelines and demands of EIA come from a European Directive ( 85/33/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC ) . In this procedure, developer requires to roll up an Environmental Statement ( ES ) where important impacts and its effects on the environment as a consequence of a development are described including extenuation steps ( Lee, 1995 ) . However, there are failings in EIA procedure.
As a consequence of EIA failings, Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA ) was introduced. SEA procedure was foremost introduced by EU Directive 2001/42/EC which environmental protection and sustainable development may be considered. It ensures that possible impact of proposed programs, policies and programmes on the environment are taking into consideration so that extenuation and communicating between public and decision-makers are provided ( Benson, 2003 ) . Therefore, SEA is undertaken in the decision-making procedure of a development much earlier than EIA.
In this subdivision, the differences between EIA and SEA every bit good as the failings of EIA that led the development of SEA in EU Directive in 2001 are being discussed.
2. Differences between EIA and SEA
2.1. Differences in commissariats between SEA and EIA Directives
Table 1: Summary of differences inaction for EIA and SEA procedures ( Partidario, 2000 ) .
|
Sea |
EIA |
|
|
Nature of action |
It is more strategic and contains visions and constructs in its action |
Actions towards the building and operation degree |
|
Appraisal |
Involved rating |
Involved merely appraisal |
|
Focus |
More critical determination minutes ( determination Windowss ) along with determination procedures |
Merely in undertaking degree |
|
Degree of determination |
It involves policy and planning |
Merely undertaking degree |
|
Relation to determination |
Facilitator |
Involved judge which frequently taking into consideration of administrative demand |
|
Options |
Broader and spacial balance of location, societal and physical schemes, engineerings and economic sciences. |
More specific alternate in building, operation, locations and design |
|
Scale of impacts |
Macroscopic involved local, regional, national and planetary |
Microscopic chiefly involved local |
|
Scope of impacts |
Sustainability issues, economic and societal issues may be more touchable than physical or ecological issues |
Environmental with a sustainability focal point, physical or ecological issues, and besides societal and economic |
|
Time graduated table and reappraisal |
Long to medium term ( after 5 old ages and so 7 old ages interval ) |
Medium to short-run ( after 5 old ages so silent go oning reappraisal ) . |
|
Key informations beginnings |
State of the Environment Reports, Local Agenda 21, statistical informations, policy and planning instruments |
Field work, sample analysis, statistical informations |
|
Datas |
Chiefly descriptive and mixture with quantifiable |
More quantifiable |
|
Rigor of analysis ( uncertainness ) |
More uncertainness and less asperity |
Less uncertainness and more asperity |
|
Appraisal benchmarks |
Sustainability benchmarks ( standards and aims ) |
Best pattern and legal limitations |
|
Public perceptual experience |
Vague/ distant |
More reactive |
|
Post-evaluation |
Other strategic actions and undertaking planning |
Objective grounds in relation with building and operation |
2.2 Differences in procedural demands of the EIA and SEA Directives.
Table 2: Summary of the chief differences between EIA and SEA Directives inprocedural demands ( Beginnings from: Sheateet al. , 2005 ) .
|
Phase |
Sea |
EIA |
|
Screening |
It requires audience from the environmental governments. Promotion: Sea does non necessitate finding and grounds. |
It requires no audience. Promotion: EIA requires finding and grounds. |
|
Environmental information/report |
Member States ( MSs ) have to guarantee that sufficient quality and stronger accent on options are provided in environmental studies ( ERs ) . |
No quality control requires in EIA and merely minimun information shoud be provided |
|
Consultation |
Involved relevant parties other than MSs such as public and autorities. |
Involved relevant parties other than MSs such as public and autorities and besides audience proviso from Public Participation Directive. |
|
Decision-making |
All audience remarks and ER are to be taken into history. |
Consultation remarks and environmental informations are included in decision-making. |
|
Info on determination |
More specific and elaborate demands. |
Information proviso from Public Participation Directive are mademore specific in the demand. |
|
Monitoring |
Long term monitoring required |
Not necessitate monitoring |
3. Failings of Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA )
3.1.Lack of consideration of cumulative impacts
EIA procedure is frequently confronting trouble in turn toing cumulative impacts of a development. The important impacts of a development particularly issues on biodiversity, human wellness and cultural heritage are no included in their appraisal ( McDonald & A ; Brown 1995 ) .
For illustration in Scotland, several developments of air current farms proposed in close propinquity have led to a really complicated EIA procedure ( Glasson, 1999 ) . Each developer required measuring the cumulative impact of landscape and ocular application with those of adjacent undertakings ( Benson, 2003 ) . The planning procedure could confront a hold due to this issue.
3.2.Insufficient public engagement
Public engagement has shown to be deficient in EIA procedure ( Gailus, 1995 ) . In a recent research suggested that this is due to the attitude of the developer that discourages the engagement of public in EIA procedure in the European Community.
Due to miss of statute law and extended for public engagement in Europe in the early 90s to act upon the determination of a development, the general populace is non cognizant of their rights and causes them non interested in the development engagement ( Caddy, 1996 ) .
3.3.Small monitoring and scrutinizing procedure
Previous survey has showed that monitoring and scrutinizing issues are still weak in EIA. Follow-up procedure is merely performed by developers in a minority of instances ( Arts and Nootebloom 1999 ) .
Monitoring procedure enables practioners to hold better apprehension for future extension, design and Restoration undertakings ( Frost, 1997 ) . However, the river Restoration procedure in United Kingdom ( UK ) was hampered by deficiency of supervising procedure in EIA.
3.4.Inadequate consideration of options
The digest of options appears to be really limited in EIA study ( Tesli, 2002 ) . For illustration in Hungary for radioactive disposal, the study did non supply in inside informations or instead limited in cut downing the impacts of the undertaking to the human wellness ( Benson, 2003 ) . It is of import to include assorted options to let solutions being taken in a development.
3.5.The hapless quality of environmental impact statements and studies
The studies produced in EIA are frequently excessively complex in term of length and proficient which is non easy understood by the populace and determination shapers ( Lee, 1995 ) . It is of import for ES to be simple as it has to be made available to the populace.
3.6.The timing of determinations
The decision-making procedure in EIA undertaking enters excessively tardily where the effects of policy and be aftering critical determinations are non being considered ( Lee, 1995 ) . This is due to the absence of systematic impact appraisal procedure where the result of it could later act upon the undertaking planning and design ( Harrop & A ; Nixon 1999 ) .
4. Decision
There were assorted failings have been identified in EIA procedure. Due to these failings, SEA was developed in 2001 under EU Directive to beef up the environmental appraisal procedure.
5. Mentions
Humanistic disciplines, J. and Nootebloom, S. ( 1999 ) ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Monitoring and
Auditing ‘ in: Petts, J. ( ed. )Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment – Volume 1,
Blackwell, Oxford: 229-251
Benson, J.F. ( 2003 ) ‘What is the alternate? Impact appraisal tools and sustainable planning ‘ ,Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 ( 4 ) : 261-266
Caddy, J. ( 1996 ) . Working Group on Environmental Studies, European University Institute, Florence. [ Online ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www.iue.it/WGES/Iss16/caddy.htm
[ Accessed: 29/01/2010 ] .
Frost, R. ( 1997 ) Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice. Chapter 7 EIA monitoring and audit in Weston, J ( erectile dysfunction ) . Longman, Harlow. pp 141 – 175.
Gailus, J. ( 1995 ) . Regional Environmental Centre: Hungary.
[ Online ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www.rec.org/REC/Bulletin/Bull52/PublPart.html
[ Accessed: 29/01/2010 ]
Glasson, J. ( 1999 ) ‘The First 10 Old ages of the UK EIA System: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats ‘ ,Planing Practice and Research, 14 ( 3 ) : 363-375
Glasson, J. Therivel, R. and Chadwick, A. ( 1999 )Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, Spon Press, London
Harrop, O. and Nixon, A. ( 1999 )Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice, Routledge, London
Lee, N. ( 1995 ) ‘Environmental Assessment in the European Union: a 10th day of remembrance ‘ ,Undertaking Appraisal, 10 ( 2 ) : 77-90
McDonald, G.T. and Brown, A.L. ( 1995 ) ‘Going Beyond Environmental Impact Assessment: environmental input to planning and design ‘ ,Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15: 483-495
Partidario, M.R. , 2000, Elements of an SEA model – bettering the added-value of SEA, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20: 647-663.
Sheate, W. Byron, H. Dagg, S. & A ; Cooper, L ( 2005 ) , The Relationship between SEA and EIA Directives:Concluding Report to the European Commission. Imperial College London
Tesli, A. ( 2002 ) . The usage of EIA and SEA relative to the aim of sustainable development,Norse Institute for Urban and Regional Research ( NIBR ) .
1. Content of an SEA study as required by EU Directive
The execution of programs and programmes ( PPs ) in which likely important effects produce by the undertaking on the environment is the cardinal demand in readying of an SEA study ( European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2001 ) . Figure 1 shows the sum-up of the contents required by EU Directive ( 2001/42/EC ) in bring forthing SEA studies.
Not all undertakings need to execute SEA procedure ( Barth & A ; Fuder, 2002 ) . The diagram in Figure 2 shows a set of set of standards for application to PPs under the EU Directive ( 2001/42/EC ) . It specifies whether SEA is required or non harmonizing to the Directive.
For simpleness, the developments of the PPs and sensible alternate options of SEA are summarized in five cardinal phases harmonizing to the authorities counsel in England ( URL 1 ) .
1.1. The cardinal five phases
- Phase A: Context, Baseline and Scoping ( SEA Directive – Annex 1 )
- Authority needs to include indexs, aims and background information for SEA in the program. The determinations of the range can be decide by the authorization including audience on the statutory environmental organic structures ( URL 1 ) .
- Phase B: Options and Assessment ( SEA Directive – Article 5.1 )
- Authority need to place sensible options and measure the effects of the undertaking on the environment. Wayss of cut downing, forestalling and offsets the effects have to be provided every bit good ( URL 1 ) .
- Phase C: Fixing the Environmental Report
- Draft plan/programme which includes the information of the effects has to be presented as a cardinal end product of SEA procedure ( URL 1 ) .
- Phase Calciferol: Consultation ( SEA Directive – Article 6.2 and Annex 1 )
- The bill of exchange program and environmental study should be ready together for audience where a statement are made from the audience responses in order to bring forth an evolving program ( URL 1 ) .
- Phase Tocopherol: Monitoring ( SEA Directive – Article 10.1 )
- The execution of the program where environment effects are produced demands supervising procedure. It helps to supply more baseline information for future programs ( URL 1 ) .
2. Troubles and restrictions in carry throughing these demands
Table 1: Summary of the troubles and restrictions of SEA studies as required in EU Directive.
|
Requirements issues |
Troubles and restrictions |
|
Handiness and entree to data |
Environmental information is frequently limited and non relevant because it is non collected and stored consistently. The procedure of informations aggregation requires extended resources and utilizing these informations are hard because different sections tend to roll up different set of informations. The quality of good informations is missing and this issue has been reported by Member States such as Germany and Poland ( European Commission, 2009 ) . Best illustration of this issue is Poland. They are confronting troubles of bring forthing and roll uping informations of affected country because of the execution of a plan/programme. The current image of the environment has to be identified particularly in big countries but they indicate that it is really debatable ( European Commission, 2009 ) . Sometimes, the coverage countries of SEA are big ( including few states and produces big sum of options ( URL 1 ) . This will increase the complexness of informations aggregation and analysis ( URL 1 ) . |
|
Public Engagement |
The handiness of the information for the populace is limited. In the UK, paperss and information of the program are non required to be published on their web site until ER is finalized harmonizing to the bill of exchange Regulations ( Partidario, 1996 ) . As a consequence, public engagement is limited as non many public will go to the plan-maker ‘s office to see the paperss at a minimal clip period for audience. It is of import to put up a web site to ease the audience procedure for the populace to take part ( Partidario, 1996 ) . Else, public is incognizant that review of these paperss are available to them and no feedback can be made ( Kornov & A ; Thissen, 2000 ) . |
|
Ea at higher degrees of determination devising |
As SEA involves higher degrees of determination devising, the execution policy of PPs are capable to assorted sections determinations ( Kornov & A ; Thissen, 2000 ) . For illustration, a Local Transport Plan requires policy from Regional Spatial Strategies, Aviation and Transport White Papers and Sustainable Communities Plan and Planning Policy Statements ( Brown & A ; Therivel, 2000 ) . Due to these demands, a complex showing procedure has to be performed and determinations for PPS are even more really hard in the appraisal ( Brown & A ; Therivel, 2000 ) . |
|
Deciding on the degree of item of the environmental study |
The inside informations of require information in SEA studies are vary due to miss of version in appraisal for the degree of abstraction in PPs ( European Commission, 2009 ) . Harmonizing to Member States ( Latvia and Germany ) , the possible impacts of PPs are hard to be included in SEA studies because of less information of the right graduated table and degree required ( European Commission, 2009 ) . Therefore, of import information for long term PPs is hard as no appropriate spacial graduated table of information demand to be included in the study ( European Commission, 2009 ) . |
|
Development of appraisal methods |
As there are no specific guidelines, strong methodological background and deficiency of exchange for best patterns, developing an effectual appraisal is really ambitious ( Brown & A ; Therivel, 2000 ) . For illustration in Operational Programmes ‘ aims, high degree programs in a feasible appraisal do non necessary show the existent physical land effects although strategic policies are implemented European Commission, 2009 ) . |
|
Appraisal of impacts |
Although SEA turn toing the importance of cumulative impacts, there is no criterion and effectual appraisal methodological analysiss are being developed ( Partidario, 1996 ) . The important environmental impacts of PPs are hard to measure and the designation of these facets are limited ( Partidario, 1996 ) . |
|
Monitoring and enforcement ( Including issues of indexs ) |
The appraisal of programs is limited because there is no sustainability and environmental standards developed in the monitoring programme ( European Commission, 2009 ) . Therefore, supervising indexs ( local docket 21 for case ) is being used nevertheless it is hard for supervising procedure as mentioned by Member States like France. Environmental governments have no proper enforcement tool to guarantee that supervising programme is being performed ( European Commission, 2009 ) . For illustration in the UK, no quality control organic structure is being set up by the authorities to supervise the efficiency of monitoring procedure which is a restriction for SEA ( Verheem, R. & A ; Tonk, J. 2000 ) . |
|
Institutional and legal issues |
The supports for SEA procedure are still deficient politically ( European Commission, 2009 ) . The bureaucratic privileges may impede the effectivity of SEA public presentation. As SEA procedure is comparatively new, deficiency of human resources particularly knowing governments is a major restriction for SEA ( European Commission, 2009 ) . |
3. Comparison between demand of SEA Directive ( 2001/42/EC ) and Sustainability Appraisal ( SA ) .
In the United Kingdom ( UK ) , SA and SEA are required in planning system and jurisprudence for Government Plans and Programmes ( Smith & A ; Sheate 2001 ) . For most Development Plan Documents ( DPD ) and Supplementary Planning Documents ( SPD ) , both SA and SEA procedure have to be carried out and include in the Local Development Framework ( LDF ) in the UK ( Smith & A ; Sheate 2001 ) . SA was developed to measure the likely economic, societal and environmental impacts so proposed PPs can be implemented that leads to sustainable development unlike SEA which was antecedently described ( Lee & A ; Kirkpatrick, 2000 ) .
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act ( 2004 ) and European Directive EC/2001/42 necessitate both SA and SEA processes to be performed in any planning ( Smith & A ; Sheate 2001 ) . It is besides requires by the Environmental Assessment Regulations for Plans and Programmes in UK ( Smith & A ; Sheate 2001 ) . In table 2, comparing of SA and SEA in footings of UK planning system for Government PPs are being summarized.
Table 2: Comparison between SA and SEA demands within the UK planning system
|
Requirements |
Strategic Environmental Assessment |
Sustainability Appraisals |
|
Overall purposes |
The purpose of SEA is to raise the profile of environmental considerations as portion of an advocative attack during decision-making procedure ( Kornov & A ; Thissen, 2000 ) . |
In contrast to SEA, it is use as a support procedure in decision-making and stand foring an integrated attack that working towards in all facets of sustainable development. Therefore, the involvements at interest are remained impersonal during this procedure ( Minas, 2002 ) . |
|
Focus |
Environmental effects ( Lee & A ; Kirkpatrick, 2000 ) |
A full scope of environmental, societal and economic issues ( Minas, 2002 ) . |
|
Environmental/ Sustainability facets |
It involves 15 constituents which is suggested in the 1993 counsel with extra societal and economic factors to be considered in 1999 counsel ( Therivel, & A ; Minas, 2002 ) . |
Aspects of biodiversity, human wellness, cultural factors, H2O, landscape, population and material assets are considered chiefly ( Therivel, & A ; Minas, 2002 ) . |
|
Report demands |
There are no formal demands for SA. In good pattern counsel, designation of scoping and impacts phases is recommended ( Therivel, & A ; Minas, 2002 ) . The 1999 counsel besides recommends that contrivers should supply and evaluates options. Environmental baseline conditions should be considered every bit good. |
It involved extended demands of Annex 1 which have antecedently discussed ( Barth & A ; Fuder, 2002 ) . |
|
Methodology |
Harmonizing to DETR Guide, the assessment should stress on strategic options, options, and policy impact matrices in accomplishing sustainable development. Therefore, the methodological statement is really brief if comparison to SEA ( Minas, 2002 ) . |
In contrast to SA, heavy accent is in topographic point on really baseline informations which set as a benchmark to measure the options public presentation. It is besides requires governments to confer with the concluding environmental study from the populace on the range of the appraisal ( Therivel, & A ; Minas, 2002 ) . |
|
Timing |
The procedure is being carried out really early where every phase of the development program procedure is considered as an of import component ( Therivel, & A ; Minas, 2002 ) . |
In contrast to SA, it is normally being carried out during the readying of a program before the entry to the legislative process ( Therivel, & A ; Minas, 2002 ) . |
|
Engagement |
The assessments are subjected to audience with outside groups such as public audience during the program readying. The assessment normally made available on the cyberspace where it is being carried out periodically ( Therivel, & A ; Minas, 2002 ) . |
It is non required to do available on the cyberspace. The audience can be done during scoping phase by specified environmental governments. Opportunity has to be given to the populace to notice the bill of exchange program ( Partidario, 1996 ) . |
|
Documentation required |
No formal demands harmonizing to the counsel |
A statement demand to be produced by an authorization to sum up all the considerations of the program have been integrated. They need to supply a study of consultees ‘ sentiment which taken during the audience procedure and valid grounds on why the options are being chosen ( Partidario, 1996 ) . |
4. Success of SEA study in presenting sustainable development aims
A broad scope of procedures has been integrated with SEA study. It has shown to be a systematic procedure where accountable determination devising can be achieve due to the earlier measuring procedure being taken with strong alternate visions ( Wood & A ; Dejeddour, 1992 ) . All these have incorporated in SEA policy, planning and plan enterprises ( PPPs ) to guarantee sustainable development with full integrating of economic, societal and political considerations ( Partidario & A ; Clarke, 2000 ) .
Although SEA shows to be a great tool in undertaking degree but the procedure of SEA is non easy accepted or see as an effectual solution due to its complexness ( Therivel & A ; Partidario, 2000 ) . Recent research has shown that SEA produces both great chances every bit good as failures in sustainable development ( Sadler, 1998 ) .
4.1. Sustainability aims are included in the incorporate procedure of policy devising and planning
During the design phase of SEA, aims of sustainability are being considered which provides a greater program and policy in determination devising ( Thompsonet al. , 1995 ) . It bit by bit delivers its aims of sustainable development because the usage of SEA articulates sustainability ends by heightening the political action where substantial action can be taken ( Partidario, 1996 ) . As the outlook of internal and external populace of its bringing increasing, it offers the possibility of conveying better policy towards sustainable development into success.
The passage of SEA involved two chief stairss:
- Information assemblage and analysis work
- The nucleus of strategic determination devising
Sustainable development consideration is being covered in a broader scope where strategic degree affairs are separated from consultative conventionally-focused ( Pezzoli, 1997 ) . Sustainability standards are used as the key bases to assist in strategic determination doing on the choice among best options available ( Pezzoli, 1997 ) . With these stairss being taken, larger context of nucleus policies and programmes in strategic appraisal are identified in prosecuting the aims of national sustainability. Therefore, SEA study may be an of import instrument in advancing sustainable development when it is to the full integrated ( Partidario, 1996 ) .
4.2. Operationalises sustainability rules
In practical application, the construct of sustainability is really hard because it faces high complexness and unsure world ( Pezzoli, 1997 ) . Interconnected generational boundaries and disciplinary of sustainability may foster complicates the construct ( Marsden, 1998 ) . Therefore, the application of specific context of sustainability and normally recognized rules are being clarified by SEA.
SEA identified three cardinal rule of sustainability:
- Integrated chase of ecological and socio-economic betterments
- Uncertainty imposes precautional duties
- Public picks involved
SEA is a seeable verification of committedness to sustainability as it offers broader exposure to impressions such as natural capital and the precautional rule ( Pezzoli, 1997 ) . Therefore, it can be translated into the linguistic communication of political relations of sustainability and maps as a heuristic device ( Therivelet al. , 1992 ) .
4.3. Improves analysis of wide public intents and options
With alternate engineerings, lifestyle picks and better resources, SEA offers better possibility in accomplishing sustainable development because it has the capableness to contemplating these factors that can non be reference at lower degrees ( Wood & A ; Dejeddour, 1992 ) . Therefore, SEA study is the most effectual and efficient point in happening options and turn toing the demands in prosecuting the aims of sustainability development ( Therivelet al. , 1992 ) .
4.4. Facilitates proper attending to cumulative effects
Strategic degree proves to be the best manner to cover with increasing figure of cumulative impacts. The range of SEA helps to placing these impacts because of its infinite graduated tables ( Ortolano & A ; Shepherd, 1995 ; Scott, 1992 ) . As SEA is performed in an early phase, this appraisal allows assessors to supply more attending in a wider scope of actions in a larger country. It allows them to supply a broader context of cumulative impacts in turn toing each of the impacts ( Therivel & A ; Partidario 1996 ) .
Harmonizing to Therivel & A ; Partidario, unwanted activities as a consequences of a undertaking can be removed before the undertaking phase begins because these cumulative impacts have influence the undertaking determination where SEA has incorporated environmental issues per se during the planning phase. Earlier sensing of these impacts helps to advance sustainable development.
4.5. Facilitates greater transparence and more effectual public engagement at the strategic degree
With the extended engagement of public engagement in SEA, it has improved the credibleness and answerability of SEA in sustainability where they facilitating external examination of determination ( Wood & A ; Dejeddour, 1992 ) . It creates increasing force per unit areas in strategic determination doing procedure to get the better of bureaucratic atomization because in many legal powers, bureaucratic disorganization and thriftlessness in citizen has been worsening.
The spread outing function of public provided in SEA allows an intrinsic connexion between environmental sustainability and equity ( George, 1999 ) to advance basic sustainability ends.
5. Decision
There are many challenges in front for SEA study. There are many troubles in bring forthing a good SEA study. Nevertheless, SEA study demands did demo success in accomplishing sustainable development ends. In order to guarantee SEA study success, failings and restriction demands to be considered and solution needed in order to get the better of it.
6. Mentions
Barth, R. & A ; Fuder, A. ( 2002 ) Implementing Article 10 of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC. Concluding Report: Freiburg, Darmstadt, Berlin.
Brown, A L, and Therivel, R. ( 2000 ) , “Principles to steer the development of strategic environmental appraisal methodology” ,Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18 ( 3 ) , September, pages 183-189.
Environment Agency ( 2004 ) SEA Good Practice Guidelines
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/seaguidelines. Accessed on 27/01/10.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union ( 2001 ) Directive 2001/42/EC on the appraisal of the effects of certain programs and programmes on the environment Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_197/l_19720010721en00300037.pdf
European Commission ( 2009 ) Study refering the study on the application and effectivity of the SEA Directive ( 2001/42/EC ) : Concluding study. 2: p-67683-a.
George, C. ( 1999 ) Testing for sustainable development through environmental appraisal.Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19 ( 2 ) , 109-224.
Kornov, L, and Thissen, W A H ( 2000 ) , “Rationality in decisionand policy-making: deductions for strategic environmental assessment” ,Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18 ( 3 ) , September, pages 191-200.
Lee, N, and Kirkpatrick, C. ( 2000 ) , “Integrated assessment, decisionmaking and sustainable development: an overview” , in N Lee and C Kirkpatrick ( editors ) , ustainable Development andIntegrated Appraisal in a Developing World ( Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham ) .
Marsden, S. ( 1998 ) Importance of context in mensurating the effectivity of strategic environmental appraisal.Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 16 ( 4 ) , 255-266.
Minas, P ( 2002 ) , “The effectivity of SEA at incorporating env ironmental considerations into landuse development programs in England and Wales” , MSc thesis, unpublished, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
Ortolano, L. & A ; Shepherd, A. ( 1995 ) Environmental impact appraisal: Challenges and chances.Impact Assessment, 13, 3-27.
Partidario, R. ( 1996 ) Strategic environmental appraisal: Key issues emerging from recent pattern.Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16 ( 1 ) , 31-55.
Partidario, R. & A ; Clarke, R. , ( 2000 )Positions on Strategic Environmental Assessment. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
Pezzoli, K. ( 1997 ) Sustainable development: A transdisciplinary overview of the literature.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40 ( 5 ) , 549-574.
Therivel, R. & A ; Partidario, R. ( 2000 ) . The hereafter of SEA. InPositions on Strategic Environmental Assessment, erectile dysfunction. M.R. Partidario and R. Clarke. Boca Raton: LewisPublishers.
Therivel, R. & A ; Minas, P ( 2002 ) , Measuring SEA effectivity: Ensuring effectual sustainability assessment. Beech Tree Publishing, 20 ( 2 ) , pp81-91.
Therivel, R.et Al. ( 1992 ) , trategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan Publications.
Thompson, S. , Treweek, R. & A ; Thurling, J. ( 1995 ) The possible application of strategic environmental appraisal ( SEA ) to the agriculture of Atlantic salmon ( almo salar L. ) . InJournal of Environmental Management, 45, 219-229.
Sadler, B. ( 1996 )Environmental Assessment in a Changing Universe: Evaluating Practice to Better Performance. Final Report of the International Study of the Effectivenessof Environmental Assessment. Hull: CEAA.
Scott, S. ( 1992 ) Environmental considerations in determination devising: A function for EIA at the policy degree?CEARC MR7-92. Hull: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.
Smith, S & A ; Sheate, W. ( 2001 ) , “Sustainability assessments of regional planning counsel and regional economic schemes in England: an assessment” ,Journal of Environmental Planningand Management, 44 ( 5 ) , pages 735-755.
URL 1: Cardinal Phases about SEA. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sea-info.net/content/main.asp? pid=230. Accessed on 24.01.10.
URL 2: When is SEA required. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sea-info.net/content/main.asp? pid=229. Accessed on 24.01.10.
Verheem, R. & A ; Tonk, J. ( 2000 ) , “Strategic environmental appraisal: one construct, multiple forms” ,ImpactAppraisal and Project Appraisal, 18 ( 3 ) , September, pages 177-182.
Wood, C. & A ; Dejeddour, M. ( 1992 ) Strategic environmental appraisal: Ea of policies, programs and programmes.Impact Assessment Bulletin, 10 ( 1 ) , 3-22.
