The paradox of strategic environmental assessment

a r t i c l e i n f o Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a tool that can facilitate sustainable development and improve decision-making by introducing environmental concern early in planning processes. However, various international studies conclude that current planning practice is not taking full advantage of the tool, and we therefore define the paradox of SEA as the methodological ambiguity of non-strategic SEA. This article explores causality through at three-step case study on aggregates extraction planning in Denmark, which consists of a document analysis; a questionnaire survey and follow-up communication with key planners. Though the environmental reports on one hand largely lack strategic considerations, practitioners express an inherent will for strategy and reveal that their SEAs in fact have been an integrated part of the planning process. Institutional context is found to be the most significant barrier for a strategy and this suggests that non-strategic planning setups can prove more important than non-strategic planning in SEA practice. Planners may try to execute strategy within the confinements of SEA-restricted planning contexts; however, such efforts can be overlooked if evaluated by a narrow criterion for strategy formation. Consequently, the paradox may also spark from challenged documentation. These findings contribute to the common understanding of SEA quality; however, further research is needed on how to communicate and influence the strategic options which arguably remain inside non-strategic planning realities. Introduction A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true, like: Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) is not strategic. This is a provocative statement, as SEA is implemented into national legislation in countries worldwide, based on the belief that it secures strategic considerations in decision-making on the policy, plan and programme (PPP) levels of activity. McGimpsey and Morgan (2013) describe mandatory inclusion of strategic alternatives and assessment of systemic effects as the primary benefit of introducing SEA in a non-mandatory planning context; yet, Tetlow and Hanusch (2012) conclude that especially these strategic elements appear to be lacking in practice. The suggested solutions for avoiding this paradox differ according to the different reasoning suggested. Stoeglehner (2010) argues that a change of planning paradigms towards more future oriented approaches is required, while Bragagnolo et al. (2012) point at a need to increase focus on scoping and include relevant alternatives. Some studies find that practitioners do not assign significant value to the task of conducting SEA and perceive it as an administrative burden …