MiSt-programme
1
A PROGRAMME ON “TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN STRATEGIC
DECISION-MAKING” (MIST)
The lack of environmental considerations in strategic decision-making leads to insufficient societal
and environmental outcomes. Better integration of environmental considerations into decision making
is being attempted through mechanisms such as the sustainability assessment (SIA) 1 initiative at the
EU policy level and the implementation of the SEA directive at national levels and by strategies such
as environmental goal setting and sector integration. Legislation is being revised to achieve greater
efficiency. Such measures must be accompanied by appropriate strategic tools that facilitate day-today application and integration into decision-making. Although a wide range of analytical and
procedural strategic tools exist today, the actual use of these tools is limited.
The basic question posed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) call for a research
programme is empirical on the function of tools for strategic decision making with corollary questions
concerning how they can be made to function more effectively integrated into societal processes. The
aim of the proposed programme is to investigate practical and effective use of tools for strategic
environmental assessment in a wide sense. Tools and policy instruments must have a sound basis
resting not only on normative assumptions, but also on established scientific theory and empirical
evidence.2 A key element in applied environmental research is the ability to bridge the gap between
practice and theory and between the social and the natural sciences (The Swedish Research Council
2002).
There are several issues that need to be addressed. First, there is an overflow of tools and guidelines
for practitioners and decision-makers. They are developed on normative grounds and often based on
piecemeal assembly of “good examples” with little or no systematic evaluation. Second, tools are
often designed and developed from an expert-driven perspective with insufficient attention to the
context in which tools should function and to user needs and capacities. Thus, a second ambition is to
synthesise and harmonise existing tools into functional systems of methods based on empirical studies
of function and effectiveness under representative conditions as well as favourable. Third, the
paradigmatic and methodological biases in tools are often hidden or unclear to users with the
assumption of goal neutral tools of rational decision making. Thus, a third ambition is to clarify the
paradigmatic and theoretical basis of tools as a necessary basis for understanding their function and
effectiveness. Fourth, development of similar methods and tools in different fields, the fact that they
are often developed with insufficient regard to previous international experience or scientific literature
and the lack of evaluation means leads to lack of cumulative learning and repetition of similar
experiences.
THE MIST-PROGRAMME IN SUMMARY
The MiSt-programme addresses ”tools for environmental assessment in strategic decision making”
with the aim of providing insight, understanding and practical guidance on the effective use of tools
and combinations of tools. The approach is applied and initially multidisciplinary striving towards
interdisciplinarity. It is empirical, based on the scientific strategy of studying development and
application of tools as practical activities in society. Research is carried out in co-operation and
interaction with agencies, organisations and other stakeholders. The programme is proposed as an
integrated network of co-operating institutions and researchers with major other research projects
within the field giving an added value based on a total funding considerably exceeding that of the
1
The acronym SIA has been used to denote social impact assessment in the literature; we will not use it thus.
The normative emphasis and lack of empirical evidence of effectiveness and efficiency can be exemplified by
the “tools” Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) combined
with a lack of clear goals for their implementation, Hilding-Rydevik, T (2002).
2
MiSt-programme
2
programme funds now applied for. Common programme activities form a foundation for work towards
interdisciplinarity and for synthesis in final reporting.
The programme consists of projects within one or more of three themes. Each of the three themes
could optionally result in a scientifically based handbook at the end of the programme.
SEA-implementation
Implementation of SEA processes and tools within fields of programme and plans especially at
regional and local level but also with a view to future development within the field of national
policy and it’s implementation at regional and local level. This is the major theme of MiSt.
Scenario techniques
The application of scenario techniques in strategic decision-making, policy and regional/ local
planning. The use of scenarios as means of making complex alternative future states amenable
both to application of tools of prediction etc and to informed political debate and public
participation is the focus. Evaluation of the experience of scenario application, which is almost
lacking, will form the basis for development.
Effectiveness of tools
Effectiveness of tools and combinations of tools in complex processes of policy, planning and
implementation; especially the use of environmental systems analytical tools within a framework
of a hierarchy in organisation and time of policy and public planning.
There are two “horizontal perspectives” that are important components in the programme activities,
research areas in their own right and integrated components in several projects.


Public participation: Methods of effective and efficient public participation at different levels.
The problem of openness and transparency in pursuing complex scientific or technical tools
and in complex processes of decision-making is central to the problem of effective public
participation. The meaning of participation at different levels of decision making is important.
The issue of legal regulation of tools and processes. The issue of legal regulation is central but
also other forms of formal and informal regulation and their interaction are important. The
problems process versus material regulation must be understood better by those developing
tools and planning and management process. In strategic decision making the issue of tiering
i.e. consistency between levels of decision-making and the problem of shifts in environmental
focus, goals and objectives between different levels is a central practical and theoretical
problem.
Tools are studied in the context of strategic decision-making in several sectors and against an
understanding of their underlying scientific rationale, methodologies, planning doctrines etc. The
programme addresses the context of decision-making with two perspectives: tool use within existing
structures and tool use and development within a perspective of institutional learning and change. The
changing context for environmental management and planning manifested through revisions of the
environmental and planning legislation and implementation of EU directives make this dual
perspective necessary.
Programme elements.
 Concurrent programme activities aiming at integrating projects: overview and conceptual
basis formed by surveying literature, international experiences and case-studies, ongoing work
in the consortium, work-shops, co-operation with actors and agencies etc. Work-shops where
projects interact and influence each other and interact with other practitioners and researchers.
International co-operation is a natural part of this as well as in the individual programmes.
 Concrete, empirical research projects.
 Later projects preceded by minor, exploratory projects now proposed in areas identified as
complementing the present projects.
MiSt-programme

3
Synthesis and summary: recommendations concerning tool use, integration; development of
tool use in different combinations and contexts. “Transfer-of-knowledge seminars”,
workshops with user groups and agencies and organisations etc. in addition to conventional
scientific reporting.
The participating research groups of the programme represent extensive experience from
interdisciplinary and problem-oriented approaches. The disciplinary background of the researchers
covers a wide range of subjects. The funding for a programme is limited in relation to the magnitude
and scope of the issues raised by the call for programmes. Our approach to this is to construct a
consortium forming a tight network of researchers and institutions that are already well established
within the field. Only by bringing in a solid mass of other research and development can a programme
approaching the breadth of the problem area be successful. The total complementing funding from
other sources is roughly estimated at SEK 8 million annually. The consortium includes a senior group
of researchers concerned with programme development towards integration and interdisciplinarity.
THE RESEARCH AREA
The MiSt-programme approach of multidisciplinarity striving towards interdisciplinarity in a problem
driven, applied research area means that there is no unified theoretical structure for the research.
Research problems are not taken from any single discipline and thus do not relate to any single theory.
The discussion here is therefore focused on some of the central concepts and research problems of the
programme.
The concept of tools
The concept of tools as used in this programme is “decision aiding tools” (Dale & English eds 1999)
i.e. tools to handle knowledge on environmental issues in the processes of decision-making with
special reference to strategic decision-making rather than decision-making tools. The term “tool”
however is used in many different fields of science and practice. As a result, the concept of ”tools” is
ambiguous and it may be used in a wide variety of connotations. At one extreme are technical and
scientific equipment and methods for gathering, processing, storing or displaying information. At the
other extreme tools may be used more or less interchangeably with “instruments” to describe means to
implement policies, programmes and plans; economic incentives, legislation and information are at
times termed policy tools. In some systems, process tools e.g. in spatial planning or EIA are regulated
with respect to process and content to a degree which makes them close to scientific methods. In other
cases they could better be termed “approaches”. Central agencies in environment and planning have
developed “tool-boxes” for planning and management with illustrate the breadth of the term. The
concept of ’tools’ might also be used to denote “process packages” that might contain a variety of
processes, analyses and methods.3 Several tools such as EIA, SEA, TIA etc are not well defined and a
number of technical tools and expert methodologies can be used within their framework (Finnveden et
al 2003). One might usefully distinguish three different sets of tools: one related to planning and
management in the public sector which often has a major component of participatory ideology,
another from environmental systems analysis which tend to be ”expert tools” – LCA, SFA, MFA –
and a third set of environmental management system tools from the corporate sector which may be
used also in the public sector providing links to informal or market regulation mechanisms. The
scientific theories, the legal structures, the claims for function, the scope of application behind these
are highly variable (Dale & English eds 1999). Generally one can expect a difference in degree of
formalisation depending on the background in natural science or social science or practice. On prima
facie grounds it can be assumed that problems in present practice stem partly from the attempt at ad
This is the approach of the MEMIV project (Methods for Environmental Systems Analysis, financed by
MISTRA, lead by Göran Finnveden) project that studies tools (verktyg) such as LCA, EIA, SEA, EMS, SEEA,
and relates them to methods (metoder) such as scenario analysis, valuation, input-output analysis, and risk
analysis.
3
MiSt-programme
4
hoc use of tools from widely different backgrounds; policy analysis, corporate planning, technical
systems management, and public planning; and in more or less appropriate contexts.4 This can be
investigated both in initial surveys of international experience and in examining cases. The efficient
integration of different tools in such frameworks is a major field of study in the MiSt-programme. The
initial joint programme activity will need to include a survey of tools and an examination of typologies
of tools to allow generalisation from those evaluated to a discussion of others.
Understanding tool use
Tools can be evaluated and their effectiveness and function understood only in relation both to the
context of their application and the embedded theories, assumptions etc of their construction. An
important aspect of the interaction and embedded conditions for tool use is the degree to which tool
use can be regulated with legal instruments or otherwise standardised; this is a central issue e.g. in the
debate over EIA systems (Fischer 2002). The function of tools and instruments is highly contextdependent and the relation of tools to the context of their application must be considered in the
research and development of tools (English 1999). Many times, this has not been taken into account.
Environmental systems analysis tools for instance, like LCA or SFA are extensively used in the
researcher community and there are plenty of publications praising their applicability for corporate
and authority use. However, they are seldom used outside the research community. Experts that
develop such tools often have a background in natural sciences and technology or work within
scientific or administrative frame-works where assumptions of highly rationalist decision-making
models are not confronted with research on planning, decision-making or implementation.
The oft repeated call for more empirical and systematic evaluation in the entire environmental
assessment field is valid for tools as well. Studying successful examples of tool use meets with the
problem noted by Merkhofer (1999) “…tools are complex, and their proper application requires skill
and experience. As a consequence, significant differences often exist between the qualities of the best
and the typical application practices…”. It is the application practices that need to be understood in
order to design tools and to regulate their application.
The concept of environment within the framework of sustainable development
The call for a programme defines the object of tool use as decisions on ”environment within the
framework of sustainable development”. Sustainable development is a process rather than a goal or
fixed state (Harrison 2000). The approach here is to use official definitions of the concepts of
environment and sustainability in the different legislations governing strategic decision-making.
Concerning sustainable development the point of departure for the programme is the context of a
Swedish SD-strategy and the 15 environmental goals adopted by Parliament. This approach does not
imply an uncritical acceptance of concepts. The point is rather that the function of the official
definitions need to be studied. The programme will address how these definitions are interpreted,
operationalised and used and implemented at various stages of decision-making and whether they
affect assessment. The critical examination implies studying whether certain goals or conceptions of
”environment” receive greater or less attention due to tool use and processes, whether goals, concepts
etc contain internal conflicts affecting decision-making, whether other groups’ perceptions of
environment or sustainable development are handled in a conscious way and examined against
perceptions of what is officially decided. Thus an aspect of providing insight, judging effectiveness
and attempting practical recommendation needs to be an examination of the influence of concepts,
definitions, regulated objectives and operationalisation of goals in the form of indicators on tool use
and decision-making, management and planning processes. How for example is ”environment” in fact
interpreted and operationalised in different types of decision-making and planning. What shifts in
emphasis occur when moving from central policy levels to local decisions and conflicts?
4
The context dependence is for example part of the explanation for the problems in direct application of projectEIA to strategic decision making. (Hildén 2000)
MiSt-programme
5
Strategic decision-making
The assumptions of strategic decision-making in practice poses a number of important problems and
issues to address. The importance of context has already been noted above. Complex scientific and
societal knowledge has to be handled within a wide context of strategic decision-making: A policy,
programme or plan must be assumed to interact with other developments in society: it will operate in a
societal context. Generalisation about complex decision making processes presupposes that there are
structural and logical reasons that govern the outcome of a decision process. However, decisionmaking also involves informal and individual dimensions. The differences in decision-making
between expert systems and political systems discussed by e.g. Brunson (2002). Credibility of
strategic tools will depend on whether one can find a way of handling the problems of operating on a
political arena. This has obviously been a problem in SEA development.
Impact analysis rests explicitly or implicitly on rationalist planning and management philosophy. The
basis of rationalist planning is the notion that full information on goals and objectives leads to the
generation of alternative ways of achieving these. Analysis and comparison of the impacts of the
alternatives supposedly leads to decision on the optimal alternative. That the rationalist model has
come in for decades of massive criticism in the planning literature is well known. Nevertheless both
the legislation and to a large degree the organisation and professional culture of environmental
administration is rationalist (Emmelin & Kleven 1999). Our object here is not to attempt a
fundamental critique of rationalist planning and decision making but merely to point at the need for
observing the limitations and to problematise the assumptions embedded in tools and procedures and
to point at the planning theory as an important component in the understanding of tools. Below we
point at some of the specific problems in environmental assessment. The role of assessment and
assessment tools in strategic decision making can be said to relate to the classic problem of strategic
decision making dilemma of balancing decisions between “weighting and daring”5 i.e. between
political, intuitive policy making and rationalist decision models. A major issue relating to the
relationship can also be expressed in simplified form: is the task of assessment to aid in “deciding on
what is right” or is it to aid in “getting things right, preferably from the outset”? This issue relates not
only to the role of EA – whether it is a tool for the ultimate strategic decision or for mitigation of
decisions taken on other grounds but also to theory and doctrine of strategic decision making. Our
preliminary leaning here is towards the doctrine of “mixed scanning” (Etzioni 1967).
Already in an attempt to grasp a decision-making process in a simplified flow scheme, it is obvious
that the impact of many expert tools generating hard facts is limited and that they play a smaller role
than is perhaps necessary in a complex, multidimensional decision making process. To make them
operative, the development of tools that are independent of context is often the solution for the
consultant or researcher, which may account for much of the problems. The planning literature and
practice often takes the opposite stand: processes are so context dependent as to make them more into
approaches that are guided by practical experience and loose norms (Fischer & Forester 1993). It is
thus an issue to consider to what extent it is at all possible to develop context independent tools that
might be useful for decision making.
Tiering – ideal and reality
A common conception of strategic decision making within a framework of rational decision making is
one of an hierarchical system with an increasing level of detail as one moves down to implementation
and daily operation. In the SEA literature this aspect is termed “tiering” (Lee & Walsh 1992). The
concept of sustainability and in particular the 15 national environmental goals have added a visionary
element decided at high levels but to be implemented throughout the planning and management
systems. Implementation of the environmental goals rests on an ideology of management by goals and
objectives where interpretation and operationalisation is left to sectoral agencies. The tiered system is
assumed to be internally consistent and based on a scientific, calculating rationality (Sager 1994;
5
This is the classic characterisation of the dilemma of stratgey by 19 th Century military theorists: “zwischen
Wegen und Wagen” – see e.g. Liddell Hart, B.H. (1968)
MiSt-programme
6
Emmelin 2000). Systems are tempered with deliberative elements e.g. the participatory elements in
environmental and planning legislation and in such voluntary processes as LA21. Regional and local
development and such concepts as “regional innovation systems” have increased the use of “visionary
planning” where relation to implementation is often unclear. All of this makes the tiering aspect
especially interesting to EA in Sweden.
The notion of tiered systems of decision-making has been criticised from theoretical and empirical
standpoints. One such discussion is the policy analysis discussion on whether policy is a top-down
system or in fact a formation from below. In the Swedish environmental debate this scientific
discourse has also appeared.6 However within the framework of strategic decision-making there are
aspects of tiering of great importance. Of direct practical and empirical importance is the problem of
shifting priorities in a chain from policy to implementation. In energy policy this shift can be observed
from the policy level focus on climate change and the climate environmental goal to local issues in the
siting of for example a district heating plant. In waste management similarly shifts from recycling and
climate goals to focus on noise, traffic hazards, toxic emissions which may at times be marginal take
place along the chain from policy to local implementation. In the strategic perspective it is important
to elucidate methods for maintaining focus on higher level objectives and consistency within a
hierarchy or into future decisions. From the local, democratic and ”bottom-up” perspectives it is
important to recognise the legitimacy of local concerns and the need for methods of handling such
conflicts of interest that arise. Projects in the programme will address this from several angles.
Sector integration and sector responsibility
Sector integration and sector responsibility is central to Swedish environmental and sustainable
development policy.7 The arguments for this relate to efficiency, relevance etc but also to the long
term professional and institutional learning that is assumed to take place. To manage by setting goals,
delegating implementation to local agencies and monitoring results at a central level are management
strategies typical of the so called New Public Management (NPM) doctrine which holds that effective
implementation of public policy should include management instruments like “Management-byobjectives’ (MBO), delegation of responsibility to lower levels of organisation, supported by
continuous monitoring and evaluation of results (Emmelin & Kleven 1999:75). In situations with
split responsibilities as in the case of sustainable development – see e.g. project text on regional
development – integration may in fact be hampered by organisational conflict and professional and
organisational cultures at cross purposes as well as by other factors. The lack of functioning
monitoring at municipal level (Johanneson & Johansson 2000) is a problem to this management
model.
Sectors tend to have traditions and preferences for certain instruments. Modern institutional theories
suggest that institutional factors such as values, preferences, procedures and organisational
arrangements shape and constrain sector integration and strategic decision-making. The study of
developing and adapting tools to different institutional and decision-making contexts in order to make
them more effective is under-developed. Cross sector integration necessitates both other types of tools
and instruments and decision-making contexts. In many cases however decisions on policies and
programme are made at one level or in one sector and the environmental and sustainability issues are
left to other levels or sectors. A prime example of this is the development of the Swedish third
generation mobile telephone system (3G) – see discussion in project 2.
Regional development – sustainability in programming and planning
The situation at regional level is complex. Sweden is unique in the EU in not having a distinctive
regional planning in the spatial planning system8. However the sector co-ordination and knowledge
6
Cf an article by Hjern (1993) who is one of proponents of a bottom up understanding of policy.
This topic is researched under a four-year research grant from FORMAS to SEI called ‘Policy Integration for
Sustainability’ which will be interacting closely with the MiSt programme (see SEI institutional description).
8
The exception is the case of the three main urban regions with Stockholm and the regional planning done there
as the most significant case.
7
MiSt-programme
7
inputs into local planning are important elements of the regional responsibility. With modes of
regional administrations changing this function must be ensured and supplied with adequate tools.
Consistency e.g. between goals and objectives of regional development programmes and planning and
allocation of resources at regional and municipal level is another central issue. The problem of three
competing paradigms of regional development: sustainable development, regional innovation and
social cohesion is further discussed in the proposal for a pilot study of regional development. (project
10)
In studying the regional development planning and programming now going on it is of paramount
importance to study not only the programmes and plans and the way in which they are formed, but
also their implementation. The present generation of ”regional growth agreements” have in many
regions been characterised by a considerable difference between programme documents and
implementation in granting economic support to projects. Implementation needs to be studied
empirically and quantitatively. Implementation of regional development programmes would seem to
be a classic example of policy drift and “street-level bureaucracy” problems (Pressman & Wildavsky
1973). To claim that there is a regional ”sustainability discourse” is to oversimplify a complex
political, administrative, cultural etc context. Into this complex situation new administrative actors are
entering with responsibilities cutting across traditional old territories or formal divisions e.g. with the
implementation of the EU Water directive. Regional political assemblies are also added to the regional
scene.
Environmental assessment
Environmental assessment, EA,9 has a diverse background both internationally and nationally. In the
international literature the origin of formalised EA in the form of EIA is usually traced to the
introduction of NEPA (Caldwell 1998). EIA was originally conceived in the USA to serve as an action
forcing mechanism to reform federal agency policy and large projects. This process was to occur
through the requirement, imposed on agencies, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for
‘legislation and other major federal actions…..”. Nevertheless, as reviewed by Partidario (1999) and
many others, the principal focus of EIA activity since 1970 has been at the level of individual projects.
The rigorous project-by-project evaluation has been seized upon in many countries and administrative
systems as a solution to many environmental problems (Wood 1995). The extension of EIA practice to
include the assessment of policies, programmes and plans and thereby to return to the roots of EIA,
has been called for in the prescriptive literature since at least the early 1990s. The application of EIA
to these higher level proposals has become known as strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
(Wood & Djeddour 1992).
Claims for the effect on environment protection and ultimately on sustainable development are
divergent in the extreme. On the one hand recent professional literature makes extensive claims for
success10 . On the other evaluation or effectiveness studies of systems or comparative studies have
repeatedly shown major deficiencies in the function of systems ( cf e.g. Sadler 1996) or of central
components. For example the handling of alternatives is on the one hand claimed to be ”at the heart
of” assessment (CEQ 1978) and on the other it is repeatedly shown not to function. Part of this may
stem from fundamental differences in conception of what various tools and processes are in fact
supposed to be. The lack of clarity of what in individual cases is in fact being evaluated is thus a
problem. One example is the strife over whether EIA needs be a rigorously regulated system
performing to certain universal criteria.11 Many official documents but also professional and scientific
9
We use ”environmental assessment”, EA, as a generic term encompassing many forms of analysis and
description of the environmental consequences of human activity regardless of whether it is applied to actions,
products, projects, plans, programmes or policies. Thus EA includes the many variants of impact assessment
procedures, such as EIA, SEA, SIA, and TIA.
10
Such is the case both for handbooks such as Petts ed (1999) and for administrative literature from responsible
agencies; see for example “Boken om MKB för detaljplan”, Boverket which claims that EIA makes planning
more efficient.
11
This position is strongly advocated in Sweden by Carlman & Westerlund (1994) and Carlman (1995).
MiSt-programme
8
literature take the opposite stance. In the case of implementation of the present EU directive on SEA
(42/2001/EC) there is a fundamental uncertainty over what the directive in fact applies to in different
countries and the process of exegesis is now under way in Sweden. The lack of operative but also
theoretically well founded criteria for ”effectiveness” is another methodological problem of
evaluation. One set of criteria has been proposed and applied internationally in several studies since
(Sadler 1996; Sadler & Verheem 1996). However, the criteria may be used in a less than consistent
way, and weighting of different criteria vary. At times rather piecemeal, pragmatic indicators are used
such as efficiency of processes evaluated simply as the time taken from application to decision
regardless of content of decisions. The confusion over what is in fact being evaluated – the systems of
assessment as theoretical structures or their actual function or the representativity problems of
qualitative case study based evaluation is another problem (Emmelin 1998a; Therivel 2002). As noted
in the leading international handbook on EIA a central problem is the lack of evaluation per se:
“..there remains an apparent antipathy to evaluation of practice, not least its actual effects. In other
words we still do not understand fully whether EIA is fulfilling potential or wasting opportunity”
(Petts 1999a, p 5). Lack of impact on decision-making is variously explained by systems, processes or
the implementation by professionals as being too scientific and rigorous or not sufficiently scientific.
It is explained by the profession variously as lack of time and resources, inadequate technical tools and
sufficiently sophisticated quantitative models or the lack of commitment on the part of decisionmakers (Sadler 1996; Emmelin 1998b). A problem pertaining to all claims for effectiveness of EIA
and SEA may be the development of a separate “EIA-profession” more or less scientifically isolated
from relevant fields such as decision theory, policy science but also from planning and planning
theory.
Since the 1960ies when EIA was introduced in the US, decision-making science has demonstrated that
the rational model is of limited explanatory value when it comes to strategic decision-making and it
has been extensively criticised in the literature (Kleindorfer et al 1993; Zey 1998). However, at the
same time it is widely asserted that in order to truly influence these decision-making processes
throughout, the assessment framework should go beyond the environmental analysis and impact
prediction and address the larger scope of the decision-making process so that the environmental
issues are considered already when, for instance, the agenda is set, and problems and objectives are
articulated. This is claimed to increase the opportunities for finding and proposing more
environmentally benign solutions at early stages, which is one of the main rationales for SEA. A major
theoretical and practical problem is thus the unclear relationship between SEA and spatial planning.
This relates both to fundamental theoretical differences in rationality between a “calculating
rationality” of EA and a “communicative rationality” (Sager 1990) and to practice e.g manifested in
different legislation, professional culture etc.
So far in Sweden the legislative support is for implementation of EIA and SEA through for example
the Environmental Code (Miljöbalken) and the Planning and Building legislation (PBL). The SEA
approach will also be strengthened through the national implementation of the recent European
Directive on environmental assessments of certain plans and programmes as it is being implemented in
national legislation all over the European Union in the coming years. When it concerns for example
implementation of SEA in comprehensive municipal planning in Sweden there is at present no
systematic overview of what types of assessment is in fact made concerning for example what issues,
definitions of the concept of ”environment” in fact are prevalent. The project dealing with municipal
planning will survey this. Of paramount importance is the attention to how issues may be redefined as
discussions at the more rhetorical level are operationalised at lower levels and in the form of
indicators. This lack of systematic assessment applies to all kinds of impact assessments in Sweden.
Thus planning and assessment systems seem not to be learning systems in that monitoring and
comparison between predictions and actual results is not carried out systematically (Hilding-Rydevik
2003). The lack of effective monitoring and administrative follow up, especially at the local level
(Rudén et al 1998; Johannesson & Johansson 2000), can also be pointed to as an explanation for lack
of development and learning. Evaluation is thus an important empirical component of several of the
projects and receives special attention in the “ex post”-project (project 9). Furthermore this will be
MiSt-programme
9
complemented by other projects of the consortium described in the appendix presenting the
institutions.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
An early and widely quoted definition of SEA is: the formalised, systematic and comprehensive
process of evaluating the environmental impacts of a policy, plan, or programme and its alternatives,
including the preparation of a written report on the findings of that evaluation, and using the findings
in publicly accountable decision making (Thérivel et al 1992, pp. 19-20). SEA was thought of as the
extension of project EIA to the so-called higher levels of decision-making, with the principles,
procedures and methods of EIA largely intact (Lee &. Walsh 1992). In writing about the assessment of
policy, Boothroyd (1995) described this approach as formalized and positivistic. This was contrasted
with what Boothroyd called policy vetting—an informal and heuristic approach to the introduction of
environmental concerns into the normal processes of policy analysis and evaluation. The underlying
assumptions in much of the early SEA literature of hierarchical, consistent systems and the confusion
between integration into ongoing planning processes and formalised permit systems has been
discussed in the Scandinavian literature (Emmelin 1996; Hilden 2000)
The recent European Directive on environmental assessments of certain plans and programmes
provides a legislative framework for SEA that is, as noted above, ambiguous. Since the Directive is
essentially an extension of EIA-thinking it may be particularly difficult to apply to programmes but
also at the regional and comprehensive local level. SEA is a decision-making support tool that aims at
integrating the environmental aspects of decisions in a structured manner. The first connotation is that
the object of assessment is policies, programmes and plans that have long-ranging implications on
broader aspects of society. The second connotation is the up-stream focus, attempting to not just carry
out an environmental analysis of decisions already made. A problem in SEA is that policies or national
and regional programmes are rarely subjected to the formalised scrutiny of the adversary character and
setting that is the framework for EIA. There is no obvious point in the process that corresponds to the
analysis and approval procedure of a fixed and well-defined project. Consistent with this,
recommendations for SEA say that it should be done as part of the planning and policy formulation
process. This however would seem to reduce SEA to an internal planning procedure without most of
the characteristics of the impact assessment procedure as an ideal type: the open and well-documented
scrutiny of alternatives.
The extent to which there are or can be general methods for SEA seems uncertain and contentious.
The international scientific literature seems to indicate a trend for different fields of SEA to develop
related not only to the distinction between “plan-SEA” and “policy-SEA” discusssed above/below but
also to assessment in various sectors such as infrastructure, energy, waste etc.12 This may in fact be
partly due to specialisations in tool use within the framework of SEA rather than to any very major
substantial differences in procedure and SEA-methodology. Sector legislation may support the
development of special approaches. Different definitions or priorities concerning the content of the
concept of ”environment” in sectors, professions, legislation etc are worth noting.
Sustainability Assessment (SA)
The European Commission decided in 1999 to start developing methodologies for carrying out a SIA
of the proposed new round of WTO multilateral trade negotiations. The aim of the SIA was to assess
the impact of potential agreements in future or ongoing WTO negotiations on sustainability
worldwide. Kirkpatrick and Lee have developed a methodology to make broad assessments of the
impact upon sustainability of a global trade agenda (1999). The consortium has been involved in
sustainability assessment through SEI’s work with the European Commission’ DG Trade in pilot
testing this SIA framework (Maltais et al 2002). In 2002, the European Commission has taken the SIA
initiative forward to encompass all European policy areas (European Commission 2002). However,
12
See for example Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment vol 2 (Petts ed 1999) with separate ”sector
experience” chapters on ”policy”, land-use planning, waste management, road and rail infrstructure, energy,
mining, water.
MiSt-programme
10
great methodological advances need to be made in order to do justice to the ambitions in these
initiatives and similar initiatives. Closely linked to SIA is the concept of sustainability appraisal
although the distinction from SEA seems vague (Therivel & Minas 2000).
The shift in emphasis with SIA may be from SEA aimed at being a tool in decision-making by
providing background material on a particular issue to a tool in actual decision-making by making the
trade-offs between different elements that would otherwise be regarded as the prerogative of the
decision maker. In Sweden there is at present no systematic overview of what types of assessment is in
fact made in comprehensive planning and regional development or what issues, definitions of the
concept of ”environment” in fact are prevalent. Several of the projects will address this
Alternatives in environmental assessment: ideals and reality
To evaluate alternative ways of reaching the objectives of a project, plan or policy is central to
environmental assessment and SEA: ”alternatives are at the core of EIA” (CEQ 1978). Both
professional and academic literature stresses that the handling of alternatives in EIA and SEA often
does not work anywhere near the ideals (cf e g Glasson et al 1994). A resistance from practicing
planners to working with alternatives, especially in the form of scenarios, has been studied by Sager
(1995). In organisational theory, management theory, organisational psychology etc theoretical
approaches to this resistance can be found which are currently not observed by planning theory and
practice or in development of SEA (Emmelin 1988a&b). The professional and administrative
evaluations carried out arrive at explanations for the dysfunction of EIA/SEA in this respect which are
often neither based on theory nor particularly helpful for further development of systems. At times the
explanations border on the trivial: decision-makers are not interested in the environment and need to
be educated or more time and resources are needed (Saddler & Verheem 1996) and so forth. Much of
the evaluation carried out is noticeably lacking in theoretical foundation (Emmelin 1998
a).”Alternatives” in EIA/SEA can mean several things: alternative locations, alternative modes of
production, alternative technologies. A special role is accorded to the ”no action”-alternative or ”zero
alternative” in that a prediction of the development without the project or plan is normally mandatory.
This alternative is supposed to serve both as a baseline for evaluation the impacts of other alternatives
and to elucidate the need for the project of plan (Wathern, 1988). The ”no action alternative” seems
both difficult to make concrete and to motivate administrations to make. What precisely is to be meant
by ”alternatives” in SEA seems at best to be unclear (Hilldén 2000; Emmelin 1998a&b)
Resistance and delays: the problems of not getting it right from the beginning
A much used argument for EIA/SEA is that if well done it facilitates efficient planning and decisionmaking. The evidence for this seems largely indirect, based on the delays and problems caused by
inadequate planning and EIA/SEA and the delays caused by public resistance. However there are
several problems related to proving the counterfactual standpoint that better SEA would have speeded
up the process of EA at lower levels in any particular case. Major energy, waste and infrastructure
projects would seem to afford a suitable model for a better understanding of the handling of
alternatives especially in SEA. The decisions are often of a policy setting nature: the ”contextuating
decisions" of Etzioni (1967). In recent years several such projects in Sweden have been subjected to
major decision-making processes where impact analysis has been an important element. The role of
resistance and “counter expertise” is interesting in these cases – see project 8.
A common claim in recent literature is that in order to be fully effective in influencing the decisionmaking process, SEA should be set up as an integrated or at least closely tied process (Therivel et al
1992; Kørnøv and Thissen 2000). This means that the SEA must be tuned to the characteristics of the
decision-making process that is being assessed. However, the basis for the SEA approach is rationality
of EIA and this influence is visible as the proposed and existing SEA processes basically entail the
same steps and stages as the standard rational decision-making model (Lawrence 2000; Nilsson &
Dalkmann 2001).
MiSt-programme
11
Scenario methods
A future perspective is inherent to planning and strategic decision-making. This future perspective also
influences how the SEA is to be conducted. There are several approaches for handling different
aspects of the uncertainty that deciding for the future entails. Different approaches are helpful in
different situations and elements of these approaches can be useful at different stages of the SEA. The
use of scenario methods is often recommended in the prescriptive literature (e g Dom 1999;
Naturvårdsverket 2000; Noble 2000). There is some experience in scenario use to draw upon when
methods suitable for SEA are to be developed.
Pure forecasting (predictive modelling) is useful when there are stable trends or patterns and when the
ability or will to break the trends is lacking. In the face of structural uncertainty, however, scenarios
are a useful planning tool. Two different scenario approaches are those focusing on developments
beyond the control of the relevant planning entity (external scenarios) and those focusing on a
desirable future state (Images-of-the-future and backcasting). These two traditions will be briefly
presented below. Another dimension that is highly relevant to the research field of the present
programme is the process for developing scenarios. Traditionally, scenarios were developed by thinktanks like Rand and FOA. When Shell started to work with external scenarios around 1970, an
important part of the approach was a participative process for the development of scenarios. In
backcasting studies the think-tank model has prevailed until recently, when a more participative
approach has gained ground. The choice between the think-tank model and the participative approach
depends on the aim of the scenario study. Scenarios developed in the think-tank tradition usually aim
at inspiring a broad audience of policy analysts, academics and an interested general public to widen
the perspective of the future. The participative approach, on the other hand, is tailored for the purpose
of guiding actual policy making of a specific organisation – a problem owner.
The aim of scenario planning is to make a strategic analysis of the options that are open to an actor.
These options are assessed against the external scenarios in an effort to find a combination of policy
measures (a portfolio) that yields a fair outcome in all or most of the scenarios (see van der Heijden
1996). This tradition of scenario planning has to a large extent been developed by Royal Dutch/Shell
since around 1970 (Wack 1985; Wack 1985; Schoemaker & van der Heiden 1992). Many enterprises
have since used the approach in their strategic planning. A leading advocate and practitioner of
scenario planning is the consultant network Global Business Network, GBN (Schwartz 1992; van der
Heijden 1996). The approach has also been used in public sector planning, e.g. in the Swedish
Technology Foresight (Eriksson 1999), and in strategic planning for the railway sector in Sweden
(Eriksson 2000).
Some other approaches, although essentially qualitative like the Shell methodology, use systematic
combinations of variable states with the help of computer software (Ritchey 1998; von Reibnitz 1988;
Gausmeier 1998). In academic contexts scenarios are used in future studies, yet with a more indirect
connection to policy making and planning. Even in studies carried out by a research team, broader
panels are often used, either for generation of ideas or for elaboration and critique of outline scenarios
or for validation. Examples are Masser et al (1992) and Snickars (1999).
Backcasting was developed in the 70’s as a way of exploring desirable or interesting futures. Instead
of making projections from the present into the future, in backcasting one starts by designing Imagesof-the-future that show how a solution to a major societal problem might look (Dreborg 1996;
Robinson 1982; Robinson 1990). The time horizon is sufficiently far off to permit real change to take
place. This is a means to free oneself of the burden of present trends, making it easier to find
interesting options. In fact, this is one of the most prominent advantages of backcasting. When
Images-of-the-future have been developed and validated as to their feasibility, one tries to find one or
several paths leading from the present situation to the Images. The role of policy making is
highlighted.
MiSt-programme
12
Backcasting has been used at least since the 70’s. Early examples are a series of Swedish energy
futures studies (Johansson et al 1983; Kaijser et al 1988; Lönntoth et al 1978; Lönnroth et al 1980;
Steen et al 1992). Another, more recent example is the OECD project Environmentally Sustainable
Transport (EST) where several member states performed parallel backcasting studies (OECD 1997;
OECD 1999). Other examples of applications on sustainable transport emanate from a Swedish
research programme (Steen et al 1997; Steen et al 1998; Åkerman et al 2000), a British study (Peake
1994; Peake & Hope 1994) and a Dutch project (COOL 1999; COOL 2000).
The choice between an external scenario approach and backcasting is dependent on whether there is an
interest in trend breaks and visionary goals or not. Visionary goals speak for backcasting, while
scenario planning is the better choice when the goals are of a pragmatic and opportunity seeking kind.
In project no 7 scenarios will be developed and used in order to guide actual policy development of
public sector planning entities at the regional and/or local level. Both external scenarios and visionary
scenarios are of interest. There is a long tradition of using external scenarios for strategy development
in business firms (Shell, GBN and similar approaches). Van der Heiden (1996) and other sources
testify that scenarios have proved useful in several cases, and the fact that the use of scenarios has
survived and spread during three decades speaks for its usefulness. Yet, systematic evaluations of the
use of scenarios are largely lacking. The same holds for public sector applications. Here, a
complicating factor is that scenarios are often made for networks of client organisations. Finally, the
use of visionary scenarios as planning tools is only just emerging. Road-mapping seems to be a label
used for private sector visionary planning, with a focus on how to reach set targets.
The use of scenarios as planning tools in public sector planning could be potentially beneficial, but
there is a need to systematically scan experiences and to engage in a learning process together with a
planning entity.
Using scenarios for prediction of effects and impacts.
As Asplund (1978) points out scenarios may also be used as “action forcing” mechanisms to make
different lines of development sufficiently clear to force action. This has been the case for example in
landscape development. An important use of scenarios, advocated loosely in the SEA literature, but
rarely used consistently is constructing alternative outcome scenarios where future effects and impacts
of policy measures are described in a comprehensive way. This approach has been used for
agricultural policy instruments (Emmelin 1996; Jones & Emmelin 1995). In regional planning the
approach has been used systematically using predictive modelling by Rapaport – see project 5.
Effective use of environmental systems analysis tools in decision-making
Environmental decision-making and planning faces two major challenges; environmental effectiveness
and process effectiveness. Regarding environmental effectiveness the outcome of the process, in terms
of environmental performance, is in focus. There is no simple way of judging if a process lead to a
better state of the environment. Rather, it should be acknowledged that most decision and planning
processes involve problem shifting (Bruhn-Tysk and Eklund 2002). If you for instance study a process
involving the development of a bio-fuelled plant for district heating that replace an oil-fuelled plant
you experience a problem shift from environmental impacts on the global level to increased local
impact through increased emissions of VOCs and particulates. The priority given to different
environmental aspects in a process of environmental decision-making and planning is thereby
contingent upon values among the stakeholders (Gregory 1999). In this programme, we have chosen
the pragmatic approach to view officially acknowledged national, regional and local environmental
goals as references to what is a “better” environment. This is still a challenge since there are no
priorities among the different environmental goals and conflicts between them are often obvious.
Environmental systems analysis (ESA) tools are not decision tools, meaning that they are not actually
contributing to the immediate decision-making. Neither do they replace decisions. Instead, they
produce input that can influence the decision-making process, analogous to the role of the EIS for
MiSt-programme
13
projects in Swedish practice. One of their most conspicuous features is that their realisations always
include a systems definition. In EIA-practice, the issue of systems definition is often left out of the
process (Bruhn-Tysk and Eklund 2000) which often leads to the exclusion of regional and global
impacts as well as upstream (natural resource extraction) and downstream (waste) environmental
impact. Including the accomplishment of system definitions in EIA- and SEA-processes would
possibly make stakeholders aware of the value dependent choices underlying the outcome of an EIASEA-process. A universal answer to how system definition should be handled to produce the most
correct results, especially in LCA, is system expansion (Weidema 2001). This implies that the EIApractice and the ideals of ESA are very far from each other. In strategic environmental assessment,
which still is an area under rapid development, it is important not to duplicate the problem of lacking
systems definitions since it can influence the environmental outcome of the process.
Examples of ESA tools are different material flow analysis including substance flow analysis (SFA),
material flow analysis (MFA), total material requirement (TMR), materials intensity per service
(MIPS), life-cycle assessment (LCA) and ecological footprints (EF) (Moberg et al 1999). These are all
accounting tools aiming at keeping track of materials and energy used for satisfying different
functions. They often rest on the very simple paradigm of in=out (Kleijn 2001). Analogous to the
material flow analysis, there are also a number of energy related analysis tools.
The use of an ESA tool, for instance substance flow analysis, might influence decisions in a certain
direction. However, the use of one tool only might influence decisions that lead to problem shifting,
implying that you solve one problem and create a new one (Bouman et al 2000). The general advice to
meet this problem is to combine several tools to broaden the perspective of the analysis (van der Voet
2002).
ESA tools can be applied to a continuum of human activities of different complexity. On one extreme,
there are assessments of environmental impact from substances, products and industrial processes.
Here, the expert character of the tools is obvious and the value contingency of the results is possibly
low. With increasing complexity of the activity from project development over plans and programmes
to policy and strategy, the expert character of tools application decrease and the value contingency
increase. However, the contributions from ESA tools as the call for systems definitions and the
accounting component could still probably improve the support for an environmentally effective
decision-making also in complex, value contingent decision-making processes.
In environmental assessment, when identified as an interactive decision-making process where
stakeholder concerns and environmental impacts are integrated, life-cycle assessment (LCA) can be a
useful tool to present and analyse data (Tukker 2000). LCA is an analytical tool that can be used to
evaluate the environmental effects of a product, process, service or activity (ISO 14040:1997). In
contrast to environmental assessment, it looks beyond site-specific activities to look at the
environmental effects of an entire industrial system. Given that the scoping of the system boundaries
of the LCA study is adequately performed, the LCA can determine and quantify environmental
impacts of any part of the studied system, from a cradle to grave perspective. Although it is often
(wrongly) used as a tool that indicate which of two options that is environmentally preferable, its
potential is rather to indicate tradeoffs between two strategic options. Furthermore, LCA has
considerable potential in strategic planning issues where the relative impacts of different scenarios can
be quantified (see e g Petts 1999b). However, LCA does not deal with site-specific impacts. One tonne
of sulphur dioxide is treated the same independent of where it is emitted. Moreover, it does not handle
impacts that cannot be quantified such as effects of visual impacts. The tool does also need to reduce
the degree of environmental complexity to a greater extent than environmental assessments.
The study of the application of ESA tools involve especially two of the programme features, namely
(i) the problem of openness and transparency in pursuing complex scientific or technical tools and in
complex processes of decision-making, (ii) the issue of effectiveness of legal regulation of tools and
processes. These aspects are potential barriers to the integration of ESA tools in strategic decisionmaking and SEA processes.
MiSt-programme
14
Horizontal perspective 1: Public participation
In the late 1960s and 1970s, the traditional mechanisms for public participation, elections and
referendums, were supplemented with tools for public participation in the administrative complex
(Steelman & Ascher 1997). This development was a response to the indications of declining vitality of
established democratic institutions first observed in the 1960s, such as declining levels of electoral
participation (Dalton 1996: 43-44), dwindling membership in and attachment to political parties
(Schmitt & Holmberg 1995: 95-133), decreasing involvement in established non-governmental
organisations (Aarts 1995: 227-258; Putnam 1995), and diminishing trust in politicians, political
institutions and systems (Dalton 1996, 1999; Klingemann 1999: 51-52), and the following predictions
of a crisis of democracy in its current organisational format (Habermas 1975; Crozier et al 1975).
In Sweden this development of supplementary tools for participation was manifested in the Planning
and Building Act, which was enacted in 1987, and which identified public hearings and written
comments as mandatory requirements in the preparation of matters for decision. Similar tools for
public participation in the preparation of matters for decisions are also found into the Swedish
Environmental Code, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. In addition to these mandatory
tools, there are examples of voluntary tools for public participation, for example in municipal Agenda
21 (e g Eckerberg & Forsberg 1998).
In the 1990s, the deliberative democratic ideal, and its communicative reformulation of the democratic
theme, evolved as a critique of the dominant liberal tradition (Bohman & Rehg 1997). The deliberative
democratic tradition can be viewed as another response to the signs of declining vitality of established
democratic institutions. In line with republican ideals, proponents of deliberative democracy strongly
stress the importance of public participation in decision-making (Elster 1998). But they do not
emphasise any form of participation. The emphasis is on deliberation, that is, on rational dialogue
between free and equal individuals (Habermas 1996, 2001). It is claimed that deliberation can lead not
only to more legitimate but also to more rational decisions (Dryzek 1990; Bohman 2000).
The development in democratic theory mirrors the development in planning theory. In Sweden,
planning theory has evolved from rationalistic planning via advocacy planning and transactive
planning, to communicative planning (Khakee 1999: 197-218). Communicative planning theory
stresses very strongly the importance of public participation in the planning process. Proponents of
communicative planning claim that public involvement in planning leads to ‘better’ decisions. But as
in deliberative democratic theory, the emphasis is not on any form of participation; it is on
deliberation. And once again it is claimed that deliberation will lead not only to more legitimate, but
also to more rational decisions (Forester 1989, 1993; Healy 1993, 1996)
The normative arguments for increased public participation in the form of deliberation found both in
deliberative democracy and communicative planning have been followed by official statements
advocating a restructuring of the Swedish political system along deliberative lines, see e.g. the
Governmental Commission on Swedish Democracy (SOU 2000:1) and the Governmental Commission
on Local Democracy (SOU 2001:48). However, the normative arguments for deliberation rest on a
surprising lack of empirical evidence. It is therefore important to assess the available tools for
participation in terms of deliberative quality, in order to establish whether deliberation leads to more
legitimate and more rational decisions.
Horizontal perspective 2: Legal regulation
Another horizontal perspective cutting across the different projects within the MiSt-programme is
legal regulation. The law or the system of legal regulations defines the basic conditions or ‘the rules of
the game’ for social activity in general and for political and administrative decision-making in
particular, and it is in consequence of fundamental importance also for the function of tools for
environmental assessment in strategic decision-making. It is important to note that the interest for
legal regulation in the MiSt-programme is not primarily concerned with interpreting or construing the
true meaning of specific regulations in a narrow sense. Instead, a perspective from the sociology of
MiSt-programme
15
law is adopted, a perspective focusing on the function of specific regulations in different contexts. It is
focused on how legal regulations are actually used and how they support (or obstruct) administration
as well as stakeholders in political and administrative decision-making processes on environmental
matters as well as in planning processes. By studying the use and the function of regulations, the
ambition is to contribute to the creation of a sound empirical foundation for regulation of tools. The
perspective of legal regulation elucidates also the needs and opportunities for other forms of regulation
and their interaction.
The basic idea in the constitutional state based on the rule of law principle is, that conflict resolution
according to law, shall focus on predictability and formal equality. In Weberian terms, legal
bureaucracy, legal skills and objectivity should be the base of democratic and rational state
administration. Legal decision making in the individual case is to be deduced from generally binding
legal norms according to a legally defined procedural order.
Today the legal rule system of law is supplemented with new forms of welfare legislation with a
strong connection to the growth of the modern welfare state (Dalberg- Larsen 1984). The use of law as
a tool for social change is a basic idea behind this form of legislation. “Traditional rule of law
legislation” and welfare law differ in terms of legal construction and legal decision making in the
process of applying law in practice. Traditional law implies legal decision making “ex post”, to find
out whether a legal norm has been violated ort not. Welfare law is typically applied “ex ante”, i.e.
before something actually takes place. In other word a specific, suggested action is to be judged before
it is to be fulfilled in order to evaluate its consequences. Legal norms are often formulated as goals and
legal decision making is about how to find means to realize legally formulated goals. In the first case
judges and administrators have to decide if a committed act is according to the law or if it is a
violation. The object is to judge whether an action has violated the law or not. In a welfare law
perspective, the legal task at hand is to find a suitable way to fulfil a defined goal. The task of law is
instrumental to promote environmental quality, social change, economic development through
physical planning etc. The concept of sustainable development is in fact regulated through several, not
necessarily coordinated laws. The conflicts between preservation oriented environmental legislation
and planning legislation oriented towards land use change and exploitation is important (Lundqvist
1997). Process regulation is particularly important in the welfare law perspective (Åström 1988).
The reasoning concernng two types of regulation is applicable to the problems of tools for strategic
decision making. Whether the legal regulation is based on welfare law or rule of law type is of
decisive importance. In the former perspective the tools are to a greater degree given. The problem is
to determine the substance of material regulation and apply it to a concrete situation. In the welfare
state perspective the tools have a more independent character. The “toolbox” is not given but has to be
determined from the actual situation at hand. The distinction could be seen as a distinction between
legally given versus legally possible tools. Tools analysed in the projects should be discussed against a
background of a legal context which allows the analysis of both those used and those possible within
different types of regulation. An important perspective is also that of legitimacy of the application of a
specific tool. In the rule of law perspective legitimacy is regulation of a tool in law. In the welfare
state perspective legitimacy must rest also on political evaluation and professional norms Fog et al
(1992). The legitimacy of different tools is thus an empirical issue in several projects. The application
or lack thereof can be assumed to be a function of the different forms of legitimacy and this is
probably often missed in expert driven tool development.
In our context it becomes important to analyse the relations between different regulations and social
norms and values, for example the relations between regulations and professional cultures and
citizens’ opinions regarding the public good, because these relations are very likely to affect the
effectiveness of regulations. Moreover, it is important to study relations between different levels of
rule- and decision-making in order to find a coherent system of regulations. In the search for a more
coherent system it is important to scrutinise the relations between the state and the municipalities, for
example between national polices, programmes and plans on the one hand, and the municipal practice
of implementation on the other. It is also important to be aware of the relation between national and
MiSt-programme
16
EU regulation, and in particular the implementation of EU directives. The analysis of the interplay
between different levels of rule- and decision-making is necessary in order to develop a more coherent
law, and further a system of regulations that (if at all possible) is able to effectively handle the tiering
issue.
At the same time it should be noted that it is a well-known fact that with the development of more
complex systems of regulation follows an increasing risk of conflicts between regulations. It has also
been shown that the development of more detailed systems of regulations has lead to the paradoxical
result that the autonomy of individual practitioners of law increases, because they due to the
complexity of regulation can justify different actions in identical matters by referring to different
regulations (Lipsky 1980). The potentially negative effects following with complexity indicate the
importance of developing alternative modes of regulation (cf Niklasson 1992). One development in
environmental policy is an increasing reliance on voluntary or informal regulation, for example in the
form of national and international certification systems and quality standards, such as EMAS and ISO
14001. Another development is an increasing reliance on market mechanisms. A quasi-market
incentive system would be a formally established emission limit combined with per-unit pollution
charges (Pierce et al 1989). A more radical incentive system would be a market in pollution rights,
where auctions are held for polluters to bid for rights (Anderson & Leal 1991).
A note on multi-disciplinarity and theory
It is inherent in the approach taken that a unified theory or simple hypotheses to test can not form the
basis of an applied programme as a whole. The different tools as well as areas such as planning, legal
regulation, participation etc have their own theoretical foundations. Some such as planning,
implementation or participation do however have alternative bodies of theory making either
paradigmatic choice or theoretical eclecticism necessary. The practical fields of planning, decisionmaking etc. tend to have implicit or embedded components from more than one doctrine or theoretical
structure; environmental legislation has components of both calculating and communicative
rationality, the relationship between top-down and bottom up doctrine is less than clear in EA
regulation etc. Our standpoint is critical examination taking the implicit or embedded theories as
starting points. As in the field of evaluation a form of “method triangulation” (Almås 1990) is
necessary. The question that has to be raised here is whether there is a theoretical framework within
which environmental policy and environmental management on a more general plane can be
understood as the context of tools and tool use.
Although the approach in most tools and assessment processes stemming from natural science,
technology or rationalist planning doctrines is “realist” (Wynne 1996) the approach to research on
tools must avoid both simplistic social constructionist approached as much as the simplistic realist
approaches that are set against social constructionism. The interaction of science and society in
environmental planning and management is not a research object in the present programme. However
recent research in the field (see e g Joas & Hermansson 1998) is an important component of the
understanding of the context of tool use. It will be a part of the programme activities to review this and
to instil major findings into individual projects. Research on professional and organisational culture
and the importance for determining both problem definition, methods and approaches and solutions
sought has been carried out by consortium members (Emmelin & Kleven 1999; Emmelin 2000;
Asplund & Hilding-Rydevik 2001)
It has been suggested that the concept of “ecological modernity” offers a theoretical perspective for
understanding environmental policy. Sector integration is central to ecological modernity i.e the notion
that growth can be combined with environment protection and that existing institutions can cope with
the challenges of sustainable development (Hajer 1996). It is a cornerstone both of present Swedish
environmental policy and of the EU sustainability strategy adopted at the Göteborg EU-summit. The
role of professional cultures in promoting or impeding integration, the role of discourse coalitions etc
has been outlined by Emmelin (2000) but can be given concrete empirical examination in this case.
Lundqvist (1997) has shown the importance of the administrative and professional setting for an
MiSt-programme
17
environmental issue. "Ecological modernity" seems to ignore or evade two problems. One is the
distinction between two ideal types of environmental issues. One type is the set of issues concerned
with the environmental impact as side effects. The second type of environmental issues are those
where the impacts are directly related to the primary goals of the project. For many theoretical reasons
- decision theory, organisation theory etc - environmental issues might be expected to come out rather
differently in the two types of conflict. The other problem of ecological modernity is that discourse
coalitions at the rhetorical or policy level need not be stable in the sense that they exist also at the
levels of implementation (Emmelin & Kleven 1999; Emmelin 2000). While “ecological modernity”
may be illuminating at the level of abstract policy it seems insufficient as a framework for more
detailed study of the operation of tools and processes.
The MiST-programme must in striving to develop from multidisciplinary towards interdisciplinarity
examine theoretical perspectives but retain the open eclecticism advocated for planning research (Hall
1981)
PROPOSED PROGRAMME
The programme proposal is composed of four parts:
 Programme activities i.e the activities specifically aiming at processes of integration, conceptual
development etc aiming at moving the programme from a multidisciplinary outset towards
interdisciplinarity and synthesis in final reporting of results.
 Major projects submitted now
 Indications of areas for research in the latter stages of the programme using the reserve of
funding that the SEPA wishes to withhold.
 Minor or exploratory projects submitted now to explore issues and lay foundations for projects
within the proposed areas for further research within the programme.
Programme management – including communication strategy and deliverables – is described
separately below.
The programme as submitted in September 2002 was conceived as a closely knit whole. One ambition
was to achieve a long term capacity building by retaining three post-docs within the field13 and at the
same time training new doctoral students. We have found the instruction to leave a substantial pot of
uncommitted funds open to any researcher to apply for at a later stage of the programme 14 problematic
to the programme idea and structure for several reasons. A multidisciplinary programme aiming at
developing into truly interdisciplinary research is a learning organisation needing time to develop. Cooperation with users takes time. This is especially so with the model of two horizontal perspectives
where participating in the first year discussions and conceptual development is essential if they are to
influence both project research and create a platform for reporting. We have handled the problem of
downsizing in two ways. First by proposing pilot studies that should lead to further work in areas
where we had originally conceived projects. This is especially so at the regional level. Second we do
propose a smaller reserve of fund by retaining two projects rather than just sketch these areas. These
are number 5 where the object of retaining a competent post doc in the field and to have a project from
the outset of the programme which ties nature conservation, EA and spatial planning at regional level
together. The second is project 9 which although proposed to start in year three of the programme is
important because of the focus on evaluation. It involves several of the consortium members and
planning this project further should be part of the common programme integrative activities. We see it
as important to the programme to have a commitment to this project in the initial programme decision.
13
Funding for post docs has been identified as one of the weak spots in Swedish research; this is especially so in
applied research
14
given by the SEPA in mid January 2003
MiSt-programme
18
Programme activities
Here the integrative activities will be briefly mentioned. Other common activities are mentioned under
programme management and communication strategy.
Seminars, work-shops etc.
Throughout the programme regular seminars and work-shops will be held. These will be of two types:
one, dealing with common concepts, problems etc especially the two horizontal perspectives of
participation and legal regulation and the other dealing examining the work in individual projects. The
object of these two types of internal seminars is cross fertilization between projects and disciplines to
achieve an increasing interdisciplinarity. Seminars and work-shops will include users, reference group
members and other researchers as appropriate. At the outset of the programme a small international
work-shop on the concept of tools is planned. To receive input from international practitioners,
consultants and researchers we propose to hold two special sessions within the frame-work of the
International Association of Impact Assessment annual conferences.
Survey of literature
Individual projects will be given the task of surveying relevant international literature and to
continuously report to the members of the programme. Initially we would concentrate efforts on joint
surveying of the literature on some of the central concepts discussed above. The mechanism of
dissemination of this knowledge is both the seminars and work shops and the “net workshop”.
Doctoral course.
A Nordic doctoral course financed by Norfa should be planned. Doctoral courses and seminars would
also be held within the regular activity of the Department of Spatial Planning, BTH and the EIA
doctoral network of the Swedish EIA-Centre.
Networkshop
To facilitate co-operation within the programme a project platform for the programme will be
established by BTH based on one of the existing distance learning platforms. This will facilitate
dissemination of information, informal discussion of problems etc. Experience of literature seminars
using video conference facilities is good from other similar programmes such as “the Landscape as
arena”.
Final report
Produced under supervision of the senior group of consortium members. Integrated introductions and
discussions with a series of chapters on issues from projects. The programme main themes would be
the basic structure.
Presentation of projects
The final choice of topics and design of projects has been guided by the possibility of integrating the
”horizontal perspectives” of public participation and formal regulation of tools into empirical studies.
Theme 1: SEA implementation
1. Exploring strategic environmental assessment and public participation tools
This project aims at developing contemporary planning practice by applying and evaluating a set of
analytical tools for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) together with novel tools for public
participation. The tools will be applied in a municipal energy planning process and evaluated with
regard to their potential to contribute to better environmental decisions.
Analytical tools for SEA have a potential to contribute to better environmental decisions in municipal
planning, e.g., in the energy and waste sectors. The development of a more strategic assessment
process than the ones typically applied today will presumably improve the planning procedure and
lead to decisions that develop energy and waste handling systems with less negative environmental
impact. It is also claimed that tools for public participation can lead to better decisions, both in terms
MiSt-programme
19
of rationality and legitimacy, and this especially on questions of environmental relevance. The tools
will be applied, tested and evaluated in a municipality, which is initiating a new energy planning
process. The project will thus be implemented in co-operation between the municipality and the
research team. This approach is expected to render the project a high relevance for decision-makers in
the local context.
Researchers: project leader Dr Anders Mårtensson, ETM LiU; Docent Göran Finnveden, fms; dr Hans
Wiklund, Political science,JIBS. Doctoral students: Jenny Stenlund Nilsson ETM, Jessica
Johansson,fms/BTH.
2. Infrastructure for the third generation mobile telephone system as a sustainability issue in
planning and environmental administration
The infrastructure for the third generation mobile telphone system (“3G”) is under rapid construction
in Sweden. In the space of a few years 4 operators will build competing systems to cover 99,8 % of the
population giving the administrative system an extreme challenge. This offers a unique possibility for
studying how the planning and environment protection administrations at local and regional level in
practice handle a sustainable development issue: on the one hand a national technological growth
system and on the other environment protection, resource use, public concern over radiation etc. The
permit system is based on two competing procedures - building permits within the planning system
and environmental negotiation. These systems have different professional and organisational cultures,
perceptions on sustainability etc. The project will deal with four aspects: 1. Development in time and
space of issues. 2. In depth studies of what issues, conflicts etc emerge. 3. Methods for strategic
environmental assessment (SEA) esp. testing methods of class assessment,important for implementing
the new EU SEA-directive. 4. Legal regulation of SIA/SEA/EIA-systems at central, regional and local
level to cope with the problem of assessing the infrastructure as a system rather than as a large number
of individual cases. At a later stage in the MiSt-programme the handling of public concern over
“radiation” kan be studied as a consultation/participation issue. As a compact model of handling of
sustainability from national to local level the case has considerable research interest for environmental
policy and SEA research.
The concrete sustainability issue is of central interest. The problems of effectiveness in relationships
between environment protection and spatial planning and the lack of co-ordination between the two
sets of legislation are of direct relevance to present revisions of both environmental and planning
legislation. The issue of how different types of environmental assessment at different levels and for
different purposes is central to the implementation of EU directive 42/2001/EC.
Researchers: project leader professor Lars Emmelin, BTH; co-supervisor of doctoral student professor
Karsten Åström, Sociology of Law, Lund University. Doctoral student at BTH.
3. Strategic Environmental Assessment as an intervention – effects of the EU directive 2001/42/EC
on integration of environmental aspects in planning
The overall objective of this project is to describe and analyse the impacts of the introduction of
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as a part of implementation of the EU directive
2001/42/EC. The main research question is what the introduction of SEA will contribute to the
existing practice of environmental integration at the municipal level, i.e. the way that environmental
issues are addressed as a part of the planning process and in the municipal plans produced.
During the last 30 years the integration of environmental aspects into municipal land use planning has
been an explicit political ambition in Sweden (expressed early in SOU 1971:75). Despite substantial
progress regarding the handling of environmental issues at the municipal level, many environmental
actors at the municipal level are still engaged in daily struggle to keep the environment on the agenda
in municipal comprehensive planning (Asplund & Hilding-Rydevik 2001). Numerous approaches and
tools have been developed to enhance this integration, of which SEA is one. The development of SEA
in different decision-making context has been on-going during the last two decades, in practice and
theory. Compared to experiences documented from the field of EIA for projects, the results from SEA
MiSt-programme
20
research are not extensive and often quite general and much of the evaluation is carried out on
EIA/SEA systems rather than how they actually function (Emmelin, 1998a and b). In large, knowledge
concerning the effectiveness of Environmental Assessment is lacking. When introduced to land-use
planning processes, it can be argued that the international SEA methodology is essentially based upon
the assumption that comprehensive planning is an instrumentally rational decision-making process
(Lawrence 2000), and the actual experiences of the decision-making context are often overlooked.
The presupposition for the project is that the context knowledge is of crucial importance for
understanding the potential effects of the implementation of SEA and the outcome is largely
dependant upon the proficiency of the existing decision making processes. The approach proposed for
this project is based on the crossing of two realms in the study, i.e. the international research and
development discourse of SEA (also manifested in the EU SEA directive) and the actual existing
planning practice at the municipal level. As a part of this, existing knowledge and information will be
systematised and new knowledge on land use planning will be developed, with the aim of contributing
to developing and implementing SEA in land use planning.
The research consists of the four interlinking components: a review of the theoretical basis for
planning and decision making and the SEA rhetoric; a study of the national context for planning and
the way that sustainable development and environmental assessment are addressed in policy and
national planning documents; study of experiences of application of SEA at the municipal level and an
analysis of the empirical results. The research methods will include a review of existing
documentation, observation of the planning processes as well as interviews with stakeholder at the
municipal planning level. The study will be based upon a comparative approach, including a review of
the national planning context and case studies at municipal level in three Nordic countries, i.e.
Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.
Researchers: project leader docent Tuija-Hilding-Rydevik, Nordregio; doctoral student Hólmfriður
Bjarnadóttir, Nordregio/BTH.
4. Strategic Environmental Assessment in early planning phases
Today, development plans are covered by a demand to perform Strategic environmental assessments
through the EIA paragraph in the Planning and Building Act (PBA). However, there is also a demand
in the PBA that the consequences of the comprehensive plans should be easily understood. What does
it mean to the environment and sustainable development that the demand for environmental
assessment is strengthened on these planning levels? Since a compilation lacks of how the
environment is treated in the municipal comprehensive plans using the present PBA, it is difficult to
judge whether environmental assessment is an effective tool or not and what it could mean to the
environment and to sustainable development. Some knowledge gaps regarding the application of
Impact Assessment at the municipal level could be seen. The point of departure is that a tool is
dependent of its users. For a tool to be useful and operational, it must be possible to make use of it in a
correct way by those who use it. Therefore, the aim of the project is to find out the roles of different
actors in the early planning stages and from that, be able to discuss and describe possible ways to
success for the SEA methodology.
In the present project, case study methodology will be important. Each comprehensive plan to be
studied will be seen as one case. The comprehensive plans will be selected starting from a number of
different points of departure and can be defined according to a information oriented selection, where
the aim is a maximum of variation. The selected comprehensive plans are reviewed using the checklist
developed within the framework of Nordregio’s project in this programme. This checklist will be
further developed.
The results will give a basis for a new selection when it comes to studies of the actors and their
influence on the results of environmental assessments and impact statements in the comprehensive
plans. Different categories of actors in the planning process will be interviewed with the intent to
achieve a more clear picture of their competence and values, power relations, economic prerequisites
MiSt-programme
21
etc. in their work in doing environmental assessments and impact statements. The questions will also
be directed at their understanding of the comprehensive plan as a strategic instrument for sustainable
development and environmental assessments as a tool to achieve this. Taken the project this far, the
directive will be implemented in Swedish legislation and it will be possible – starting from the studies
made – to have a discussion on expectations and on future possibilities to develop environmental
assessments into an operative instrument for assessing environmental impact.
Researchers: project leader Docent Hans-Georg Wallentinus, Landscape Planning SLU; doctoral
student MSc Ann Åkerskog, Landscape Planning, SLU.
5. Cumulative impact assessment for municipal and regional planning
Research on cumulative effect assessment has shown that small cumulative effects may result in
greater environmental disturbances than a single particular action. Time-crowded perturbations, space
crowding perturbations, synergisms, indirect/secondary effects and nibbling are five general types of
cumulative impacts. A recent European comparative study shows that Sweden does not consider
cumulative impacts on the natural environment in their assessment of proposed projects. The report
implies that Sweden is lagging in developing methods and experience in performing cumulative
effects assessment, although there is clear document research on what cumulative impact assessment
is. The Swedish Environmental Code and the Building and Planning Act do not explicitly demand
cumulative impact assessment to be conducted, which may be the leading factor behind. Even if
cumulative environmental assessment might have different interpretations, it should not be the sole
reason for why Swedish project developers are not implementing it. To explore barriers to CEA, we
will use a case study approach.
This research has four aims. 1. make a review of the international research surrounding the issue of
cumulative impact assessment. 2. make a minor field investigation into why cumulative impact is not
being conducted. 3. develop a method for conducting cumulative impacts assessment that will be
possible to use in municipal and regional planning as well as for environmental protection and
management. 4. to communicate the knowledge gained.
A goal of this research proposal is to discover means to classify the barriers to cumulative effect
assessment in the Swedish context. A second goal is to develop tools and analytical methods to study
cumulative impacts, with specific application to biodiversity in a municipal and regional scale.
Technology and tools have been shown as one limitation to CEA implementation. We intend to
develop an analytical approach for CEA for municipal and regional plans by using forests close to
densely populated areas as an example with the secondary goal of helping to fulfil the Swedish
National Goal, “Sustainable Forests”. The modelling done in the project might be used to check results
found in other parts in the programme. Of special interest is research done by fms. There is even a
potential to use the scenarios developed in these bodies of work as input for conducting CEA.
Researchers: Docent Hans-Georg Wallentinus & PhD Eric Rapaport, Landscape Planning, SLU,
6. The role and function of ‘counterexpertise’ in environmental decisions
Opposition to large infrastructure projects have become common throughout the industrial world. In
many cases, the opposition to projects has focused on their environmental impact and it has taken
extra-institutional forms, for example the form of protest movements. There are also several recent
examples of this extra-institutional form of opposition to large infrastructure projects in Sweden, for
example the mobilisation against the first high voltage power transmission link between Sweden and
Poland (Wiklund 2002), the Öresunds bridge between Sweden and Denmark (Falkemark 1993), the
Hallandsåsen railway tunnel project (Päviö and Wallentinus 2001) and the new road system in the
Stockholm metropolitan area proposed in the so-called Dennis package (Isaksson 2001).
An important means of protest movements in their struggles against projects have been the
mobilisation of ‘counterexpertise’, that is, formation of knowledge intended to challenge the expert
knowledge of companies as well as administrative and political institutions (Tesh 1999). In the
MiSt-programme
22
decision-making processes, and in particular in the environmental impact assessments (EIAs), related
to the projects mentioned the means of ‘counterexpertise’ was used in different ways. One use
intended to show that important information regarding environmental impacts was missing in the
EIAs. Another use intended to show that the knowledge included in the EIAs was incorrect,
inconsistent or under challenge in alternative sources of information. However, the impact of protests
movements’ use of ‘counterexpertise’ on decisions, their rationality and legitimacy, remain uncertain,
and it is in need of further study. It is this need that this project addresses.
The project aims to analyse the role and function of ‘counterexpertise’ in EIA and environmental
decision-making in terms of rationality and legitimacy. This will be done through a reanalysis of a
number of case studies of decision-making processes related to large infrastructure projects in Sweden,
against the background of the international experiences of citizen protest movements reported in the
literature.
Researcher: dr Hans Wiklund, JIBS.
Theme two: Scenario methods
7. Scenario methods in strategic environmental assessment
The aim of this project is to explore how elements of different types of scenario approaches can be
combined into an effective tool to aid strategic environmental assessment. Focus will be on how goals
for sustainable development can be integrated into strategic decision-making and on how the scenario
approaches function in the context of SEA. Another aim is to see if workshop techniques adopted from
scenario planning can be an effective forum for broad participation. The goal is to present a SEAapproach based on scenario methods that have been shown to work under practical conditions.
Different kinds for future study methodologies may be useful at different stages of SEA. Visionary
scenarios, focusing on a future desirable state such as in backcasting, may help in creating common
goals and a sense of what types of measures are required and what magnitudes they would need to
have. In order to explore possible developments of influential factors beyond the control of the
decision-maker and to handle the uncertainty of these factors, the formulation of external scenarios
may be useful. When assessing and evaluating the potential environmental effects of the suggested
alternatives and their degree of compliance to the goals set, scenarios of a more predictive kind may be
needed.
In the first part of the project a systematic review of cases where scenarios have been used in planning
will be done. This will encompass a wide rage of planning objects and administrative levels. An
ongoing application of backcasting in regional transport planning will also be monitored and
evaluated. In a subsequent phase a scenario approach to SEA will be developed and tested in close cooperation with a planning body. This can be done either in connection to a real planning process or as
a series of gaming exercises. Based on the experiences gained a revised method will then be presented.
The area of application will probably be regional or urban planning with a focus on transportation and
accessibility. The method for scenario use will however be generally applicable across most sectors
and strategic levels.
A well functioning method for handling the future is an essential component of a complete approach to
SEA. This project will help clarify how different kinds of scenario methods can be used in different
phases of SEA and what the relation between these methods and other tools used in SEA are. This will
be valuable when trying to form a complete picture of useful tools for SEA.
Researchers: project leader Karl-Henrik Dreborg, fms; doctoral student Jessica Johansson, fms/BTH
Theme three: Effective use of environmental systems analysis tools in decision making
MiSt-programme
23
8. Better environmental decisions and planning in the energy and waste sectors
This project aims at better environmental decisions and planning in the energy and waste sectors. In
this context ”better” has two dimensions. First, it refers to a better correspondence between national,
regional and local environmental goals on one hand and local planning, decision-making and
implementation on the other (environmental effectiveness). Secondly, it refers to better planning and
decision-making processes regarding the participative and democratic dimensions (process
effectiveness). These two aspects of better decisions will be studied in an integrated manner and their
interrelations will be analysed.
The application of various tools could potentially contribute to better environmental decisions both
regarding the environmental efficiency (strategic analytical tools) as well as the process efficiency
(participative process tools). This project will provide an analytical overview of strategic analytical
and participative tools for use in decision-making and planning in the waste and energy sectors. In this
overview is included; experiences from their use, their environmental focus, their applicability, their
interrelation, their development and adaptation to local, regional and national actors and their resource
needs.
Researchers: project leader docent Mats Eklund, ETM,LiU; post doc Sara Tyskeng ETM, Måns
Nilsson, SEI; dr Hans Wiklund JIBS.
9. Ex Post Tools: Follow-up and Evaluation in Strategic Assessment
The Ex Post Tools project addresses an important gap in research and practice of strategic tools,
namely the application of appropriate tools for the follow-up and evaluation stage of assessments. The
project will make a prescriptive analysis with recommendations on application of tools for the followup and evaluation stage, i.e. tools for the ex post decision stages. The empirical analysis will be made
on cases that represent follow-up and evaluation from both top-down and bottom-up perspectives. The
focus of the empirical analysis will be on the regional level, although the precise cases are yet to be
decided (see below). The project has a set of intermediate objectives including to develop strategic
evaluation criteria and guidance for measurable indicators connected to each criteria and to present a
framework for bringing in and using readily available environmental data and statistics for analysing
outcomes as a result of an intervention programme.
The project can be described as four main steps. The first step is to develop a theoretical review and an
analytical framework for the empirical study including explicit theoretical and conceptual foundations
within the different evaluation and assessment perspectives, and criteria for the analysis based on
environmental and sustainable development strategies, policies and objectives set by the government.
The second step is the empirical study, in which we examine two processes and their monitoring and
evaluation processes that have been taken to date. The case studies will be selected based on an initial
survey to match the requirements of strong and weak deliberative processes in the development of the
programme, as well as the existence of evaluations from top-down and/or bottom-up perspectives. The
precise case studies are yet to be decided, but initial scoping has been made in fields of energy
programmes, industrial integrated product policies and regional development schemes. The third step
is to evaluate the analyses and processes that have been made in the cases on the basis of the analytical
framework developed in the first step. Strengths and weaknesses, theoretical paradigms, usefulness
and relevance in relation to the sustainability evaluation criteria will be examined and discussed in
detail. The fourth step is to develop recommendations about combinations of tools for the user
communities, primarily Naturvårdsverket and other relevant public sector agencies.
This project will fulfil two central aspects in the programme. First, the policy level adaptation of
strategic tools. Many strategic tools, such as SEA has been developed primarily to function at the
programme and plan levels, and applications at the policy level are relatively rare. Second, the followup and evaluation stage of assessment which has been largely neglected in previous SEA-related
research and is also not addressed elsewhere in the programme. The project is also based on the same
basic idea and objectives underpinning the full programme; namely the theoretical and conceptual
clarification of different approaches; a reasoned examination of tool use and non-use in relation to the
MiSt-programme
24
decision-making context, and a prescriptive analysis to aid the SEPA and its collaborators in their
operations.
Researchers: project leader Måns Nilsson, SEI; dr Hans Wiklund, JIBS, docent Göran Finnveden,
fms.
Areas for further research within MiSt
We have in initial programming identified areas for research beyond those projects now proposed.
Projects in these areas would be important complement, enlargement or development of the projects
now proposed. The areas that we would now propose for further projects are:





Sustainability and environmental assessment in regional development programming, planning and
implementation. This area is an enlargement and complement that we see as having first priority.
Interaction and integration of corporate management tools and instruments with strategic
environmental assessment in the public sector.
IT-tools for structuring assessment, weighting of alternatives and presentation of assessment to
decision-makers.
Further development of scenario methods, especially at the policy and programme level aimed at
providing the basis for a handbook of scenario methods for strategic decision-making. Projects on
using scenarios as the basis for prediction of alternative outcomes of policy and regional
development programmes and plans is an important component.
Effectiveness in formal regulation.
Sustainability and EA in regional development
The case for research on this topic has been made in the discussion of the research area above. We see
this area as a necessary complement to the programme. The reason for not proposing full scale
projects here is that there is a certain rationality to conducting pilot studies of the situation with
regards to both the experiences from the present generation of regional growth agreements (RTA) and
the incoming regional growth programmes (RTP). The argument for this is developed in the proposed
pilot study. In this area we will also explore co-financing and co-operation over projects studying
regional planning, especially of infrastructure, in the Öresund region where consortium member prof
Karsten Åström is now involved.
Pilot study: 10. The impact of sustainability on regional development – an empirical pilot study.
Professor Jan-Evert Nilsson, BTH
Corporate management tools
Responding to growing environmental concerns of the last decade, public authorities have been
incorporating environmental considerations in local and regional planning, using a variety of tools. At
the same time various voluntary approaches (e.g. “cleaner production”, “eco-efficiency” and EMS)
have emerged from the private sector aimed at reducing costs, enhancing competitiveness, retaining
“the license to operate” and managing risks. In recent years they have been increasingly oriented
towards sustainability issues and to involving diverse stakeholders in shaping corporate environmental
and sustainability policies. Successful linking of public environmental assessment with corporate
management systems would make both systems more effective. Not least in the public domain with
many companies owned by municipalities – especially in the energy and waste sectors - the linking of
regional and local environmental planning and management with the internal work of these companies
is important for implementation of national environmental goals.
Pilot study: 11. Linkages between strategic environmental planning and corporate environmental
management. Dr Aleg Cherp, BTH & IIIEE, LU.
IT-tools
Information technology is widely applied in expert tools and in data capture, retreiving and storing,
analysis, prediction and presentation. It can be argued that the powerful tools provided by GIS are not
optimally used in spatial planning often restricted to data handling and presentation and could be used
more analytically especially in combination with scenario methods (Schoute et al 1995). This is
MiSt-programme
25
addressed (see project 5) but could be further developed. In EIA IT-tools for traditional methods for
screening and scoping but also for valuation have been developed. Screening matrixes, check-lists etc
are eminently suited to IT use but development seems to have lagged behind. Tools useful for
structuring arguments, testing alternatives and handling inputs from participation and consultation
processes are however less developed. Soft-ware for organising consultation and supporting citizen
dialogue has been developed and tested in e.g. heritage and tourism planning. Soft-ware for the
purpose of structuring and weighting argument has been developed at BTH (Rolf undated; Rold &
Magnusson undated). We propose an exploratory project designed to test the existing software in typesituation studies and to base modification of the soft-ware to acheive a soft-ware package designed for
environmental assessment. Of special interest is using soft-ware to handle the arguments and
alternatives appearing in public consultation and hearings. The methods for doing this in the Swedish
system are at present at best informal as opposed to the formalisation of some systems.
Pilot study: pilot work on application and development at BTH and LU is funded from other sources.
Scenario methods.
The case for scenario methods is made both in the discussion of the programme area and in the
specific scenario project. Scenarios have been used in regional development programmes and policy
discussions (RTK 2000; Blücher et al 2002). Apart from the scenario-project proposed now which will
yield evaluation information a scenario project is under way in the Blekinge region based on earlier
scenario work. Special attention should be given to using scenarios of alternative out-comes of policy
and programmes for prediction of impacts when making a call for new projects. The application of
prediction methods as studied both by Rapaport – see project 5 – and Mörtberg for the Stockholm
region is a development of the programme that was initially included and should be attempted in the
latter stage.
Pilot study: no exploratory project is proposed for this area
Effectiveness in formal regulation.
The lack of co-ordination of processes and tools can be seen as a major source of loss of effectiveness
and efficiency in EA. The uncoordinated processes of permit granting is discussed in the 3G-study. In
the latter stages of the programme the issues of formal regulation and other means of achieving
effective and efficient assessment and public participation should be tied together by using empirical
material from several projects. The present revisions of the planning and environmental legislation
may then be further advanced giving a better basis for proposing further projects.
Pilot study: A pilot study is already under way financed by CTUP/BTH.
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEVANCE FROM A SWEDISH USER PERSPECTIVE
The environmental relevance of the MiSt-programme from a user perspective should be clear from the
problem discussion above and the project presentations and applications. In summary we would like
to point to the following as important from the point of environmental policy, management and
administration.
Understanding the effectiveness of existing tools in different contexts and processes:
- is essential for formulation of effective regulations and guidelines (SEPA and other sector
government agencies, county administrative boards, municipalities),
- is important for the every day interpretation of demands on EIA and SEA legislation (consultants,
county administrative boards, municipalities)
- is a valuable input to the task of SEPA to follow up on the implementation of the EIA part of the
Environmental Code
A knowledge based on evaluation and empirical research on implementation is a necessary condition
for agencies such as the SEPA to develop guide-lines, “tool-boxes”, training courses for regional and
local authorities and consultants. The optional hand-books on the three themes will be directly useful
MiSt-programme
26
in this respect. Knowledge of the issues in “legal regulation” of tools is important not only for this task
but also for the revision and harmonisation of environmental and planning legislation.
The implementation of the “SEA-directive” (42/2001/EC) needs inputs on the issues of implementing
SEA and sustainability assessment and the relationship between SEA and EIA. Of particular
importance are the detailed insights into the differences between for example policy level assessment,
SEA at programme level and the forms of SEA/EIA that function at different levels of the planning
system and in the interface between policy and programming of sectors such as energy, infrastructure,
waste etc and the planning system.
Supporting the integration of substantive environmental concern in regional development is an
important sustainability issue. Likewise the understanding of the interaction of national policy on
economic development and regional and local concern and resistance based on both realistically
perceived and construed conflicts is important for rational decision-making.
Concrete and empirical evaluation is necessary to understand the “tiering” problems such as the shift
in problem focus from national level to local which can substantially influence the implementation of
the national environmental goals. The effects of national sub-goals and indicators in situations such as
the regional growth programmes where regions are to formulate their own goals and indicators is
crucial to the function of sector integration and management by goals and objectives which is central
to Swedish sustainability policy.
The implementation of the “generation goals” for Swedish environmental policy is based on
democratic participation. Understanding the participatory issues especially at programme level and at
regional and comprehensive local level is important. Tools that function in participatory processes are
needed and novel ways of organising participation need to be explored if efficiency in processes is to
be combined with effective democratic participation. Present participation and multiple EIA and other
processes need to be streamlined while at the same time safeguarding effective participation.
Understanding the interaction between formal regulation and tools aiding informal and market
mechanisms i.e. the corporate tools now in use also in the public sector such as environmental
auditing, environmental management, environmental certification etc.
Finally we would like to stress the importance of a programme that can develop into interdisciplinary
research both to increase quality of social science environmental research by introducing sufficient
empirical knowledge of implementation processes and for capacity building in applied environmental
research. The bridging of gaps between practice and theory and between the social and the natural
sciences in an applied and problem-driven area such as the present has been identified by MISTRA as
a necessary condition for sound, solution oriented environmental research.15
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT
The MiSt-programme is planned as a multidisciplinary programme in applied or problem oriented
research driven by external needs rather than disciplinary questions. This has implications for
programme management. Above all it necessitates a number of programme activities aimed at
increasing the conceptual basis of the projects with the ultimate goal of enabling synthesis and
recommendations aimed at professionals and practice; we have termed these ”concurrent activities
aimed at synthesis”. In a programme with these ambitions continuous attention will have to be given
to internal communication, conceptual, theoretical and methodological exchange between researchers
and groups. Activities aimed at both internal exchange and channelling external impulses into the
programme are therefore planned and sketched. The uncertainty concerning what elements will be
15
Lecture by MISTRA director Måns Lönnroth in seminar on ”handling of alternatives in SEA”, Karlskrona,
august 2001. See also The Swedish Research Council (2002): Miljöns mänskliga dimension. Rapport 2002.
MiSt-programme
27
brought in at later stages is a complication to the planning of a programme that is to be highly
interactive and integrative. Not only building up the internal communication is complicated by this but
even more so the interaction with user groups, authorities, organisations etc.
What is said below concerning programme management should be seen as our proposal which can be
discussed with the SEPA both in a contract stage and in the initial stages of forming the programme.
The competition for programme funds has meant that SEPA has refrained from entering directly into
the planning of programmes.
Programme administration.
The technical administration of the programme is assumed to be decentralised since contracts are with
individual institutions and researchers. Programme management is therefore seen as mainly a task in
assuring the functioning of the programme as a whole rather than as a set of disconnected projects.
Responsibility should focus on the integrative aspects, external and internal communication, seminars,
work-shops, doctoral courses etc. The application is submitted formally by a group of researchers
with professor Lars Emmelin as programme director and the Blekinge Institute of Technology as the
host institution for programme activities. However the programme has been conceived and planned
collectively by the group of applicants for the component projects. A programme secretary will be
necessary to employ. Ideally this should be one of the doctoral students at BTH.
Steering group.
A steering group should be small and executive. For contractual reasons it should contain the
programme manager, researchers holding individual contracts and one or more representatives of the
SEPA. Our proposal is that the group submitting the initial programme proposal – Lars Emmelin,
Tuija Hilding-Rydevik and Karl-Henrik Dreborg - should together with one or more representative of
the SEPA form this group.
Reference group
A reference group should ensure inputs especially from the end-users of results and especially from
organisations and agencies involved in the interactive research components. We have not made a final
suggestion for a reference group but rather listed examples of where representatives should come
from. We assume that the setting up of a reference group is a task for discussion between the SEPA
and programme management. Thus we have made no contacts with the agencies suggested below.
Among those that should be considered: At national level: SEPA, The National Heritage Board
(RAÄ), the National Board of Building, Housing and Planning (Boverket), one or more of the
infrastructure agencies (esp Banverket, Vägverket). The Swedish Association of Municipalities
(Svenska Kommunförbundet) At regional and local levels: representatives of regional and
municipalities directly involved in our projects. Our suggestion is that a few senior researchers should
also be invited to participate. Especially programme leaders from some of the other SEPA research
programmes should be considered.
Integrative activities.
These are described above. Responsibility for them is the single most important substantive
programme management function.
Deliverables.
Scientific reporting should be done by projects in conventional channels. Programme scientific
reporting is proposed primarily as a special issue of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal and as
special sessions of IAIA annual meetings – see below.
The three themes should preferably result in three thematic hand-books. These could either be
monographs from the programme or volumes including programme contributions together with other
invited contributions. Primarily the aim should be for normal professional publishing ensuring wide
international distribution. Decision on this should be taken at the half-way evaluation of the
programme and funds then reserved for manuscript production.
MiSt-programme
28
Publications aimed at practitioners should be produced by a small working group of the programme
staff. They should be planned in co-operation with the SEPA and the reference group. Funds for
“reporting” in the budget are for this purpose. The channels of publishing should be decided in
cooperation with SEPA.
Important deliverables are the seminars, work-shops for practitioners, trainings courses, seminars. A
recent study by the Swedish Research Council shows such outputs to be more productive than popular
reports.
Communication strategy: Information, communication, interaction, capacity building.
The actual shaping of a communication programme we see as an undertaking for the first phase of a
programme. Responsibility for a communications strategy should rest with the programme steering
group, involving the reference group
In an applied research programme there is a continuum of information from strict scientific publishing
over information to different user groups, which may contain individuals with highly variable
educational backgrounds, to public information. We would discern four types of exchange that a
programme needs:
 Information i.e. making programme information or results available in more or less targeted
ways
 Communication with user groups i.e. exchange of information in a two way communication
such as seminars, work-shops, conferences etc.
 Interaction i.e. forms of co-operation within the actual research process such as the use of a
reference group, co-operation over case studies etc. Interaction is described where appropriate
in the projects.
 Capacity building i.e. involvement in training courses for professionals, seminars etc.
Media strategy would be to direct attention to the relevant professional publications and news media
(cf Miljöaktuellt, Kommunaktuellt, Plan etc). A model like the one that CTUP/BTH had with
“Miljösekvensen” of regular contributions under a special by-line (“research news”) should be
investigated. The advantage of this is that project researchers can easily produce material directly
which will be professionally edited by the receiving publication.
Internet. A home page should be produced. Technical responsibility should rest with programme
management. Several good examples of organising a sequence of presentation of programme,
objectives members etc initially with a successive increase of substantive information on content and
results can be found. Links from consortium member home pages should be made including links to
electronic publishing. The Swedish EIA-Center, SLU home page should have regular updates besides
links. Co-operation with Swedish EnviroNet should be sought as well as with IEH.
No newsletter should be produced. Co-operation with relevant publications should be sought and
possible periodic contributions negotiated. Among these Miljöaktuellt and M-plus are obvious
examples.
Capacity building has a natural focus in the courses and other external activities of the Swedish EIACentre aimed at environmental assessment professionals, planners etc. Seminars and work-shops
should be organised e.g. with central agencies, besides SEPA, the also and the Swedish Association
of Local Authorities.
Handbooks. The themes could serve as topics for international handbooks as discussed above.
Reference group should initially be involved in identifying communication channels and shaping a
concrete communication strategy. The reference group is an important gateway into appropriate
information channels and should be actively involved during the entire programme period.
MiSt-programme
29
International scientific and professional communication. We plan to propose special sessions dealing
with the research of the MiSt programme at one or more of the annual meetings of the International
Association of Impact Analysis. We have also proposed to the editors the idea of the programme guest
editing the Journal of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal published by the IAIA.
Scientific reporting – which in applied research of this type is also an important means of
communication with a significant group of professionals in the field - should in all projects ultimately
be done as normal scientific publishing. For preliminary communication and for internal reference a
working paper series should be considered using electronic publishing via the BTH data-base.
Whether this should be linked to the SEPA bases for the purpose of information to professionals
should be discussed.
Budget
We have been instructed to keep within a total not exceeding SEK 20 million but that a limit of SEK 4
million per annum need not be strictly observed. Reservations are concentrated to the later stage of the
programme. The argument for the size of the reservation is given above in the project presentation
section.
The funding for relevant research by consortium members within the programme area is considerably
larger than the amount included in the budget. We have roughly estimated it at 8 million SEK
annually. Final reporting from the programme is included in programme management. However some
of the special reporting activities dependent on the outcome of projects, available expertise etc. are
shown as reservations of funds.
MiSt-programme
Programme activities
Major projects
Year (1/7 - 1/7)
1
2
3
4
5
Programme leader
70,8
70,8
106
70,8
70,8
Programme assistant
64
64
96
64
64
Integration
130
80
80
80
0
Networkshop+video
55
25
25
25
25
Reference group
40
40
40
40
50
Information
60
35
35
35
35
Reporting
0
12
15
110
115
Sum incl overhead
567
441
536
573
508
1. Exploring SEA & PP tools
495
570
420
2. Infrastructure for 3G
458
478
427
0
0
3. SEA as intervention
504
504
504
504
4. SEA in early planning phases
50
100
100
100
0
350
5. Cumulative impac assessment
375
305
195
160
110
1145
6. Role of "counter expertise"
100
50
0
0
0
150
7. Scenario methods
560
580
580
340
240
2300
8. Better env decisions
740
740
740
370
370
2960
600
600
600
1800
3566
2074
1320
13569
9. Expost tools
2625
1485
1363
2016
Sum "major projects"
3282
3327
10. Regional development
100
80
11. Linkages
100
Sum "exploratory"
200
80
0
0
0
280
Program -exkl reserv
4049
3848
4102
2647
1828
16474
Total reservation
0
0
0
1353
2172
3525
SUM TOTAL
4049
3848
4102
4000
4000
19999
-49
152
-102
0
0
1
Exploratory projects
"Basnivå"
Balance
180
100
MiSt-programme
30
NOTES ON SEPA GENERAL CRITERIA.
The instructions for research programmes point out some general considerations that the SEPA lays
stress on in programmes. A brief comment on these here.
“Active environmental work”: Institutions in a programme should be able to show documentation of
active environmental work. We have been instructed that his takes place at the contract level not at the
application stage. However we have made certain that all institutions of the consortium behind this
proposal can fulfil the requirements. The “networkshop” concept for integrative activities planned and
the use of video conferences to minimise travel are direct environment friendly components of our
plans for running the programme.
Gender: There are three aspect to this. One is the composition of the group of researchers behind this
programme. In a male dominated field the fact that one of the senior partners, one post doc and four
doctoral students are female seems to be a reasonable first step. The second aspect is capacity building
and recruitment. In Swedish research the post doc situation is one of the bottlenecks for better balance
at senior level. The programme would secure one and our intention is to attempt to get one more into
the programme at a latter stage using the reserve funds. The third aspect is content of the research.
None of the researchers in the programme has a background in gender studies or theory. There are
however gender aspects of an empirical nature, especially in participation, of considerable interest. In
the field of organisation and professional culture a comparative research programme has studied these
aspects also of environmental and planning administrations in the Nordic countries (Emmelin &
Kleven 1999; Nenseth 1999). We have also ensured methodological advice on the gender aspects from
colleagues at the Department of Spatial Planning, BTH.16
REFERECES
Aarts, K (1995) Intermediate Organizations and Interest Representation. In: Klingemann H-D and D Fuchs, eds. Citizens and
the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Almås, R (1990) Evaluering på norsk. Universitetsforlagets metodebibliotek.
Anderson, T L and Leal, D R (1991) Free Market Environmentalism. Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco .
Asplund, J (1978) Teorier om framtiden. Kontenta/Liber, Stockholm.
Asplund, E and Hilding-Rydevik, T (2001) Arena for sustainable development –actors and processes. Royal Institute of
Technology, department for Regional Planning, Trita-IP FR 01-88. Stockholm. 193 pp. In Swedish.
Blücher, G, Emmelin, L, Nilsson, J-E (2002) Planering i snabbväxande regioner – fallet K2K. Boverket Rapport.
Bohman, J (2000) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Bohman, J and Rehg, W, eds (1997) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Boothroyd, P (1995) Policy assessment. In F. Vanclay, ed. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Bouman, M, Heijungs, R, van der Voet, E, van den Berg, J and Huppes, G (2000) Material flows and economic models: an
analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial equilibrium models. Ecological economics 32: 195-216
Boverket (1996) Boken om MKB. Boverket,Karlskrona.
Bruhn-Tysk, S and Eklund, M (2000) System Boundaries in Environmental Impact Statements for Biofuelled Energy Plants
in Sweden. In: H, Bjarnadottir, ed. Environmental Assessment in the Nordic countries— Experience and prospects.
Proceedings from the 3rd Nordic EIA/SEA Conference, Karlskrona, Sweden 22nd-23rd November 1999, Nordregio R
2000:3. Stockholm. pp 31-38.
Bruhn-Tysk, S and Eklund, M (2002) Environmental Impact Assessment – a Tool for Sustainable Development? A Case
Study of Biofuelled Energy Plants in Sweden. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22(2):129-144.
Brunsson, N (2002) The organization of hypocrisy: talk, decisions and actions in organizations. 2 ed. Liber ekonomi, Malmö.
Caldwell, L K (1998) Implementing policy through procedure: impact assessment and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). In: A.L. Porter and Fittipaldi, eds. Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New
Century. The Press Club, Fargo. pp. 8-14.
Dalton, R J (1996) Citizen Politics. Public Opinion in Advanced Industrial Societies. Chatham: Chatham House.
Dalton, R. J. 1999. Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. In: P. Norris, ed. Critical Citizens. Global Support
for Democratic Government. Oxford, Oxford.
16
Involved in studies of gender perspectives on spatial planning. See Friberg & Larsson (2000, 2002).
MiSt-programme
31
Dom, A (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment of Road and Rail Infrastructure. In: J Petts, ed. Handbook of
Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact Assessment in practice: impact and limitations.
Blackwell Science Ltd, London.
Carlman, I and Westerlund, S (1994) Miljökonsekvensbeskrivningar, forskning och utveckling. Miljörättslig Tidskrift.
1994(2)196 – 253.
Carlman, I (1995) Mycket kom bort när MKB skulle införas i Sverige. Miljörättslig tidskrift. 1995:1.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) (1978) National Environmental Policy Act. Implementation of procedural
provision: final regulations. Federal Register 43(230):55977-56007.
COOL (1999) Climate Options for the Long Term including the Work Plan for Phase 2. COOL 00/01, Wageningen
University, Wageningen.
COOL (2000). Climate Options for the Long Term: Path Analysis. COOL 00/E02, Wageningen University, Wageningen
Crozier, M, Huntington, S and Watanuki, J (1975) The Crisis of Democracy. New York University Press, New York.
Dalberg- Larsen J (1984) Retsstaten, velfærdsstaten og hvad så? Köpenhamn.
Dale, V H and English, M R, eds. (1999): Tools to aid environmental decision making. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Dreborg, K H (1996) Essence of Backcasting. Futures 1996;28(9)813-828.
Dryzek, J S (1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:
Eckerberg, K and Forsberg, B (1998) Implementing Agenda 21 in Local Government: the Swedish case. Local environment.
3(3)333-347.
Elster, J, ed (1998) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Emmelin, L (1996) Landscape Impact Analysis: a systematic approach to landscape impacts of policy. Landscape Research
1996;21(1):13-35.
Emmelin, L (1998a) Evaluating Environmental Impact Assessment Systems– Part 1: Theoretical and Methodological
Considerations. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 15:129: 148, 1998.
Emmelin, L (1998b) Evaluating Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Professional Culture as an Aid in Understanding
Implementation. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 15: 187- 209, 1998.
Emmelin, L and Kleven, T (1999) A paradigm of Environmental Bureaucracy? Attitudes, thought styles, and world views in
the Norwegian environmental adminstration. NIBR’s Pluss Series 5-99.
Emmelin, L (2000) Nordisk miljöförvaltnings professionskultur och några aktuella frågeställningar i miljöpolitiken. Tidskrift
for samfunnsforskning 41(3)486 - 517.
English M (1999) Environmental decision making by organisations. In: Sexton K, Marcus A A, Easter K W and Burkhardt T
D eds (1999). Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses and communities. Island Press.
Eriksson, E A and Stenström M (1999) Scenarier för Teknisk Framsyn. IVA, NUTEK, Stiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning,
Sveriges Industriförbund, Stockholm.
Eriksson, E A (2000) Scenariobaserad sektorstrategi för järnvägen. INREGIA AB & FOA Försvarsanalys, Stockholm.
Etzioni, A (1967) Mixed scanning: A third approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review 27(5): 385-392.
European Commission (2002) Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment. Com(2002)0276. European
Commission, Brussels.
Finnveden, G, Nilsson, M, Johansson, J, Persson, Å, Moberg, Å and Carlsson, T (2003): Strategic Environmental Assessment
Methodologies – Applications within the energy sector. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(2003)91-123.
Fischer, F F and Forester, J, eds (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press,
Durham.
Fischer, T B (2002) Strategic enironmental assessment in post-modern times. Environmental Impact Assessment Review
5284(2002)1-16.
Friberg, T & Larsson, A (2000) Att bedriva jämställdhet med kommunal översiktsplanering. Inst f kulturgeografi Rapporter
och Notiser 157.
Friberg, T & Larsson, A (2002) Steg framåt. Strategier och villkor för att förverkliga genusperspektivet i översiktlig
palnering. Inst f kulturgeografi Rapporter och Notiser 162.
Fog, H, Bröchner, J, Törnquist, A, Åström, K (1992) Mark, politik och rätt -om plan- och bygglagen i praktiken.
Byggforskningsrådets Förlag.
Forester, J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Forester, J (1993) Critical Theory, Public Theory and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism. State University
Press, New York.
Gausmeier, J, Fink, A and Schlake, O (1998) Scenario management: An Approach to Develop Future Potentials.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1998;59(2):111-130.
Glasson, J, Therivel, R and Chadwick, A (1994) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. UCL Press Ltd,
University College, London.
Gregory, R (1999) Identifying Environmental Values. In: V H Dale and M R English, eds. Tools to aid in environmental
decision making. Springer Verlag, New York.
Habermas, J (1975) Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press, Boston.
Habermas, J (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Habermas, J (2001) Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles? Political Theory 2, 766781.
Hajer, M (1996) Ecological Modernisation as Cultural Politics. In: Lash et al eds.
Hall, P (1981) Great Planning Disasters. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
Harrison, N E (2000) Constructing Sustainable Development. State University of New York Press, New York.
van der Heijden, K (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. John Wiley & sons, Chichester.
MiSt-programme
32
Healy, P (1993) Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. In: Fisher, F and J Forester, eds.
The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Healy, P (1996) The collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmenting societies. MacMillan, London.
Hildén, M (2000): "Myths and Reality in EIA and SEA." In Environmental Assessment in the Nordic Countries - Experiences
and prospects. Nordregio R2000:3. [ed: H. Bjarnadóttir]
Hilding-Rydevik, T (2002) Environmental Assessment of large projects - challenges and obstacles in relation to Effectiveness
and Quality. Submitted to the European Journal of Spatial Development.
Hilding-Rydevik, T (2003) Sustainable development and institutional learning. A chapter to an international anthology
produced by Nordregio researchers.
Hjern, B (1993) Är lokal demokratisk miljöpolitik egentligen önskvärd? In: Kullinger, B. And U-B. Strömberg, eds. Planera
för en bärkraftig utveckling. Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm.
ISO 14040:1997 Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. Swedish Standard SS-EN
ISO14040. Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institution
Joas, M & Hermanson, A-S, eds (1998) The Nordic Environments. Comparing Political, Administrative and Policy Aspects.
Ashgate, Aldershot.
Johannesson, M & Johansson, J (2000) Att granska sig själv – en ESO rapport om den kommunala miljötillsynen. DS
2000:67.
Johansson, T B, Steen, P, Fredriksson, R, and Bogren, E(1983) Sweden beyond oil: the efficient use of energy. Science
1983;219(4583):355-361.
Jones, M & Emmelin, L (1995) Scenarios for the Visual Impact of Agricultural Policies in two Norwegian Landscapes. In:
Schoute et al, eds. Scenario studies for the rural environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kaijser, A, Mogren, A, and Steen, P (1988) Att ändra riktning - Villkor för ny energiteknik. Allmänna Förlaget, Stockholm.
Khakee, A (1999) Demokrati i samhällsplaneringen. In: Amnå. E. Ed. Medborgarnas erfarenheter. Fritzes, Stockholm.
Kirkpatrick, C and Lee, N, (1999) WTO New Round Sustainability Impact Assessment Study: Phases One-Two. Institute for
Development Policy and Management and Environmental Impact Assessment Centre, University of Manchester,
Manchester.
Kirkpatrick, C and Lee, N (2002) Further Development of the Methodology for a Sustainability Impact Assessment of
Proposed WTO Negotiations. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester,
Manchester.
Kleijn, R (2001) The trivial central paradigm of MFA? Journal of Industrial Ecology 3: 8-10.
Kleindorfer, P, Kunreuther, H and Schoemaker, P (1993) Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Klingemann, H-D (1999) Mapping Political Support in the 1990:s: A Global Analysis. In: P. Norris ed. Critical Citizens.
Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kørnøv, L and Thissen, W A H (2000) Rationality in decision- and policy making: Implications for strategic environmental
assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3): 191-200.
Lawrence, D (2000) Planning theory and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20:
607-625.
Lee, N and Walsh, F (1992) Strategic environmental assessment: an overview. Project Appraisal 7(3)126-136.
Liddell Hart, B H (1968) Strategy. 2 ed. Praeger.
Lipsky, M (1980) Street level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation, New
York.
Lundqvist, L J (1997) Vid vetandets gränser: att organisera bort underlaget för kollektivt ekologiskt handlande. In: HildingRydevik ed. Samspelet Mark-Vatten-Miljö, Fysisk planering för att nå samhälleliga mål. Rapport 97:1.
Forskningsrådsnämnden, Stockholm.
Lönnroth, M, Johansson, T B and Steen, P (1978) Sol eller uran - att välja energiframtid. Liber förlag, Stockholm.
Lönnroth, M, Johansson, T B and Steen, P (1980) Sweden beyond oil: nuclear commitments and solar options. Science
208(557)557-563.
Maltais, A, Nilsson, M and Persson, Å (2002) Sustainability Impact Assessment of WTO Negotiations in the Major Food
Crops Sector: Final Report to EC DG Trade. Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm.
Masser, I, Svidén, Oand Wegener, M (1992) The Geography of Europe's Futures. Belhaven Press, London.
Merkhofer, M W (1999) Assessment, Refinement, and Narrowing of Options. In: Dale, V H and English, M R, eds. Tools to
aid environmental decision making. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Nenseth, V (1996): Kunnskap og miljøvern. en undersøkelse av kunnskapssyn og arbeidsformer i miljøvernforvaltningen.
NIBR-Rapport 1996:10
Moberg, Å, Finnveden, G, Johansson, J. and Steen, P (1999) Miljösystemanalytiska verktyg - en introduktion med kopplingar
till beslutssituationer. AFR-rapport 251, Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm.
Naturvårdsverket (2000) Strategiska miljöbedömningar: ett användbart instrument i miljöarbetet. Rapport 5109.
Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm.
Niklasson, L (1992) Bör man lyda lagen? En undersökning om den offentliga maktens legitimitet. Uppsala University Press,
Uppsala.
Nilsson, M and Dalkmann, H (2001) Decision-Making and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental
Assessment Planning and Management 3(3)305-327.
Noble, B (2000) Strategic environmental assessment: what is it and what makes it strategic? Journal of Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management 2(2)203-224.
OECD (1997) Environmentally Sustainable Transport: Report on Phase II of the OECD EST Project. Environment
Directorate, Paris.
MiSt-programme
33
OECD (1999) Transport and Environment: Synthesis of OECD Work on Environment and Transport and Survey of related
OECD, IEA and ECMT Activities. Environment Directorate, Paris.
Partidario, M (1999) Strategic Environmental Assessment – Principles and Potential In: J Petts ed. Handbook of
environmental impact assessment. Vol. 2 – Environmental impact assessment in practice: impact and limitation.
London, Blackwell Science.
Peake, S (1994) Transport in Transition: lessons from the history of energy. Earthsean, Royal Institute of International
Affairs, London.
Peake, S and Hope, C (1994) Sustainable mobility in context: Three transport scenarios for the UK. Transport Policy
1994;1(3):195-207.
Pearce, D, Markandya, A and Barbier, E R (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London.
Petts, J (1999a) Introduction to EIA in Practice. In: J Petts ed. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Vol. 2 –
Environmental impact assessment in practice: impact and limitation. London, Blackwell Science.
Petts, J. (1999b) Environmental impact assessment versus other environmental management decision tools. In: J Petts ed.
Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Vol. 1 – Environmental impact assessment: Process, methods and
potential. London, Blackwell Science.
Petts, J ed. (1999) Handbook of environmental impact assessment volume 1-2. Blackwell Science, London.
Pressman, J L and Widavsky, A (1973) Implementation. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Putnam, R (1995) Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America. Political Science and
Politics 2(4)664-683.
von Reibnitz, U (1988) Scenario Techniques. McGraw-Hill, Hamburg.
Ritchey, T (1998) Fritz Zwicky, "Morphologie" and Policy Analysis. Swedish Defence Research Establishment, Stockholm.
Robinson, J (1982) Energy backcasting: a proposed method of policy analysis. Energy Policy, December 1982.
Robinson, J (1990) Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures, October 1990.
Rolf, B (undated) Educating reason: from craft to technology. Available on www.athenasoft.org
Rolf, B and Magnusson, C (undated) Developing the art of argumentation: a software approach. Available on
www.athenasoft.org
RTK (2000) Framtidens skärgård. Scener för utvecklingen i Stocholms skärgård. Rapport 7:2000. Regionplane och
trafikkontoret, Stockholm.
Rudén, C, Hansson S O, Johannesson, M and Wiborg, M (1998) Att se till eller titta på – om tillsynen inom miljöområdet.
ESO rapport Ds 1998:50.
Sadler, B (1996) Environmental Assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. International
Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment: Final Report. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,
International Association for Impact Assessment.
Sadler, B and Verheem, R (1996) Strategic environmental assessment- status, challenges, and future directions. Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment:105-168.
Sager, T (1990) Communicate or Calculate: Planning Theory and Social Science Concepts in a Contingency Perspective.
Stockholm: Nordplan Dissertation.
Sager, T (1994) Communicative Planning Theory. Avebury.
Sager, T (1995) From impact assessment to recommendation: how are the impact assessment results presented and used?
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15(4)377-397.
Schmitt, H and Holmberg, S (1995) Political Parties in Decline? In: Klingemann H-D and Fuchs, D, eds. Citizens and the
State. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Schoemaker, P and van der Heiden, K (1992) Integrating scenarios into strategic planning at Royal Dutch/Shell. Planning
Review 1992;20(3).
Schoute, J F T, Finke, PA, Veeneklaas, F R and Wolfert, H P, eds (1995) Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment.
Selected and Edited Proceedings of the Symposium Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment, Wageningen, The
Netherlands 12-15 September 1994. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Schwartz, P (1992) The Art of the Long View. Century Business, London.
Snickars, F (1999) The Sustainable Network Society - A Study of Transport and Communications. In: J Brotchie, P Newton,
P Hall and J Dickey, eds. East-West Perspectives on 21'st Century Urban Development. Ashgate, London.
SOU (1971:75) Hushållning med mark och vatten : inventeringar, planöverväganden om vissa naturresurser, former för
fortlöpande fysisk riksplanering. Swedish Government Official Reports. Fritzes, Stockholm.
SOU (2000:1) En uthållig demokrati! Politik för folkstyrelse på 2000-talet. Swedish Government Official Reports. Fritzes,
Stockholm.
SOU (2001:48) Att vara med på riktigt. Demokratiutveckling i kommuner och landsting. Swedish Government Official
Reports. Fritzes, Stockholm.
Steelman, T A and Ascher, W (1997) Public involvement methods in natural resource policy making: Advantages,
disadvantages and trade-offs. Policy Sciences vol 30:71-90.
Steen, P, Molin S, Stenström, M and Söderholm, A (1992) Energin åt kommunerna! NUTEK, Stockholm.
Steen, P, Dreborg, K-H, Henriksson, G, Hunhammar, S, Höjer, M, Rignér, J and Åkerman, J (1997) Färder i Framtiden Transporter i ett bärkraftigt samhälle. KFB-Rapport 1997:7, KFB, Stockholm.
Steen, P, Åkerman, J, Dreborg, K-H, Henriksson, G, Höjer, M, Hunhammar, S and Rignér, J (1998) A Sustainable Transport
System for Sweden. In: van der Voorde, E, Meersman, H and Winkelmans, W, eds. WCTR. Elsevier Science Ltd,
Antwerp.
Therivel, R (2002): SEA effectiveness and what leads to it. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(3).
MiSt-programme
34
Thérivel, R and Minas, P (2000) Ensuring effective sustainability appraisal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
20(2)81-91.
Therivel, R, Wilson, E, Thompson, S, Heaney, D and Pritchard, D (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan,
London.
The Swedish Research Council (2002): Miljöns mänskliga dimension. Rapport 2002.
Tukker, A (2000) Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 20(4)435-456.
van der Voet E (2002) Substance flow analysis methodology. In: Ayres, R U and Ayres, L, eds. A Handbook of Industrial
Ecology.
Wack, P (1985a) Scenarios, Shooting the Rapids. Harvard Business Review 1985:131-142.
Wack, P (1985b) Scenarios, Uncharted Waters Ahead. Harvard Business Review 1985:79-90.
Wathern, P (1988) An itroductory guide to EIA. In: P Wathern, ed. Environmental impact assessment – theory and practice.
Unwin Hyman, London.
Weidema, B (2001) Avoiding Co-product Allocation in Life-Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial ecology 4(3)11-33.
Wiklund, H (2002) Arenas for Democratic Deliberation: Decision-Making in an Infrastructure Project in Sweden. Jönköping
University Press, Jönköping.
Wood, C and Djeddour, M (1992) Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies, plans and programmes. Impact
Assessment Bulletin 10 (1)3-22.
Wood, C (1995) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Longman.
Wynne, B (1996) May the Sheep Safely Graze ? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In: Lash, S,
Szerszynski, B, and Wynne, B, eds. Risk, Environment & Modernity. Theory, Culture & Society. Sage Publications.
Zey, M 1998. Rational Choice Theory and Organizational Theory: A Critique. Sage, New York.
Åkerman, J, Dreborg, K-H, Henriksson, G, Hunhammar, S. Höjer, M, Jonsson, D, Moberg, Å, and Steen P (2000).
Destination framtiden – Vägar mot ett bärkraftigt transportsystem. BFR-rapport 2000:66. Fritzes, Stockholm.
Åström, K (1988) Socialtjänstlagstiftningen i politik och förvaltning -En studie av parallella normbildningsprocesser.
Doctoral dissertation. Lund University Press, Lund.