Confirming SEA definitional concept: assessing the extent to which SEA and environmental integration can be evaluated quantitatively and behaves systematically [Elektronische Ressource] / by Vincent Onyango

Informations

• Publié par: brandenburgische_technische_universitat_cottbus
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 41
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis has not been previously published or written by another
person; neither has it been submitted nor accepted for any other academic award. It is the
result of my original work carried out at Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus,
Germany, within the framework of the doctoral program in Environmental and Resource
Management. All materials from other sources have been duly and adequately acknowledged.
Vincent Onyango
stCottbus, 1 September 2009
iConfirming SEA Definitional Concept: Assessing the Extent to which
SEA and Environmental Integration can be Evaluated Quantitatively
and Behaves Systematically
A thesis approved by the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Process Engineering
at the Brandenburg University of Technology in Cottbus in partial fulfilment
of the requirement for the award of the academic degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in
Environmental Sciences
by
Master of Science Vincent Onyango
From Kisumu, Kenya.
Supervisor: Prof. Dr - Ing. Dr. h.c. Michael Schmidt
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Eike Albrecht
thDay of the oral examination: 28 January 2010
iiAcknowledgements
First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisor Prof. Michael Schmidt for his guidance and
critical comments on key stages of my dissertation. Special acknowledgement also goes to
Prof Eike Albrecht for his supervisory role in my thesis. I would also like to thank the
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) administration for their cooperation;
especially the IAIA members who responded to my emails and took the trouble to fill in my
questionnaires.
Special thanks go to my friends without whose keen support, inspiration and contributions my
dissertation would have taken much longer. Many thanks go to Hendrike and Paola for their
patience, comments and insightful contributions. I would also like to thank the DAAD’s
(German Academic Exchange Service) Africa Good Governance Network programme for
giving me financial support in the last year of my dissertation.
Finally, Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience – The Unity of Knowledge, has been an inspiring
piece of intellectual readership. As a tribute, I have liberally quoted from it at the beginning of
each part of the dissertation.
Thank you all!
iiiAbstract
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a concept and a decision-making support tool.
Based on its definitions, it is claimed that SEA can 1) contribute to the integration of
environmental concerns into strategic decisions: policies, plans and programmes (PPPs); and
that SEA 2) is a systematic process. Although these claims are widely acknowledged in SEA
research and practice, they remain largely unsubstantiated empirically. To date, SEA research
is dominated by qualitative-type approaches, investigating aspects of effectiveness, of context
and of elements of good practice. Quantitative-type research has been rare, and often
criticised on the basis that it is unable to capture and address the dynamic nature of PPP-
making processes, i.e. the involvement of a wide range of actors, the input of new information
and the existence of different views and interests, which give rise to uncertainty and
unpredictability. Nevertheless, the potential of quantitative research in SEA has yet to be fully
explored, and the extent to which SEA is meeting the two definitional claims mentioned
above remains untested and undetermined. Within this context, this study aims to apply a
quantitative research approach to SEA and verify the extent to which SEA contributes to
environmental integration (EI) and the extent to which SEA behaves systematically. It
achieves this by looking at UK practice as a case study. It applies questionnaire survey,
correlation analysis and sensitivity analysis as methods of quantitative research approach.
The findings of this research confirmed that quantitative methodologies can be successfully
applied to evaluate the presence and quality of SEA procedures and their outputs.
Furthermore, the degree of EI reflected in plans and programmes (PPs) because of the SEA,
as reflected in the PP’s environmental objectives and indicators, can be quantitatively
evaluated. However, to enhance this quantitative evaluation process, clearer and more precise
environmental objectives are needed. Of the two definitional SEA claims evaluated, that (1)
SEA contributes to EI in PPPs and that (2) SEA is a systematic process), there was weak
evidence to support the claim that SEA significantly achieved EI within UK SEA practice. Of
the second claim, it was concluded that the UK SEA process behaves as a systematic process
composed of negative and positive feedbacks. Moreover, the UK SEA process is a stable
system prone to over-development and with inadequate negative feedbacks to facilitate self-
regulation of the SEA process towards a certain range of EI.
Based on the findings, it is recommended that if SEA effectiveness and theory-building are to
be enhanced, application of more quantitative methods and hypothetico-deductive paradigms
ivof scientific enquiry should be applied in order to test and verify stated hypotheses.
Application of other quantitative methods such as Factor Analysis and/or Principal
Component Analysis should be considered in order to further establish the explanatory
elements for EI achievement, and contributory roles of various SEA elements in achieving EI.
Furthermore, quantitative approaches can facilitate calibrating of SEA reports and EI
achieved, and enhance standardisation and quality control. It is further recommended that if
SEA is to be understood as a systematic process with dynamic interactions amongst its
elements, then further research needs to be conducted to improve follow-up mechanisms and
establish quality hold points in order to enhance quality assurance. Specifically, more
negative feedback loops or best practice standards and quality control hold points should be
integrated into the SEA system in order for it to better self-regulate towards achieving a
defined range of EI.
vTable of Contents
Declaration.......................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ..............................................................................................................................iv
Lists of Figures, Tables and Boxes ......................................................................................ix
Lists of Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................. xii
PART I. RESEARCH CONTEXT AND FRAMEWORK ..................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Research problem, assumption and hypothesis .............................................................. 5
1.2 Justification for research............................................................................................... 7
1.3 Research aims, objectives and questions.......................................................................10
1.4 Research approach and methods ..................................................................................11
1.5 Expected contribution of research ................................................................................13
1.6 Structure of dissertation ...............................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................................16
2.1 Choosing the UK as a case study..................................................................................16
2.2 Literature review..........................................................................................................17
2.3 Questionnaire surveys ..................................................................................................17
2.4 Correlation analysis.....................................................................................................18
2.4.1 Quantitative evaluation of SEA..............................................................................21
2.4.2 Quantitative evaluation of Environmental Integration (EI) .....................................23
2.4.3 Background and conceptual basis of OSPA............................................................24
2.5 Sensitivity analysis .......................................................................................................29
2.6 Research analytical framework ....................................................................................32
2.6.1 Analytical approach ...............................................................................................33
2.6.2 Validity and reliability of results ............................................................................35
PART II. SEA, DEFINITIONAL CLAIMS AND THEORY-BUILDING ...........................38
CHAPTER 3 SEA BACKGROUND AND KEY CLAIMS IN SEA DEFINITIONS....................................39
3.1 SEA background, evolution, benefits and approaches...................................................39
3.1.1 SEA evolution..............................