Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

If Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is to develop into an effective decision support instrument globally, then it should not just rely only on the input provided by a selected group of countries. In this context, the understanding of how to apply SEA effectively in different planning systems is unlikely to improve if the knowledge about those systems is limited. This paper establishes what appears to make SEA effective in two countries with different planning systems: Italy and the UK. Italy is chosen as an example, representing a specific Southern-European planning culture, which to date has not contributed to the SEA literature to any great extent. Based on empirical observations, it is suggested that the SEA effectiveness elements portrayed in the international literature are not fully valid. The UK is chosen as an example, which represents a specific Northern-European planning culture. Countries representing this planning culture have contributed heavily to the international SEA literature and have influenced the development of SEA theory strongly. In this context, the SEA effectiveness elements and benefits portrayed in the international literature appear to be valid.

As part of a PhD research project, this paper builds on the findings of a content analysis of the international SEA literature (Fischer and Gazzola, 2006).

Advancing cumulative effects assessments (CEA) to the regional scale, spatially and strategically, has been well argued but slow to evolve. Part of the problem is that "regional" CEA is a flexible concept, varying considerably in form and function from the project to the more strategic levels. This paper steps back from current discussions of assessment frameworks and methodologies to present a typology of regional approaches to CEA based on its multiple characteristics, functions, and expectations. Drawing upon current literature and interviews with international practitioners, we conceptualize regional CEA from two broad perspectives: EIA-driven approaches and SEA-driven approaches, illustrated with Canadian case examples. Each approach to CEA has its own merits that make it suitable to address particular types of cumulative problems at different tiers of assessment, and each of which can be expected to deliver different types of assessment results. The failure to fully recognize this "one concept–multiple form" characteristic is, in part, why the EA community has struggled in developing supportive methodological and institutional frameworks for regional CEA. We demonstrate that many of the disappointments with CEA are not the result of EIA-driven applications per se, but rather the result of mismatched CEA frameworks and expectations.

In this paper, an attempt is made to present a method to assess the sustainable development of a region. The method is based on adapting the multi-attribute utility theory to the concept of "composite indicator" of the region under concern; a composite indicator represents a weighted number of components or sub-indicators. Comparisons are made with the standard method of ranking and the axiomatic multi-criteria method. It is shown that the suggested method is more practical and feasible as it allows the studying of the potential improvement that can be performed in order to heighten the status of the sustainable development of a region, in the long and short run. Finally, a tentative quantitative index to evaluate the sustainability of a region is proposed.

In common with the governments of the United States and Canada the European Commission subjects its trade policy to a publicly conducted impact assessment process. The EC approach differs from the others in assessing economic and social impacts as well as environmental ones, in other countries as well as domestically. In principle this can contribute to stengthening international governance. In practice difficulties are encountered in integrating the studies into the decision-making process. This paper examines the experience that has been accumulated in the EC programmme, with particular reference to studies at the global level for World Trade Organisation negotiations and regionally for the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area. These two examples offer pointers for how the impact assessment process might be adapted or extended to make a stronger contribution to international governance at both regional and global level.

This article was initiated by findings that public participation in the Chinese Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system has not been effectively carried out. The article first introduces the research rationale and theoretical basis. It then reviews and analyses public participation in the Chinese EIA system, including its history, legal and institutional requirements and problems. Thirdly it puts forward suggestions for promoting public participation in the Chinese EIA system taking into account Chinese legal requirements and international experience, including strengthening current legal requirements, adapting institutional arrangements, establishing guidelines and carrying out education programmes and training for public participation in EIA.