Strategicness – the core issue of environmental planning and assessment of the 21^st century

ABSTRACT

Environmental problems like climate change, loss of bio-productive land or loss of biodiversity are very likely to become the main drivers for environmental protection and are “strategic” by themselves, as they cannot be examined and solved on single use cases applying location and technical alternatives of projects – as normally applied for projects subject to environmental impact assessment. These “strategic” environmental problems have to be addressed by strategic plans, defining general planning principles and taking system alternatives into account, which calls for a certain type of “strategic” planning and assessment methods building on “strategic” databases. Therefore, I argue that we urgently need a co-evolution of the planning system and the accompanying environmental assessments in order to fill the gaps in strategic planning and strategic environmental assessment, to address environmental issues at the level of system alternatives and to allow for double loop learning in integrated strategic planning and assessment processes.

KEYWORDS:

• Strategic spatial planning
• strategic environmental assessment
• strategicness
• strategic planning and assessment methods
• strategic environmental problems

Environmental problems like climate change, loss of bio-productive land or biodiversity are very likely to become the main drivers for environmental protection, as they will be crucial for human survivability in the 21^st century. They are extremely difficult to address in planning and assessment processes, as (1) they are caused by the normal functioning of society and economy, (2) are highly complex and often global, (3) have unclear cause-effect relations with a multitude of origins so that responsibilities remain unclear, but also the effects of mitigation or compensation measures, (4) have long distances or timeframes between cause and effect. (5) Classical means of environmental protection fail, as single measures do not show overall positive effects and the behavioral change of single actors does not solve the problem on a larger, or even global scale (Jänicke and Jörgens 2004).

Therefore, these environmental problems are ‘strategic’ by themselves (Tang et al. 2009). Societies all around the world – as e.g. the Friday for Future movement shows – want answers to these strategic environmental problems. Despite the growing theoretical and methodological developments as well as regulatory practices that evolved over the last decades, strategic issues are still hardly addressed even in strategic environmental assessments (see e.g. Noble et al. 2012; Bidstrup and Hansen 2014; Lobos and Partidario 2014), even though the importance of strategicness and possibilities for its implementation are debated in academia for some time. These discourses cover, for instance, strategic environmental assessment methodology in general (see e.g. Brown and Thérivel 2000), spatial planning (see e.g. McDonald and Brown 1995), or strategic transport policy making (see e.g. Fischer 2004).

Despite the academic discourse, a gap between knowledge and practice opens up, so that planning and assessment systems often fail to give answers to these strategic environmental problems at present. Consequently, I argue that we need a co-evolution of the planning system and the accompanying environmental assessments in order to promote the strategicness of interwoven planning and assessment approaches as one of the core issues for the further advancement of environmental planning and assessment systems.

This argument is developed in three steps, which correspond to a concept of strategicness¹ I propose here: first, the strategicness of environmental problems and consequences for planning and assessment processes are discussed. Second, a concept of strategic planning and assessment methods is introduced that was so far only published in German. Third, the strategicness of knowledge provision and related databases is reflected upon. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

Consequences of strategic environmental problems

The character of strategic environmental problems as described above has significant consequences for planning and assessment processes. Because of their cumulative nature, they cannot be solved on single projects. Each project as such may not significantly contribute to the environmental problem, e.g. climate change, but the multitude of (small) projects and planning actions has considerable effects. That means for instance, that assessment methods developed for the project scale are not sufficient, as they are designed to answer assessment questions related to a single case.

One of the main issues related to this problem is the kind of alternatives that are taken into account. In principle, three types of alternatives can be distinguished (Therivel 2004; Stoeglehner 2010): (1) System alternatives directed at planning visions, objectives and guiding principles for the development of planning actions, questions of demand and feasible solutions for planning issues at a general level, e.g. the infrastructure or technology networks for the provision of housing, mobility, energy etc. These system alternatives are most strategic and not engaging in detail yet. (2) In site alternatives suitable locations for the planning options decided at the system level are selected. (3) Technical alternatives determine the detailed implementation of a certain project at a selected site.

Therefore, these alternatives form a hierarchy of strategicness with system alternatives at the top, as can be explained on a semi-fictional example related to the energy supply of a city: an energy strategy was formulated to support climate protection and the energy transition towards renewable energy. Based on surveys of energy demand and energy efficiency, the identification of potential renewable energy sources and an appraisal of different alternatives, energy efficiency targets and networks of energy technologies to supply the assumed energy demand were determined. This approach represents the system alternatives, in which deep geothermal energy use was playing a major role. In a next step – taking site alternatives into considerations, the sites for the geothermal power plant was defined. In order to do the detailed planning – the technical alternatives – drillings were made down to more than 4.000 m, but unfortunately the expected energy sources could not be found in these places. As no alternative feasible renewable energy sources could be discovered over a period of several years, it was decided to perform new test drillings on other sites. Therefore, the whole energy strategy could not be implemented so far as the system alternatives did not prove to be operational at the site and technical level. In this case, the drillings unfolded high strategic relevance. If they were successful, they would have had no further impact on the strategy and its implementation.

As shown in this example, also site or technical alternatives might unfold strategic dimensions if no feasible options can be found, and therefore, the overall strategy, i.e. the system alternatives, have to be redefined. As a consequence, planning and assessment methods should allow for taking different scales into account: First, preliminary appraisals of impacts should be made possible already at the system level with rough data inputs. When site and technical alternatives are developed, constant reflection of system alternatives in the light of more precise planning and assessment results should be enabled, so that pitfalls for strategy implementation can be identified at the earliest possible planning stage, giving room to maneuver as soon as possible at the level of system alternatives (cf. Stöglehner 2014). Furthermore, such a cascade of alternatives and their environmental, social and economic appraisal might work by excluding potentially unsustainable options on each level of alternatives, finally leading to sustainable planning solutions on the project level (cf. Narodoslawsky and Stoeglehner 2010).

Furthermore, the hierarchy of strategicness can be demonstrated by the relation of social learning and expert knowledge in different steps of a complex planning process (following Faludi 2006; Stöglehner 2018): Learning in planning processes is especially called for if a multiple crowd of actors in the planning and assessment process – e.g. (interdisciplinary groups of) planners, decision makers, stakeholders, project proponents, authorities, interested and affected public etc. – has to be coordinated, the formulation of site alternatives or technical alternatives requires more expert knowledge and less social learning of actors. The first issue can be related to system and partly site alternatives, whereas site and technical alternatives can be more focused on expert planning and learning within smaller groups of experts and actors. In other words, dealing with system alternatives means more social learning in relation to expert surveys, whereas planning technical alternatives means more expert planning and less social learning, with site alternatives somewhere in between.

In order to make plans more suitable to effectively deal with strategic environmental problems, I propose that they have to lay out general principles at the level of system alternatives, leaving minimal scope for negotiation or interest bargaining to site and technical planning in a single case. This can be explained on an example from spatial planning: land consumption of open space and global warming potential are largely related to zoning building land and to the infrastructures to develop it. If only single projects would be related to the overall land consumption, normally no significance might be detected. Yet, the sum of projects over a longer period of time leads to considerable land consumption and global warming potential, which can only be properly solved by applying sustainability related planning principles over a longer period of time that prioritize urban re-densification, mixed-use areas, transit oriented development, walkable neighborhoods, brownfield over greenfield developments etc. (cf. Stöglehner 2019).

Exceptions to these principles should only be granted if that deviation is necessary to fulfil another important public interest. From a planning methodology perspective, such evidence can be provided by developing the most environmentally friendly system alternative², assess, in case it cannot be followed, why this alternative is not possible taking further considerations of public interest into account, and try to find a ‘second best’ solution taking the most environmentally friendly system alternative as a benchmark for assessment. Such a procedure calls for effective fora and participatory processes to negotiate, define and reflect the value base in relation to the factual base. Whereas the factual base refers to scientifically provable matters, the value base consists of values, attitudes and beliefs that express the desirable future and guide action. In planning processes, the value base is expressed by objectives and their weighting to each other (following Scholles 2001). The learning about these system alternatives can be supported by strategic planning and assessment methods that allow for social learning in planning and assessment processes.

Strategic planning and assessment methods

A decision is based on the aggregation of facts and values (cf. Scholles 2001), influenced by actor constellations and power relations (Scharpf 2000), where the different actors bring in their own values and interests and interpret facts in the light of their value base (Stoeglehner 2010). Strategic planning and assessment methods support the negotiation of the value base by providing evidence, how an agreed value base impacts the environment, and are based on Argyris´ (1992) concept of single and double loop learning and it´s adaptation for communicative planning processes (Innes and Booher 2000). In principle planning processes start with (1) an agreement on visions and objectives that lead to (2) the definition of actions and measures, (3) from which consequences can be appraised. In the light of the anticipated consequences can be decided, if they can be accepted or the planning measures and/or objectives should be changed. Therefore, the appraisal of consequences supports learning in two ways: (a) single loop learning happens between consequences and measures, leading mainly to adaptation of site and technical alternatives. (b) double loop learning questions the visions and objectives and therefore, is mainly related to system alternatives addressing questions of demand, general planning principles, objectives and technological options (Stoeglehner 2010). Double loop learning touches the value base and is especially effective for strategy making on the level of system alternatives, so that strategic environmental problems can be tackled by questioning the planning visions and objectives in the light of their environmental impacts. Furthermore, it is an important contribution to create ownership of planning objectives, methods and processes as well as outcomes (Stoeglehner et al. 2009), which is an important precondition for plan implementation including adaptation and compensation measures.

This can be explained by an example from infrastructure planning: mobility between two cities A and B should be enhanced by a transport connection. It is agreed that a new highway should be built (system alternative), and general route (e.g. a corridor giving space to several planning alternatives) of the street is determined – where SEA should be applied. Afterwards, the concrete site is chosen, technical planning is performed, and an appraisal of consequences is carried out to issue the development consent. In the assessment from measures (site and technical alternatives), an optimization of the project can be performed e.g. by varying the location of the street in order to protect biodiversity hotspots, or to introduce noise protection and rainwater management etc. The latter is related to single loop learning, and mainly happens in EIA. If no acceptable environmental effects can be reached, the visions and objectives have to be challenged on the level of system alternatives, e.g. the questioning of the demand or the technological choice: is the new transport line really needed, or can transport be reduced, should there really be a street built, or are other means of transport available?

Many observations conclude that planning and assessment processes are restricted to single-loop-learning, as stated in the introduction, which can be explained by EIA-type of assessment methods applied also in strategic environmental assessments. Given the fact that these methods can only be applied if already site or technical alternatives are defined, many pre-decisions have been made before the assessment can become effective. Therefore, double loop learning has to start early in planning processes when visions and objectives are defined, before concrete measures are determined. Therefore, a stronger differentiation between strategic and project-based planning is needed (Stöglehner 2018). Strategic planning and assessment methods allow for a shortcut in learning loops, so that an appraisal of system alternatives can already take place without the definition of concrete measures (Stöglehner 2014). These strategic methods are especially suitable to address strategic environmental problems, as can be explained on the example of land consumption: If the decision to build a highway from A to B is made (see above), it can be estimated how much land will be roughly needed without the detailed specification of the roadway and its technical features. It can also be roughly determined how much new traffic would be induced, which energy demand and how many related greenhouse gas emissions might be expected. Ecological footprints can be used as strategic planning and assessment method as they allow for a fact-based negotiation of the value base, showing the consequences of planning interventions on the environment and allowing to weigh environmental concerns with social and economic planning issues: They represent the ‘resource garden’ of the society in an area-based unit, e.g. m², and show how much of our resource garden is used for which purpose, e.g. food production, energy generation, housing etc. This information allows to negotiate values on how much land should be attributed to which uses, e.g. how much energy land may be consumed in relation to land for food or industrial raw materials (Narodoslawsky and Stoeglehner 2010).

In this way, double loop learning can be enabled right from the beginning of the planning process especially addressed to strategic environmental problems. The methods support to follow a decision corridor as laid out above, in which environmentally unsustainable planning solutions can be excluded on the level of system alternatives. The formulation of site and technical alternatives can then be based on visions and objectives that provide for environmental sustainability so that single-loop learning might likely lead to environmentally sustainable results. The concept of strategic planning and assessment methods is not confined to environmental issues. Yet, taking the need to solve strategic environmental problems into account it should be guaranteed that environmental issues can be outweighed by economic or social considerations. This can be guaranteed by a cascadic approach of applying first environmental, then social and economic assessment criteria to filter out planning alternatives to be included in the final decision (Stoeglehner 2010).

Strategic databases

Another notion of strategicness is the kind of knowledge that is needed to build strategies. Cherp et al. (2007) stress that in order to become effective, knowledge must be readily available before actors and stakeholders in a planning process determine their positions, interests and opinions about certain planning objectives and measures, or in other words, it has to facilitate double loop learning. Therefore, not only the kind of knowledge, but also the timing of the knowledge provision is important. In ‘classical’ assessment processes that spur, as pointed out above, single loop learning, the knowledge comes normally too late to influence the determination of the value base.

One phenomenon, that has to be seriously taken into account is a potential gap between a scientifically provable and a perceived fact base, as can be shown on one example (Erker et al. 2017): in a study about why people did not engage in climate change mitigation and energy transition measures in an Austrian region, a potential explanation was that people didn´t value this issue strong enough to take action. The study revealed that the people had a strong commitment to the topic, but as they already installed photovoltaic panels, grew their vegetables in the garden, heat with renewable energy, they thought they had done enough even though the overall energy supply is still dominated by fossil energy. The problem of not taking more action was that people thought, they were already there – or in other words, the perceived facts about the energy transition didn´t match the provable facts and prevented further action even though the value base was well developed.

Minimizing these gaps is, therefore, an important issue for planning and assessment processes. Taking Cherp´s et al. notion of strategicness of knowledge into account and reflecting it with the need for double loop learning, the timing in relation with these knowledge gaps is problematic, because they are very likely larger at the beginning of the planning and assessment process, where actors define their values and attitudes towards planning contents. They create ownership, so that these values and attitudes are not easy to change throughout the process. This problem leads to the conclusion that the scientifically provable fact base should be readily available at the beginning of the planning process. Yet, this does very often not correspond to the knowledge generation within a planning and assessment process, e.g. when the environmental information is gathered when planning alternatives on site or technical level are already developed, like in EIA. Therefore, there should be strategic databases of environmental information available that cover large areas and topics and do not only document the status-quo, but already include some analysis relevant for learning processes. These databases can then also be used for monitoring purposes.

An example of such a strategic database is the initiative of integrated spatial and energy planning³ in the Austrian Province of Styria, where for all 287 Municipalities of the Province energy and greenhouse gas balances on the municipal level and in a 250-m-raster are provided, and based on these information priority areas for grid bound (renewable) energy systems and environmentally friendly mobility are zoned as baseline for local planning processes (Abart-Hersiszt and Stoeglehner 2019). In this way, municipalities, their decision makers, planners and population have a publicly available database to inform them about where the best areas for further settlement development might be located in order to support climate protection via local spatial planning. In this way, sites for the most climate friendly alternative are revealed, that can be used as information to spur learning processes as described above. The database and analyses are embedded in a wider program including legal provisions to apply integrated spatial and energy planning in the Styrian Spatial Planning Act, by a further education program for spatial planners and municipal decision makers, and by a subsidy program for municipalities who engage in the topic.

Conclusions

In order to tackle strategic environmental problems, a procedural and methodological re-design of planning and assessment processes is called for. I propose a co-evolution of both planning and assessment in order to promote total integration of planning and assessment at different stages of the planning process in order to allow for single and double loop learning, to foster strategicness, which includes the thorough consideration of system alternatives, the development and application of strategic planning and assessment methods which support especially double loop learning, and the generation of strategic databases that provide knowledge in order to close gaps between perceived and scientifically provable facts.

Finally, this approach might also impact the role of planners and assessment experts in such integrated, strategic planning and assessment processes. The learning issue also needs some kind of teaching or coaching of the learning communities – decision makers, public and planners involved in planning and assessment processes (Stöglehner 2019). This role is not executed at the moment, and I propose that planners and assessment experts, therefore, should also engage in didactics of how to explain as well as jointly and collaboratively develop value and factual base of planning processes together with the communities they work with, enabling learning loops between planning visions and objectives, proposed measures and anticipated environmental effects.

Notes

1. Strategic planning and strategic (environmental) assessments mainly deal with issues of general interest and less with details, they aim to optimize (environmental) performance of a plan or program by proposing respective visions, objectives and their weighting as well as derived measures, they deal with alternatives as early as possible in a planning and assessment process, and they focus on desired states and related options for action and not on the exact impact determination of already agreed measures (cf. Noble 2000; Stoeglehner 2010).

2. for the role of alternatives in environmental assessments see Stoeglehner (2010).

3. for more information about integrated spatial and energy planning see Stoeglehner et al. (2016).