Author(s): Nilsson, M.; Wiklund, H.; Finnveden, G.; Lundberg, K.; Tyskeng, T.; Jonsson, D.; Wallgren, O.
In: Nilsson, M., Wiklund, H., Finnveden, G., Jonsson, D.K., Lundberg, K., Tyskeng S. and
O. Wallgren (2008). Analytical framework and tool kit for SEA follow-up. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, online 11 November 2008.
Type: Journal article
Link to SEI author(s):
Analytical framework and tool kit for SEA follow up
SEA research and applications have so far neglected the ex post stages of the process, also called SEA follow-up.
Tool kits and methodological frameworks for engaging effectively with SEA follow-up have been conspicuously missing. In particular, little has so far been learned from the much more mature evaluation literature although many aspects are similar.
This paper provides an analytical framework and tool kit for SEA follow-up. It is based on insights and tools developed within programme evaluation and environmental systems analysis. It is also grounded in empirical studies into real planning and programming practices at the regional level, but should have relevance for SEA processes at all levels.
The purpose of the framework is to promote a learning-oriented and integrated use of SEA follow-up in strategic decision making. It helps to identify appropriate tools and their use in the process, and to systematise the use of available data and knowledge across the planning organization and process.
It distinguishes three stages in follow-up: scoping, analysis and learning, identifies the key functions and demonstrates the informational linkages to the strategic decision-making process. The associated tool kit includes specific analytical and deliberative tools. Many of these are applicable also ex ante, but are then used in a predictive mode rather than on the basis of real data. The analytical element of the framework is organized on the basis of programme theory and “DPSIR” tools.
The paper discusses three issues in the application of the framework: understanding the integration of organizations and knowledge; understanding planners' questions and analytical requirements; and understanding interests, incentives and reluctance to evaluate.
Download publication here (external link)