Learning through EC directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany Thomas B. Fischer a, ⁎, Sue Kidd a , Urmila Jha-Thakur a , Paola Gazzola c , Deborah Peel b a Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, UK b School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, Jordanstown campus, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, UK c School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University, Claremont Tower, Newcastle upon Tyne NE17RU, UK abstract article info Article history: Received 1 September 2008 Received in revised form 4 March 2009 Accepted 6 March 2009 Available online 15 April 2009 Keywords: Strategic environmental assessment Learning potential SEA directive Spatial planning This paper presents results of an international comparative research project, funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC) on the ‘learning potential of appraisal (strategic environmental assessment — SEA) in spatial planning’. In this context, aspects of ‘single-loop’ and ‘double-loop’ learning, as well as of individual, organisational and social learning are discussed for emerging post-EC Directive German practice in the planning region (Zweckverband) of Brunswick (Braunschweig), focusing on four spatial plan SEAs from various administrative levels in the region. It is found that whilst SEA is able to lead to plan SEA specific knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and analysis (‘single-loop learning’), it is currently resulting only occasionally in wider synthesis and evaluation (‘double-loop learning’). Furthermore, whilst there is evidence that individual and occasionally organisational learning may be enhanced through SEA, most notably in small municipalities, social learning appears to be happening only sporadically. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction — learning in order to improve SEA effectiveness Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is commonly under- stood as a systematic, objectives-led, evidence-based, pro-active and participative decision-making support instrument for the formulation of environmentally sustainable policies, plans and programmes (PPPs; see e.g., Fischer, 2007; 2003; Brown and Therivel, 2000; Sadler and Verheem, 1996). Through application of a range of suitable, situation specific methods and techniques, SEA is supposed to add rigour to the decision making process. Its main aim is to ensure due consideration is given to environmental aspects in PPP making above the project level. Ultimately, SEA should lead to changes in PPP processes and outcomes by reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing positive environmental action. Fischer (2007) linked the potential effective- ness of SEA in leading to a better consideration of the environmental component in PPP making to the following three functions: (1) SEA provides decision-makers with better information; (2) SEA enables attitudes and perceptions to change through participation and involvement; (3) SEA changes established routines. All of these functions can be interpreted as turning on the quality of knowledge and learning in order to enhance decision making processes, promoting more environmentally conscious outcomes. Based on more comprehensive information provided through SEA, instrumental learning is supposed to occur, with better knowledge leading to a higher level of comprehension by individuals, organisa- tions, and possibly the wider population, and ultimately to envir- onmentally adjusted PPPs. This may be connected with what Argyris and Schön (1978) in their seminal work on organisational learning described as ‘single-loop’ (‘know-how’) learning. In addition, trans- formative learning may also be happening, leading to changes in attitudes, perceptions and routines of individuals and organisations, based in particular on wider synthesis and evaluation. In this context, SEA may have positive impacts beyond a specific policy, plan or programme, leading to changes of individual and organisational values and norms. This can be connected with what Argyris and Schön (1978) called ‘double-loop’ (‘know-why’) learning. The learning literature – particularly of the transformative kind – has already become an established feature of environmental planning, resource management, and alternative dispute resolution practices (see e.g., Keen et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004). However, to date, the learning dimension of SEA activities has been held to be relatively weak and immature (Owens et al., 2005). Overall, it is probably fair to say that ‘learning’ has had only a patchy appearance in the SEA (and also the EIA) literature (Saarikoski, 2000; Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Sinclair et al., 2008; see also Jha-Thakur et al., forthcoming). The key assumption here is that learning is necessary in order to improve SEA's effectiveness in leading to a more balanced consideration of economic, social and environmental aspects in PPP making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 421–428 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: fischer@liverpool.ac.uk (T.B. Fischer). 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.03.001 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar