4.5 Article

Strategic environmental assessment of urban plans in New Zealand: current practice and future directions

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages 954-977

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2020.1796605

Keywords

Strategic Environmental Assessment; New Zealand; urban planning; process

Funding

  1. Department of Education and Training, Government of Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper aims to understand the practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in urban development sector in New Zealand, evaluating a major urban plan against procedural criteria. The study finds that SEA in New Zealand generally meets key procedural requirements, with some shortcomings like lack of cumulative impacts and inadequate baseline information. Recommendations are made for improvement of SEA practice, with findings potentially useful for SEA in urban planning in New Zealand.
This paper aims to understand the practice of SEA in the urban development sector in New Zealand. In New Zealand, SEA has been practiced over the last two decades under the Resource Management Act (RMA) of 1991. Given this legal context, the SEA process of a major urban plan was evaluated against a set of procedural criteria. The results indicate that the SEA has, in general, fulfilled key procedural requirements, albeit with a few shortcomings. The shortcomings include absence of cumulative impacts, inadequate baseline information, inadequate mitigation and monitoring. The possible causes of the shortcomings are explained. This study also explored some key features of SEA practice in New Zealand that may influence SEA practice. Finally, recommendations are made for improvement of SEA practice in New Zealand with future directions. The findings of this study can be useful to SEA for urban planning in New Zealand.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available