sea: the uneven development of the environment?

ELSEVIER

F E A T U R E

SEA: THE U N E V E N D E V E L O P M E N T OF THE E N V I R O N M E N T ?

Stephen Horton and Ali Memon University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

From examination o f theory and practice, it is observed that strategic environmental assessment (SEA) extends the spatial reach o f environmental assessment, providing greater scope for offsetting environmental degradation with environmental enhancement. We label this concurrent enhancement and degradation "uneven development o f the environment." We argue this uneven development does not resolve the conflict between economic development and the environment. Instead, SEA displaces and defers the conflict. © 1997 Elsevier Sci- ence lnc.

Introduction

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has raised expectations for the integration of environmental and socioeconomic aims. Sadler (1994, p. 3) claims SEA to be "a promising approach to ensure that policymaking takes account of sustainability principles." Glasson (1995, p. 729) suggests "development of S E A . . . will hopefully provide an approach for the better integration of socioeconomic development and the biophysical environment in the interests of present and future generations." This view is echoed and explored by a number of authors (Wood and Djeddour 1992; Therivel et al. 1992).

Although it has existed notionally since the 1970s, only in the last 5 years has SEA started to assume practical form (Therivel et al. 1992, pp. 43-74). Consequently, the definition and effects of SEA are not yet understood fully. Given this paucity of empirical data, our investigation of SEA adopts a method of criticism: a concept and a practice of SEA are outlined and critiqued; contradictions are identified that lead to a displacement of envi-

Address requests for reprints to: Stephen Horton, Department of Geography, Box 56, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1997;17:163-175 © 1997 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0195-9255/97/$17.00 PII S0195-9255(97)00031-0

164 STEPHEN HORTON AND ALI MEMON

ronmental effects; finally, structural tendencies of SEA are identified and traced to their environmental consequences.

The first part of this article examines the conceptual form of SEA developed by Sadler (1994). Drawing from neoclassical economics, Sadler proposes to reconceive the environment as "natural capital." As such, the environment is to be used in present production but also preserved for future production. Sadler establishes the geography of natural capital at the scale of the bioregion, allowing "drawdowns" of capital at one locale to be offset by environmental enhancement at another locale. This, we argue, leads to an increased polarization of environmental assessment and to the "uneven development of the environment" into contradictory frag- ments of ecological degradation and ecological enhancement.

The second part of the article examines SEA in practice, in this case the planning of New Zealand's coastal development. The point of departure is New Zealand's Resource Management Act of 1991 (RMA). A former NZ Environment Secretary has claimed the sole intent of the RMA is the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and that the Act is "recognized internationally as leading edge environmental legislation" (Blakeley 1995, p. 4). RMA implementation and coastal planning in New Zealand are reviewed, with particular focus on the Auckland region. It is argued that neither the legislation, nor the hierarchy of coastal plans flowing from it, confronts the basic contradiction between economic development and environmental sustainability. Instead, New Zealand's framework for coastal SEA displaces the conflict by identifying separate areas for economic growth and environmental preservation. This solution is unsustainable and promotes uneven development of the environment.

To conclude, we correlate uneven development of the environment with the socioeconomic polarization that characterises the post-modern age (Harvey 1989a) and call for reaffirmation of the precautionary principle.

Sadler's Theory of SEA

Sadler (1994, p. 5) contends that a "key innovation" in "the transition to a sustainability agenda. . . [is] . . . translating the principles of environmental sustainability into operational terms" [emphasis added]. In an expansive industrial world the "common theme...of sustainable development is the need to integrate economic development and ecological considerations" (WCED 1987, p. 62). At the most abstract level (the level of thought), if economic development and the environment are to be mediated, their concepts must be established on a common basis. Sadler accomplishes this by proposing the environment be reconceived as "natural capital" within a neoclassical economic framework.

The concept of natural capital licenses the productive consumption of the environment. "Natural capital," Sadler contends, "is now considered

SEA: UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT? 165

by ecological economists to be a complementary . . , factor of development" (Sadler 1995, p. 5). However, natural capital also is a "limiting" factor of development in that it is no longer "freely available and substitutable with man-made capital" (Sadler 1995, p. 5). Consequently, natural capital must be both developed and sustained.

Sadler (1995, p. 5) proposes "a formal approximation for environmental sustainability" as the:

nonliquidation of natural capital, that is, resource stocks and ecological processes essential for their continued productivity and regeneration. This criterion links long-established conservation principles with new modes of economic valuation of the source and sink functions and services performed by natural systems [emphasis added].

Sadler's mediation of economy and environment proposes that nature be used as another factor of economic production, but that it be sustained functionally as the most privileged of all factors of production, as capital.

In practice, however, Sadler concedes that "few development proposals would go forward under a strict criterion of the nonliquidation of natural capital" (Sadler 1994, p. 5). Therefore, he suggests:

Natural capital is an aggregate concept that refers to multifunction ecosystems, rather than to single resources or specific sites. It is most appro- priately operationalized at a net or programmatic level and in a bioregional context.

Natural capital does not require reproduction at the local level or at the level of individual ecofunctions. The geography of natural capital is on a regional scale, its ecology on a multifunctional level. SEA is conducted at this scale and level, where environmental impacts are made upon natural capital.

Contradictions in Sadler's SEA

Sadler (1994, p. 5) acknowledges that:

Maintenance of natural capital . . . [is] . . . tremendously d i f f i c u l t . . . [ i n ] . . . aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems where output and input rules for sustainability encounter complex interdependencies among resource uses, energy throughputs and mass balances.

This anxiety, that the ambition of SEA exceeds the practical reach of science, is common (Blowers 1993, pp. 780-784; Therivel et al. 1992, pp. 127-132). Nonetheless, scientific uncertainty has long been part of environmental assessment (EA). In the last decades EA has managed the lack of scientific certainty mainly through judicial and administrative processes


that rely on ecological interpretation as marshalled by self-interested groups (e.g., developers and environmentalists). It is a common judgment that EA:

is less an instrument for communicating information to decision-makers, who will in turn reshape their outlook and improve their decisions, than • . . an instrument which political actors seek to shape for their own purposes (Fairfax and Ingram 1981, pp. 37-38)•

Conventional EA displaces uncertainty from the realm of science into that of politics--that is, from the realm of often compromised objectivity to that of respectable partiality• This displacement polarizes environmental interpretation and assessment, as various groups advance their own interests. Sadler's SEA concept, in extending the ecogeographic range of EA to include "multifunction ecosystems" and "bioregions," augments eco- scientific ambiguity. Thus, it encourages divergent interpretation and, hence, political conflict•

SEA also encourages displacement of political conflict• A central aspect of "multifunctional" and "bioregional" strategic assessment is the balancing of "drawdown(s) of natural capital" against "equivalent investment(s) in resource conservation, rehabilitation or enhancement" (Sadler 1994, p. 5). Whereas the interpretation of equivalence is likely to be contentious, the concept of net regional and functional sustainability establishes the possibility of two radically different physical environments; one for each side of any political/interpretative conflict• On the one hand, it provides for locales of economic development unrestrained by the requirements of ecological reproduction• On the other hand, many of the "ecological processes essential f o r . . , continued productivity and regeneration" can be condensed in areas of environmental conservation and enhancement.

Sadler's concept of SEA, therefore, both develops the conflict between economy and the environment (by extending scientific ambiguity and possible political conflict) and displaces it (by allowing either aspect of the contradiction to exist concurrently). SEA proposes, in effect, the intensified, synchronous degradation and enhancement of the environment• We label this contradiction the "uneven development of the environment. ''1

A New Zealand Practice of SEA

The following subsections discuss the Resource Management Act (RMA) and sustainability; a coastal SEA; and the uneven development of the environment.

We have borrowed the concept of uneven development from political economy and its understanding of contemporary capitalism (Harvey 1989, pp. 165-199; Smith 1984).


The Resource Management Act and Sustainability

New Zealand was one of the first countries to introduce SEA (Sadler 1994, p. 7; Therivel et al. 1992, p. 67; Dixon, 1994). "In New Zealand," claims Glasson (1995, p. 728), "at least in principle, SEA and regional planning are perhaps best integrated, through the Resource Management Act."

The Resource Management Act of 1991 was part of a radical restructuring of New Zealand society, initiated by the fourth Labour Government (1984- 1990). In the decade after 1984, New Zealand was transformed from a model welfare state with a managed economy into a paradigmatic free market society. Neoliberal reform deregulated financial, commodity, and labor markets, privatized or corporatized many government functions, re- structured central and local government administration, and reduced sig- nificantly the government provision of social services (Kelsey 1995; Britton et al. 1992). The market-driven purpose of such reforms was to get "government out of business" and "business into government" (Dixon and Fookes 1995, p. 105).

Pre-1984, New Zealand's environmental management regime was "an uncoordinated, unintegrated hodgepodge" of legislative initiatives (Palmer 1995, p. 150). Developers had long complained of the cost of complying with ad hoc, often overlapping environmental regulations. They sought to reduce legislative scope and to concentrate permitting into a one-stop process. Environmental groups were also dissatisfied with environmental regulation. They doubted its coherence and criticized its role in facilitating a number of massive developments in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These developments, part of a "Think Big" economic strategy, included a large hydroelectric project and a petrochemical works.

Developers and environmentalists agreed on the need for fundamental change in the public management of New Zealand's environment. This consensus secured the repeal, in whole or in part, of over 50 pieces of planning and resource-use legislation, including, most importantly, the Town and Country Planning Act (1977) and the Water and Soil Conserva- tion Act (1967). The legislative and management void thus created was to be filled with the RMA.

Geoffrey Palmer, the Minister of Environment responsible for most of the drafting of the RMA, recalls:

The Brundtland Report came out [in 1987] just at the time that New Zealand was setting about a fundamental revamp of its resource management laws. The principle of sustainable development, naturally enough, became a core concept for consideration (Palmer 1995, p. 149).

Palmer and his working groups, following Brundtland, understood sustainable development as "the need [to] integrate economic and ecological considerations in decision-making" (Palmer 1995, p. 148). The RMA attempts this integration in 314 pages of legislation, the core of which is:


Section 5. Purpose The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management

of natural and physical resources. In this Act, 'sustainable management' means managing the use, devel-

opment, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while - -

Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

In contrast to the previous regime of land-use and resource control, in which the prescriptive judgments of the state were decisive (e.g., land-use zones), the RMA is founded on the concept of "effects-based" regulation (Memon; Memon and Gleeson 1995). According to this, each development is singular; its particular impact on the environment must be assessed. Environmental assessment is, therefore, "a key part of the framework of the RMA" (Dixon and Fookes 1995, p. 105).

The RMA establishes a hierarchy of planning (Figure 1). At the strategic level there are national policy statements and regional policy statements. These plans define the context in which regional plans and district plans are developed. Regions and districts are approximately equivalent in au- thority, but are differentiated by function. District councils are charged, in the main, with managing the built environment. Regional councils are responsible largely for natural resource use. There are only slight overlaps of function.

In sum, the RMA "provides many of the elements required for strategic environmental assessment with its focus on sustainable environment assessment, links between local, regional and national levels of government [and] consideration of cumulative effects" (Dixon and Fookes 1995, pp. 107-108; Dixon 1994).

To date, the RMA has been deployed to its full strategic potential only for the coastal environment. Hence, this is the case study in the next subsection.

A Coastal S E A

In this case study, the application of SEA is examined in the development of the the New Zealand coastal policy statement (NZCPS) (DoC 1994b), the Proposed Auckland regional policy statement (Auckland Regional Council- ARC 1994) and the Proposed Auckland regional coastal plan (ARC 1995).


Regional Plans (natural resource management)

NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

Regional Policy Statements (integration document)

District Plans (land use, built environment management)

FIGURE 1. Planning hierarchy stipulated in the Resource Management Act of 1991. Source: Dixon and Fookes 1996, p.106.

As befits a country of islands, the only specific national policy statement (Figure 1) required by the RMA is a coastal policy statement. The first draft of the NZCPS was prepared by the Department of Conservation (DoC) in 1990 before enactment of the RMA. The draft provided prescriptive direction to regional and district councils (DoC 1990). This approach was rejected by the newly elected National Party Government, which was intent upon devolving "effects-based" decision-making to regional and district councils (DoC 1992a).

A revised draft was less prescriptive (DoC 1992b). In the formal process of public consultation and review by a board of inquiry, the government again showed its reluctance to provide explicit guidelines for regional and district councils (DoC 1994a). The NZCPS was adopted in final form in 1994 (DoC 1994b). After promulgation of the NZCPS, New Zealand's 12 regional councils and four unitary authorities (i.e., combined regional and district councils) have developed draft regional policy statements and regional coastal plans (Figure 1).

Auckland is the largest metropolitan region in New Zealand with a population of more than i million (approximately one-third of the country's

170 STEPHEN HORTON AND ALl MEMON

population). Its landscape is a labyrinth of land and sea, characterized by burgeoning coastal development pressures.

The first policy of the NZCPS, Policy 1.1.1., addresses the national priority of "preserv[ing] the natural character of the coastal environment by: (a) encouraging appropriate subdivision, use or development in areas where the natural character has already been compromised" (DoC 1994b, p. 4). The second policy, Policy 1.1.2, derived from a national priority to "protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna," requires:

(a) avoiding any actual or potential adverse effects of activities o n the

f o l l o w i n g areas or habitats: (i) areas and habitats important to the continued survival of any

indigenous species; and (ii) areas containing nationally vulnerable spec ie s . . .

(b) avoiding or remedying any actual or potential adverse effects of activities o n the f o l l o w i n g areas:

(i) outstanding or rare indigenous community t y p e s . . . (ii) habitat important to regionally endangered or nationally rare

spec i e s . . . areas important to migratory species or vulnerable stages of common indigenous spec i e s . . .

(c) protecting ecosystems which are unique to the coastal environment and vulnerable to modification including estuaries, coastal wetlands, mangroves and dunes and their margin; and

(d) recognising that a n y o t h e r areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation or habitats of significant indigenous fauna should be disturbed only to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out approved activities. (DoCb 1994, pp. 4/5, emphasis added).

This geographic approach of specifying sustainable management is dis- cernible in NZCPS's first two policy statements. The basic strategy of the NZCPS is to isolate, at an abstract level, different spaces for different activities and environments. Policy 1 attempts, first, to separate development from the natural environment. Then, for the natural environment, it defines different areas with different levels of protection. For example, areas specified by Policy 1.1.2 (a) have the strongest protection in that activities with actual or potential adverse effects are proscribed. In contrast, such activities are permitted in areas defined by Policy 1.1.2 (b) as long their effects are remedied. This is less protection, because the definition of remedied requires interpretation. Areas defined by Policy 1.1.2 (c) are only protected and, thus, adverse effects may be permitted unless they are significant and even then they may be mitigated or remedied.

The NZCPS is unable to define some geographic areas, and here it is content to repeat principles as policy. For example, Policy 1.1.4 commits


"to protect the integrity, functioning, and resilience of the coastal environment in terms of: (a) the dynamic processes and features arising from the natural movement of sediments, water and air; (b) natural movement of biota" (DoC 1994b, p. 5). Wherever possible, however, the NZCPS pursues a geographic logic. Policy 3.1.2 requires "policy statements and plans [to] identify . . . scenic, recreational and historic areas, areas of spiritual or cultural significance." And policy 3.4.2 requires "policy statements and p l a n s . . . [to] . . . identify a r e a s . . , subject to erosion and inundation."

The coastal section of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS), which "must not be inconsistent" with the NZCPS, continues in a similar, but more concrete, vein (ARC 1994, Section 8). It, too, expresses a prefer- ence for locating further subdivision, use and development "in areas where similar activities already exist" (ARC 1994, pp. 8-11). It specifies the condi- tions under which subsequent development will be permitted (Policy 8.4.13- 2). It repeats the preservation and conservation concerns of the NZCPSS and identifies 245 sites as worthy of protection and presenting a series of map analyses showing "areas of outstanding landscape value."

The RPS defines parameters for the Auckland regional coastal plan and the coastal planning of the Districts that comprise the region (ARC 1995, pp. 1-9). District and city councils have jurisdiction over areas inland of the mean, high water, spring tideline. The Auckland regional coastal plan, considered below, deals with the coastal marine area defined by "the fore- shore, seabed and coastal water, and the air space above water" (RMA, Section 2(i)).

The Auckland regional coastal plan is based on seven management areas: ports, defense, moorings, coastal protection areas, special activity areas, Tangata Whenua, and general areas (ARC 1995, p. 2-1). The first four categories are selfexplanatory. Special activity areas cater to recreational events. Tangata Whenua (people of the land) refers to areas of significance to Maori. The general management area is a residual category that applies to all areas not included in the other six categories.

The coastal plan develops policies for the use, development, and protection of the coastal environment with respect to these management areas. The policies are largely descriptive and geographic. Policy 22.4.4 holds that "[m]arinas shall be considered inappropriate where they will have an adverse effect on: (a) areas identified on the plan maps as regionally significant or outstanding landscapes; (b) any coastal protection area 2 identified on the plan maps; etc." (ARC 1995, p. 22-3). Similarly, Policy 16.4.8 holds that "[t]he coastal margin disposal or the marine disposal of either solid matter or dredged material shall avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects on: (a) characteristics of the coastal marine area of special value to Tangata W h e n u a . . . etc." (ARC 1995, p. 16-4).

Interpretation of these qualitative rules occurs in the consent hearing committees of local government (ARC 1995, Chapter 33 and Figure 1).

172 STEPHEN H O R T O N AND ALl MEMON

Those wishing to develop, subdivide, or use the coastal environment must convince the consent hearing committee that their intentions fall within the parameters of the coastal plan. Application for consents must include "an assessment of the actual or potential effects that the activity may have on the environment, and the ways in which any adverse effects may be mitigated" (ARC 1995, p. 33-2). Such E A forms the basis for the consent hearing committee 's deliberations.

Uneven Development of the Environment

There is a textual ambiguity in the RMA that can be traced to the politics of its origin. On the election of the fourth Labour Government , neoliberal interests and environmental groups were united in their opposition to the existing environmental legislation. This broad consensus was maintained in the drafting of the RMA only by obscuring conflicting objectives in statements of general principles. The RMA is an often uneasy mediation of a neoliberal desire for permissive regulation and a "green" desire for sustainable development (Buhrs and Bartlett 1993, pp. 113-125; Memon 1993; Grundy and Gleeson 1996).

Buhrs and Bartlett (1993, p. 124) point out that the RMA,

although comprehensive in scope and radical in its departure from past p o l i c y . . , was written in such a way as to leave many issues undecided. Characterized by the Ministry for the Environment as a ' framework rather than a blueprint ' the Act was written according to the 'plain English' and 'general principle' approaches to drafting statutes.

The textual ambiguity of the RMA--ar is ing from political conflict--has subverted even Section 5, the heart of the legislation. Section 5 defines sustainable management as managing development (for social, economic, and cultural weUbeing) while sustaining the environment (i.e., s 5(2) a, b & c). Precisely because the text is in "plain English," there has been intense debate over the meaning of the word "while." One commentator holds that " . . . everything will depend on whether 'while' is treated as a subordi- nating or coordinating conjunction" (cited in Palmer 1995, p. 171).

Instead of confronting the conflict between economic development and environmental sustainability, the RMA was left "totally open and contesta- ble . . . to provide for compromise and trade-offs" (Palmer 1995, p. 146). The result, according to Judge Treadwell of the Planning Tribunal (the court of environmental appeal), is that:

far from being a panacea for environmental ills, it [the RMA] is merely a cosmetic and semantic a p p r o a c h . . . [that] . . . has buried many real issues in a welter of words (cited in Palmer 1995, p. 146).

Geoffrey Palmer (1995, p. 146), former Minister for the Environment, briefly Prime Minister, and now a law professor, concedes he " . . . cannot


recall such a swingeing attack from a judicial officer upon legislation which it is his function to administer."

The Department of Conservation had to confront the ambiguity of the RMA in developing the New Zealand coastal policy statement. Its first efforts were rejected as too prescriptive. The NZCPS was adopted only when DoC retreated to a geographic framework, which displaces the conflict between development and the environment. From the NZCPS, in the most abstract form, to an Auckland coastal plan that identifies 89 mooring sites and 245 areas of outstanding landscape value, the basic strategy of coastal EA in New Zealand is to isolate different spaces for different environments.

The result is a regional patchwork of environmental degradation and conservation. Its immediate effect is to allow, through regional or strategic environmental assessment, development that would be disqualified by project level assessment as nonsustainable local development. The wide spatial separation between the extremes of economic development and ecological enhancement, for the present, cloak the structural consequences of this "spatial fix" (after Harvey 1982, pp. 413-445). The final consequences of uneven development were illustrated recently by a Member of New Zealand's Parliament, the Opposition spokesperson on Environment. In criticizing the government's doctrinaire reliance on carbon sinks (i.e., forest plantations) to allow for increased carbon dioxide emissions, he charged "[s]ooner or later we [will] logically become a nation of pine trees with oil refineries in the clearings" (Hodgson 1995).

The danger of uneven development, therefore, is not that it will destroy the natural environment, but that it will reduce the environment's fecund complexity to a narrow functionalism. The promise of uneven development is to reproduce a rationalized environment, not to sustain living ecologies. The mediation of the natural environment and economic development proposed by coastal SEA in New Zealand gives priority to economic development.

Conclusions

Sadler (1994, p. 5) is sanguine about the limitations of SEA, arguing "[t]he point here is not to grasp a theory of the impossible but to promote the art of employing 'best guess' science to implement prudent rules of thumb that help guarantee sustainability." However, findings of this article suggest that both in the natural capital theory of SEA and in New Zealand practice, best guess science and prudent rules of thumb displace the question of sustainable development, thereby allowing parallel degradation and enhancement of the environment.

This uneven development of the environment echoes a pervasive dialectic in contemporary society, where economic growth and destruction, wealth and poverty, fully employed and underemployed, housed and homeless are


increasingly juxtaposed in f ragmentary post -modern spaces (Harvey 1989b, pp. 257-78). By displacing socioeconomic and environmental contradictions into space:

We are simply putting off the day when we must tackle the problem at its source. When that day arrives we will face a s i g n i f i c a n t . . , deficit. (Hodgson 1995).

This analysis does not condemn the possibility of SEA. It warns of excessive expectations and facile application. If SEA is to contribute to sustainable development , it must confront directly the conflict of development and the environment, it must resist rhetorical solutions that disguise the conflict, and it must avoid spatial solutions that displace the conflict. It should adopt a precaut ionary principle that refuses credulous endorse- ment to all who invoke the name of sustainable development.

References

Auckland Regional Council. 1995. Proposed Auckland Regional Coastal Plan. Auck- land, New Zealand: ARC.

Auckland Regional Council. 1994. Proposed Auckland Regional Policy Statement. Auckland, New Zealand: ARC.

Blakeley, R. 1995. Environment 2010 strategy--A debate. In Environmental Per- spectives. University of Otago, Dunedin: Environmental Policy and Management Research Centre, Issue 7:4-6.

Blowers, A. 1993. Environmental policy: The quest for sustainable development. Urban Studies 30(4/5):775-796.

Britton, S., Le Heron, R., and Pawson, E. (eds). 1992. Changing Places "in New Zealand. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury.

Buhrs, T., and Bartlett, R. 1993. Environmental Policy in New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Department of Conservation. 1994a. Report and Recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Into the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Wellington, New Zealand: DoC.

Department of Conservation. 1994b. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Wel- lington, New Zealand: DoC.

Department of Conservation. 1992a. Options and Implications Assessment: The Application of Section 32 of the RMA to the Preparation of the Draft NCPS. Wellington, New Zealand: DoC.

Department of Conservation. 1992b. Draft New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Wellington, New Zealand: DoC.

Department of Conservation. 1990. Draft New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Wellington, New Zealand: DoC.

SEA: UNEVEN D E V E L O P M E N T ? 175

Dixon, J. 1994. Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand. A progress report. Paper presented at the fourteenth annual meeting of the IAIA, Quebec City, Canada, June 14-18, 1994.

Dixon, J., and Fookes, T. 1995. Environmental assessment in New Zealand: Pros- pects and practical realities. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 2(2):103-111.

Fairfax, S.K., and Ingrain, H.M. 1981. The United States experience. In Project Appraisal and Policy Review. T. O'Riordan and D. Sewell (eds). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.

Glasson, J. 1995. Regional planning and the environment: Time for a SEA change. Urban Studies 32(4/5):713-731.

Grundy, K., and Gleeson, B. 1996. Sustainable Management and the market: The politics of planning reform in New Zealand. Land Use Policy 13(3):197-211.

Harvey, D. 1989a. The Condition of Postmodernity. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Harvey, D. 1989b. The Urban Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Harvey, D. 1982. The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hodgson, P. 1995. Global warming approach 'totally flawed.' Otago Daily Times. September 8, p. 8.

Kelsey, J. 1995. The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjust- ment? Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.

Memon, P.A. 1993. Keeping New Zealand Green: Recent Environmental Reforms. Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press.

Memon, P.A., and Gleeson, B.J. 1995. Towards a new planning paradigm? Reflec- tions on New Zealand's Resource Management Act. Environment and Plan- ning B22:109-124.

Palmer, G. 1995. Environment: The International Challenge. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.

Resource Management Act 1991. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Govern- ment Printer.

Sadler, B. 1994. Environmental assessment and development policymaking. In Envi- ronmental Assessment and Development. R.Goodland and V. Edmundson, (eds). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Smith, N. 1984. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D., and Pritchard, D. 1992. Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan Publications.

Wood, C., and Djeddour, M. 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies plans and programs. Impact Assessment Bulletin 10:3-23.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Com- mon Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

sea: the uneven development of the environment?

Documents