Investigating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Thailand

Evolution or revolution? Reflecting on IA effectiveness in Thailand

“…This research was conducted using a qualitative approach involving literature review, encompassing reviews of legislation, guidance documents, Government reports and past evaluations (related to IA practice in Thailand, which have been published as presented in Table 1, (for example, Baird andFrankel 2015, Wangwongwattana et al 2015)). The past evaluations encompass data collections based on documentary analysis for measuring SEA effectiveness (Chanchitpricha et al 2019) and documentary analysis coupled with stakeholder interviews for investigating the effectiveness of HIA and environmental and health impact assessment (EHIA) (Chanchitpricha 2012, Chanchitpricha and Bond 2018, Fakkum 2013, Wangwongwattana et al 2015. (Chanchitpricha, Morrison-Saunders andBond 2019, Wirutskulshai et al 2011) In order to reflect on past practice, in this paper, we examined the effectiveness of Thai IA practice based on the recent conceptualisations of effectiveness (Chanchitpricha et al 2019), associated with a timeline of the evolution of Thai practice.…”

Introducing SEA effectiveness

“…Peterson and Vahtrus (2019) note that SEA's legal requirements for consultation have widened the 'circle of consultees', though they also identify that levels of public involvement in plan-making and SEA in Estonia are low. This is also reported in Brazil and Thailand, although the role of SEA in improving communication between stakeholders and in achieving legitimacy is acknowledged (Chanchitpricha et al 2019;Tshibangu and Montaño 2019). In Ireland, stakeholder engagement begins early in scoping workshops, but the public generally does not get actively involved (Gonzalez et al 2019).…”

“…As is shown in this issue by Partidario and Monteiro (2019), Peterson and Vahtrus (2019), and Chanchitpricha et al (2019), SEA effectiveness has been extensively analysed (e.g. Cashmore et al 2008;Van Buuren and Nooteboom 2009;Wang et al 2012;Chanchitpricha and Bond 2013;Acharibasam and Noble 2014;Bond et al 2018;Pope et al 2018), with effectiveness split into a range of dimensions that reflect the points above.…”

“…In Brazil, Estonia, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia, plans are generally felt to be political in nature, with politicians and planners 'not very open to environmental information' (Partidario and Monteiro 2019) or trying to prevent the SEA from including any negative comments on the plan (Tokarczyk-Dorociak 2019). Assessment scope and performance, as well as integration into decisionmaking are particularly affected by the absence of regulatory frameworks (Chanchitpricha et al 2019;Tshibangu and Montaño 2019). Noble et al (2019) also explain that a lack of regulatory 'hooks' to ensure that SEA findings are implemented has limited the effectiveness of SEA in Canada: 'there is often nobody to tell, nobody is required to listen, and thus few opportunities to learn'.…”

Quality Criteria to Evaluate Performance and Scope of 2030 Agenda in Metropolitan Areas: Case Study on Strategic Planning of Environmental Municipality Management

“…Under this action prism, the new environmental strategic planning (ESP) models require citizen participation and leadership as instruments of change and improvement. Some examples of successful case studies that have become reference models are the following: the ESP model to address issues related to the management of closed coastal seas [24][25][26]; effectiveness of ESP in Thailand to achieve the legitimacy of the processes [27]; ESP and the use of indicators in water resources planning [28]; integrated models that develop coherent and policy relevant socio-ecological strategies, which are relevant to policies where appropriate decision frameworks need to be co-developed across the range of stakeholders and decision-makers in Coastal Bangladesh [29]; integrated sustainability models in management organizations [30]; identify key governance challenges that cultivating collective action, accountability, decision spaces for stakeholder interaction regarding decision-making, investment, action, and outcomes [31]. All these approaches have the potential to integrate knowledge across the natural and social sciences, and to do so in a new way; that is, a framework to overcome ontological differences between the social and natural sciences, and thereby also overcome ontological barriers in sustainability research [24,32].…”