{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01332741003998223, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.272980501392758, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Practice of Urban Planning in Australia and New Zealand: A Comparison

The importance of the application of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for policies and plans is rapidly growing and will one day make the policies and plans environmentally and socially sustainable. While there have been legal requirements for SEA process and practice available in Australia and New Zealand for more than two decades, there is a dearth of information on how SEA is working in two separate jurisdictions. This comparative study on SEA practice is an attempt to fill this gap. The SEAs of two major urban plans of two major cities of two countries were reviewed and analysed to understand the practice of the SEA process. The SEA process of two urban plans of two countries was assessed against a set of good practice criteria. In addition, interviews were conducted with key informants, who were involved in the planning process, which provided valuable information. The study identified the key characteristics of two separate models of SEA practice alongside their advantages and disadvantages. The findings indicate that there are similarities and dissimilarities in SEA practices in both jurisdictions. The key similarities include the legal requirements for SEA, including community participation, in both jurisdictions. The key dissimilarities of SEA applications include the application of two separate models where the extent of flexibility, rigidity, integrative and separate issues related to the application of SEA varies. Also, there are common shortcomings identified in practice including relatively less attention is paid to socioeconomic issues and cumulative impacts. It is expected that the comparative study will help both Australia and New Zealand to learn lessons from each other, and thereby improve the practice of SEA in their own jurisdictions. The study also provides valuable insights by revealing some key characteristics of the SEA system of both countries. The findings of this study can be useful for the improvement of SEA practice for urban policy and plan by addressing the shortcomings identified in this study in both countries, and in other jurisdictions with a similar context.