Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Socio-Economic Systems: a systematic review.
TAMOSAITIENE, Jolanta ; KAPLINSKI, Oleg
Introduction
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for identifying and
assessing potential impact is used worldwide. SEA covers many areas, and
one of them is the Analysis of Socio-Economic Systems and Processes. The
analysis of SEA systems with principles of sustainability and complexity
of outlook has become an integral part of decision-making.
The paper presents the development of Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) of Socio-Economic Systems in Quantitative Complex
evaluation of Socio-Economic Processes during last eighty years. A
systematic analysis of literature on the aspects of SEA and
Decision-Making (DM) were identified and reviewed, as well as the
eligibility problem in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The
criteria included studies of both Social and Economic Systems &
Processes that examined development and trends related to SEA of
Socio-Economic Processes. MCDM methods, assessment processes, data
extraction and analysis were completed in all related studies.
Development trends of Quantitative Complex evaluation of SEA of
Socio-Economic Systems & Processes are presented in this paper.
In the seventies, most efforts were focused on practical research
results and their practical application. The paper shows traditions,
development and application of MCDM methods for Quantitative Complex
evaluation of Socio-Economic System and Processes during the period
under study.
1. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Socio-Economic
Systems using MCDM methods
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is evolving as a mechanism
that attempts to assess systematically the environmental impacts of
decisions made at, what is conventionally called, levels of strategic
decisions (Partidario 1996). SEA aims to incorporate environmental and
sustainability considerations into strategic decision-making processes,
such as the formulation of policies, plans and programmes. In order to
be effective, the assessment must take the real decision-making process
as the departure point (Nilsson, Dalkmann 2001). Such diversity of
approaches to SEA, while enriching debate, is critically confusing the
relationship of SEA with other planning and impact assessment tools. SEA
should be conceptualized as a framework, defined by core elements that
are incrementally integrated into policy and planning procedures and
practices, whatever decision-making system in place (Partidario 2000).
Spatial and temporal scales in SEA can be used are considered. Some
arguments underline that other dimensions in temporal scales, which are
crucial for SEA, may need to be considered: the generational time scale
(the temporal scale across generations) and the decisional time scale
(the temporal scale that is relevant for making strategic decisions)
(Partidario 2007).
SEA has been the focus of considerable dialogue, increasing
regulatory attention and emerging evidence of application together with
decision-making processes (Nitz, Brown 2001).
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is argued to provide a
sound basis for informed decision-making toward sustainability
(Geneletti 2013). Good management of the environment and natural
resources protects health, reduces vulnerability to natural disasters,
improves livelihoods and productivity, spurs economic growth based on
natural resources, and enhances human well-being (Ahmed, Sanchez-Triana
2008). No one SEA methodology will apply to all strategic actions and in
SEA contexts: we must begin to think in terms of an array of SEA tools
from which the appropriate one(s) can be selected to meet the needs of
the particular circumstances (Brown, Therivel 2000; Stoeglehner et al.
2009).
In terms of environmental assessment, decision-making theory
ensures appropriate practical use of Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) for 'real' decision-making and procedural flexibility.
While it is acknowledged that a purely professional and technological
paradigm to SEA is something of the past, it is proposed that leaving
the design of 'flexible' SEA to the will of proponents and
stakeholders might ultimately render it incapable of protecting the
environment (Fischer 2003, 2007).
SEA follow-up is complex because of the complicated nature of
strategic decision-making: follow-up to SEA is needed and useful to
ensure the key objectives of controlling, learning and informing on
strategic planning processes (Partidario, Arts 2005).
The traditional and new development of MCDM methods in the field of
Quantitative Complex evaluation of Socio-Economical System and
Processes, together with development aspects, including complexity, and
application in the Quantitative Complex evaluation of Socio-Economical
Processes under dynamic and risky conditions, micro (Marzuki et al.
2012), meso (Ren et al. 2012) and macro environment are presented in
this research. In terms of analysis, information is of most importance.
Information dependency may be the most important key for managing
information exchange to reduce project risks (Ke et al. 2012).
The Social & Economic Systems emerged in the fifth decade of
the twentieth century. At first, Social & Economic Systems were
analyzed separately (Table 1). The economic development of
socio-economic systems (SES) largely depends on our understanding of
their nature and formation mechanisms. Quantitative evaluation of the
state of such systems is also important, as it determines effective
management ensuring their effective performance. Quantitative evaluation
of socio-economic systems and processes may be performed using MCDM
evaluation and DM methods. These methods help generating an integrated
criterion reflecting various SES aspects observed in reality. Given
quantitative methods of SES evaluation, such important problems
associated with the economic development of a country can be solved as
the determination of enterprise development strategy, the formation of
flexible enterprise organizational structures, etc. (Kaplinski,
Peldschus 2011). Nowadays, quantitative SES evaluates and implements
aspects of micro, meso and macro environments. A strategic goal for the
next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth
(Dalal-Clayton, Sadler 2005). SEA aims to provide a process, by which
the policy is developed based on a much broader set of perspectives,
objectives and constraints than just those initially identified by the
proponent (Brown, Therivel 2000).
The realm of sustainability has often been depicted as the
intersection of social, economic and ecological interests and
initiatives. One possible solution is to take sustainability as an
essentially integrative concept and to design sustainability assessment
more aggressively as an integrative process. This would entail a package
of regime and process design features (Gibson 2006). The second aim is
to discuss the relevance of context consciousness and sensitivity in
relation to one of the main aims given to SEA implementation
(Hilding-Rydevik, Bjarnadottir 2007). In theories of limited
rationality, attention is seen as a scarce resource:
decision-makers--like all other people--have a natural limited mental
capacity and are therefore only able to cope within these limits and
with a limited volume of information (Kornov, Thissen 2000).
SEA methodology and practice is to advance, then a common
understanding of its definition and characteristics must first be
achieved (Noble 2000).
Most of the work in SEA seems to be based on the assumption that
the provision of rational information will help improving
decision-making, but the literature points to other characteristics of
real decision-making processes, including cognitive limitations,
behavioral biases, ambiguity and variability of preferences and norms,
distribution of decision-making between actors and in time, and the
notion of decision-making as a process of learning and negotiation
between multiple actors (Kornov, Thissen 2000).
The development of a formalized legal basis for SEA has been an
important social innovation. While procedures for the assessment of
various forms of impact existed before the evolution of legalization of
SEA, for example, in the context of land use planning, and there have
been general demands on the assessment of economic effects of public
policies, plans and programmes, SEA procedures are more detailed and
also provide criteria, by which implementation can be judged. It is
therefore important to explore its roots and its connections to other
legislation (Marsden 2008).
Evaluations of the use of EIA (Morgan 2012) are positive in terms
of improvements to the planning and design of projects, in the quality
of decision-making and of cost-effectiveness: some deficiencies have
also been identified.
Sustainable development requires the setting of environmental
quality goals; institution strengthening; greater use of economic
instruments; and the strengthening of procedures and assessment methods
(Lee, Walsh 1992).
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is seen as an important
tool for integrating the environment into decision-making (Sheate et al.
2003).
Despite similarities between SEA and EIA processes, there are some
differences, largely stemming from SEA being applied at an earlier stage
in the planning process than EM, which has practical significance.
If SEA is to advance in application and effectiveness, then
appropriate SEA methodologies need to be established. Despite calls for
SEA to develop more independently of project-level assessment, existing
SEA methodologies tend to be based on project-level EIA principles. It
is argued here that while SEA can perhaps utilize many of the existing
methods from project-level EIA, it requires a different, more
broad-brush, but structured methodological approach. Noble and Storey
(2001) present state-of-the-art of SEA methodology, and a generic SEA
methodological framework and an example based on the notion of the
"best practicable environmental option".
If SEA is to facilitate 'strategic' changes, it needs to
focus on shaping the ways, in which strategic initiatives are
implemented, not just formulated. This is why follow-up, which refers to
post decisional activities of SEA and strategic initiatives, is
increasingly seen as crucial (Gachechiladze-Bozheskua, Fischer 2012).
It should be emphasized that the focus of this discussion is
specifically on the integration of the environment into strategic
decision-making, i.e. it attempts to integrate the environment into all
policy sectors and policy-making (while recognizing that this is
occurring, if at all, only in some sectors and with widely differing
levels of success).
The focus is not on the wider integration associated with
sustainable development, i.e. integration of environment, social and
economic factors. However, sustainable development mechanisms are often
driven by the need to integrate the environment into decision-making
processes from which it had previously been absent, and so there is an
important link between the two types of integration.
'Sustainability appraisal' and 'integrated impact
assessment' (i.e. impact assessment covering social, economic and
environmental aspects) are just two examples of terms used to describe
strategic assessment that goes beyond Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) in the parameters covered (Fig. 1).
The analysis, application and creation of new instruments for the
DM, formalization of the models, criterions, analysis of hierarchical
systems and processes including macro, meso and micro environments is
still important.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Every SEA process should achieve certain goals, or
'principles': definition should take place in discussion
between SEA and decision-making experts worldwide, representing
different cultural/traditional backgrounds and level of decision-making
(Verheem, Tonk 2000).
Over the years, SEA has been subjected to several interpretations,
often resulting from different views on democratic processes and social
considerations in decision-making. More than strictly a technical tool,
as in its original form, SEA has the potential to act as a mediating
instrument, bridging problem perceptions with technical solutions,
steering the assessment to facilitate the integration of environmental
values into decision-making processes, influencing decision-makers'
capacity of acceptance (Vincente, Partidario 2006).
Research activity is evident in a number of publications. In
technology and social sciences, more than 23 thousand publications were
issued over the period of eighty years. The dynamics of decision-making
in technology and social sciences are presented in Table 1. The themes
are topical, and in the research field, developments were presented in a
large number of journals at a high recognition level, mentioned and
located in ISI Web of Knowledge database.
Prof Valentinas Podvezko was the first to undertake research of
problems pertaining to theory of Socio-Economic systems, analysis of
Quantitative Evaluation and complexity as well as decision-making
instruments - MCDM methods; also, formalization of Socio-Economic system
models, analysis of quantitative evaluation models, analysis of used
MCDM methods and their application in the Socio-Economic system.
2. Research and academic career of Professor Valentinas Podvezko
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
This year, Professor Valentinas Podvezko is celebrating his 70th
anniversary. He was born to an upper-level management and clerical
family employed at a railway system. In 1960, he graduated from a
secondary school of the city of Simferopol. In 1961, he enrolled in the
Department of Mechanics and Mathematics of Lomonosov Moscow State
University, specializing in Applied Mathematics. He graduated in 1966.
Immediately after graduation, he started his career in the Vilnius
branch of Kaunas Technical Institute, which later became Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University (VGTU), as an Assistant Professor. From
1970 to 1975, he was employed as a Deputy Head of the Computing Centre
of VGTU; from 1975 to 1986, he was a Senior Professor; from 1986 until
present, he has been an Associate Professor at the Department of
Mathematics (later renamed to Department of Mathematical Statistics);
from 2003, he has been a Senior Research Fellow. In 1984, he was granted
a PhD (Podvezko 1984) in Science at Scientific Research Institute of
System Studies of the Academy of Science of the Russian Federation
(Academic Supervisor: Prof Dr habil. Kazimieras Antanavicius).
In 1989, he was awarded a diploma of Associate Professor. In 1993,
the diploma in mathematical sciences was ratified by the Research
Council of Lithuania. On 14 September 2006, Professor V. Podvezko
published his research survey entitled "Complex Evaluation of
Socio-Economic Processes" (Podvezko 2006). He was granted a
post-doctoral degree from the Council of Faculty of Fundamental Studies,
and the Habilitation Procedure Commission. In 2006, he became a Chief
Research Fellow and a Professor at the Department of Mathematical
Statistics, as well as a member of the Doctoral Studies Committee at the
Business and Management Faculty (04S). Professor Valentinas Podvezko is
currently a member of editorial boards of following scientific journals:
"Journal of Business Economics and Management" (Lithuania),
"Technological and Economic Development of Economy"
(Lithuania), "Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies
and Research" (Romania) and "Actual Problems of
Economics" (Ukraine), and a member of Lithuanian Council of
Operational Research. He is an author of approx. 150 research and
methodical publications, and delivered approx. 30 report papers at
international and local academic conferences. He had short scientific
visits to the Faculty of Economics of the Lomonosov Moscow State
University, and Faculty of Mathematics at the University of Belarus, and
is very active in Doctoral Studies. In 2009-2010, he participated in the
Council of the Committee of Doctoral Studies and as a Committee member
in Civil Engineering, Sociology, Economics and Mathematics more than ten
times. His research focuses on Decision-Making, including MCDM method
development and their modifications.
In Lithuania, MCDM methods have been developed and used for
evaluating performance of socio-economic systems and solving the
problems associated with analysis of MCDM methods (Ginevicius, Podvezko
2007, 2008a; Ginevicius et al. 2006, 2008a, b). In the analysis of MCDM
processes, the weights of the criteria are determined and the criteria
are combined into one integrated criterion (Ginevicius et al. 2008c).
Valentinas Podvezko made his contribution to the research of
above-mentioned problems at all stages. He proposed new methods, such as
the use of mathematical statistics in developing a set of criteria for
evaluating a research object (Ginevicius, Podvezko 2005). He suggested a
way of arranging a large number of evaluation criteria into a
hierarchical structure (Ginevicius, Podvezko 2003a, b, 2004a, b, 2007)
and suggested a way of applying well-known methods of MCDM evaluation to
the analysis of a hierarchically structured systems of criteria. He also
suggested a graphical-analytical MCDM method (Ginevicius, Podvezko
2008a). He analyzed the defence of multi-criteria evaluation results in
view of choice of preference functions and their parameters (Podvezko,
Podviezko 2010) and the use of constrained and unconstrained
optimization models (Sivilevicius et al. 2011).
He performed mathematical analysis of many MCDM methods for
example: the method of determining risk zones of investment in real
estate (Ustinovicius et al. 2006), MCDM-1 (Ustinovicius et al. 2007),
MOORA (Brauers et al. 2010), AHP (Podvezko 2009; Maskeliunaite et al.
2009), and comparative analysis of SAW and COPRAS methods (Podvezko
2011).
He analyzed a number of problems in Socio-Economic Systems and
processes including quantitative evaluation and complexity: economic and
social development of quantitative evaluation: the organisation of
manufacturing and technological processes (Ginevicius et al. 2007;
Ginevicius, Podvezko 2009; Zavadskas et al. 2009a), complex evaluation
of economic development (Ginevicius et al. 2006) and contracts for
construction (Podvezko et al. 2010), strategic potential of an
enterprise (Ginevicius et al. 2012), and enterprise marketing activities
(Ginevicius et al. 2013).
3. Recent developments: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of
Social & Economic Systems and Processes together with development of
MCDM methods
The recent developments research fields concentrate on DM,
including MCDM methods (Zavadskas, Kaklauskas 2007), statistics,
optimization, strategies (Zavadskas et al. 2011a; Bozejko et al. 2012),
intelligent support system (Kaklauskas et al. 2011), decision support
system for construction time-cost optimization (Zhang, Ng 2012),
evaluation system (Ginevicius, Podvezko 2008a), etc. The instruments and
supports are applied in problem solving in Social & Economic Systems
(Zavadskas, Turskis 2011; Ginevicius, Podvezko 2008b) management
(Ginevicius, Podvezko 2008c; Urbanaviciene et al. 2009; Kaplinski 2010),
political influence dimensions of sustainability, technological change
(Yang et al. 2012), and environmental impact processes (Zavadskas et al.
2011b) and other aspects (Podvezko et al. 2010). Social & Economic
system and processes including development (Tamosaitiene et al. 2010;
Zavadskas et al. 2011a) and development including developing of
alternative and processes. Broad fields as well as narrow groups consist
the goal of the research in the future.
Decision-making in Social & Economic system in risky
environment is determined in different conditions (Abbasianjahromi,
Rajaie 2012). In this case, evaluation of problems is possible including
MCDM methods. In dynamic environment, undersell existing methods are
used. For this reason, development of new MCDM methods with different
types of values is an important topic. The criteria, decision-making
methods and created models must be adopted in one decision support
system. The existing problems solution algorithms and models must by
adopted applying new conditions.
The broad fields might be divided to narrow groups by applying
decision tree fields and considering research object-finding rational
solutions.
In the future, the main research fields of DM&MCDM in SEA must
be developed in following aspects: green, environmental, sustainable and
eco (Schiederig et al. 2012), which are presented in Fig. 2. The model
must be oriented more at funding possible optimal, acceptable and
feasible decisions of analyzed problems. Recent development, trends
together with MCDM methods, are as follow (Zavadskas et al. 2013):
--development of MCDM models, methods with different information
types;
--creation of hybrid problem solving models algorithms;
--multi-stage problem solving;
--different MCDM methods combinations application;
--modelling and creation decision-making algorithms in practice;
--simulation;
--optimization;
--statistics;
--best practice.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The magnitude and future importance of some of the problems
perceived by society are directly related to the field of the Strategic
Environmental Assessment, implying an inescapable burden of
responsibility for a group whose technical soundness, rational approach
and efficiency is highly valued and respected by the citizen (Ramirez,
Seco 2012). Decision-Making must involve complexity, multi-staging,
methods using different types of information. Models and decision-making
algorithms must be developed and created in view of ICT products for
problem solving in Strategic Environmental Assessment, etc. Systems must
operate in micro, meso and macro environments and include developmental
aspects.
Conclusions
This paper sets out to identify and examine what the academic
literature reports on SEA as an assessment tool or process and can or
should it support sustainability in Socio-Economic system development,
assessment and decision-making.
According to the area of research, Prof. V. Podvezko' research
work may be divided into following groups: theory of Socio-Economic
systems, analysis of quantitative evaluation and complexity, and
decision-making instruments--MCDM methods; formalization of
Socio-Economic system models, analysis of quantitative evaluation
models, analysis of MCDM methods in use and their application for a
Socio-Economic System.
Caption: Fig. 1. SEA increasing integration of environmental,
social and economic consideration
Caption: Fig. 2. Quantitative Complex evaluation of Strategic
Environmental Assessment
doi: 10.3846/20294913.2013.862882
Received 19 December 2012; accepted 03 November 2013
References
Ahmed, K.; Sanchez-Triana, E. (Eds.). 2008. Strategic environmental
assessment for policies. Washington, DC: World Bank. 222 p.
Abbasianjahromi, H.; Rajaie, H. 2012. Developing a project
portfolio selection model for contractor firms considering the risk
factor, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 18(6): 879-889.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.734856
Bozejko, W.; Hejducki, Z.; Wodecki, M. 2012. Applying metaheuristic
strategies in construction projects management, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 18(5): 621-630.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.719837
Brown, L.; Therivel, R. 2000. Principles to guide the development
of strategic environmental assessment methodology, Impact Assessment
& Project Appraisal 18(3): 183-189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767385
Brauers, W. K. M.; Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2010. Regional
development in Lithuania considering multiple objectives by the MOORA
method, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16(4):
613-640. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.38
Dalal-Clayton, B.; Sadler, B. (Eds.). 2005. Strategic environmental
assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international
experience. London: Earthscan. 504 p.
Fischer, T. B. 2003. Strategic environmental assessment in
post-modern times, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(2):
155-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00094-X
Fischer, T. B. 2007. Theory and practice of strategic environmental
assessment. London: Earthscan.
Gachechiladze-Bozheskua, M.; Fischer, T. B. 2012. Benefits of and
barriers to SEA follow-up--theory and practice, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 34: 22-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.006
Geneletti, D. 2013. Ecosystem services in environmental impact
assessment and strategic environmental assessment, Environmental impact
assessment review, Special Issue on Ecosystem Services in EIA and SEA
40(SI): 1-2.
Gibson, R. B. 2006. Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment
as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and
ecological considerations in significant decision-making, Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy & Management 8(3): 259-280.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333206002517
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2003b. Quantitative evaluation of the
significance of hierarchically structured indices, Business: Theory and
Practice 3(3): 111-116.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2003a. Quantitative evaluation of the
significance of hierarchically structured indexes, in International
Conference on Modelling and Simulation of Business System, May 13-14,
2003, Vilnius, Lithuania, 22-25.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2004a. Quantitative evaluation of the
strategic potential of enterprises, Business: Theory and Practice 4(1):
3-9.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2004b. Hierarchical structuring of
elements based on their transitivity, Business: Theory and Practice
4(3): 85-89.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2005. Generation of a set of
evaluation criteria, Business: Theory and Practice 6(4): 199-207.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2007. Complex assessment of
sustainable development of the state regions with emphasis on ecological
and dwelling conditions, Ekologija 53: 41-48.
Ginevicius, R.; Butkevicius, A.; Podvezko, V. 2006. Complex
evaluation of economic development of the Baltic States and Poland,
Ekonomicky casopis 54(9): 918-930.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Andruskevicius, A. 2007. Quantitative
evaluation of building technology, International Journal of Technology
Management 40(1/2/3): 192-214.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2008a. Multicriteria
graphical-analytical evaluation of the financial state of construction
enterprises, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 14(4):
452-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.452-461
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2008b. Housing in the context of
economic and social development of Lithuanian regions, International
Journal of Environment and Pollution (IJEP) 35(2/3/4): 309-330.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2008c. Multicriteria evaluation of
Lithuanian banks from the perspective of their reliability for clients,
Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(4): 257-267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.257-267
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Bruzge, S. 2008a. Evaluating the
effect of state aid to business by multicriteria methods, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 9(3): 167-180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.167-180
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V; Raslanas, S. 2008b. Evaluating the
alternative solutions of wall insulation by multicriteria methods,
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 14(4): 217-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.20
Ginevicius, R.; Gineviciene, V.; Podvezko, V. 2008c. The
effectiveness of enterprise marketing system, in International
Conference on Marketing and Management Sciences (ICMMS), May, 2008,
Athens, Greece, 31-32.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2009. Evaluating the changes in
economic and social development of Lithuanian counties by multiple
criteria methods, Technological and Economic Development of Economy
15(3): 418-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.418-436
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Novotny, M.; Komka, A. 2012.
Comprehensive quantitative evaluation of the strategic potential of an
enterprise, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and
Research 46(1): 65-84.
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Ginevicius, A. 2013. Quantitative
evaluation of enterprise marketing activities, Journal of Business
Economics and Management 14(1): 200-212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.731143
Hilding-Rydevik, T.; Bjarnadottir, H. 2007. Context awareness and
sensitivity in SEA implementation, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 27(7): 666-684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.009
Kaklauskas, A.; Kelpsiene, L.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Bardauskiene, D.;
Kaklauskas, G.; Urbonas, M.; Sorakas, V. 2011. Crisis management in
construction and real estate: conceptual modeling at the micro-, meso
and macro-levels, Land Use Policy 28(1): 280-293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.008
Kaplinski, O. 2010. Review of trans-border co-operation in
construction management between Lithuania, Germany and Poland, Evolution
of Science and Technology 2(1): 5-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/est.2010.22
Kaplinski, O.; Peldschus, F. 2011. The problems of quantitative
evaluation of socio-economic system development: review, Inzinerine
Ekonomika--Enginering Economics 22(4): 345-355.
Ke, Y.; Wang, S. Q.; Chan, A. P. C. 2012. Risk management practice
in China's public-private partnership projects, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 18(5): 675-684.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.723380
Kornov, L.; Thissen, W. 2000. Rationality in decision and
policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment,
Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 18(3): 191-200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767402
Lee, N.; Walsh, F. 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: an
overview, Project Appraisal 7(3): 126-136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02688867.1992.9726853
Marsden, S. 2008. Strategic environmental assessment in
international and European law. London: Earthscan. 330 p.
Marzuki, P. F.; Permadi, H.; Sunaryo, I. 2012. Factors affecting
job satisfaction of workers in Indonesian construction companies,
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 18(3): 299-309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.698889
Maskeliunaite, L.; Sivilevicius, H.; Podvezko, V. 2009. Research on
the quality of passenger transportation by railway, Transport 24(2):
100-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2009.24.100-112
Morgan, R. K. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of
the art, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1): 5-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557
Nilsson, M.; Dalkmann, H. 2001. Decision making and strategic
environmental assessment, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy
& Management 3(3): 305-327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333201000728
Nitz, T.; Brown, L. 2001. SEA must learn how policy making works,
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management 3(3):
329-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S146433320100073X
Noble, B.; Storey, K. 2001. Towards a structured approach to
strategic environmental assessment, Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy & Management 3(4): 483-508.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333201000832
Noble, B. F. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: what is it
and what makes it strategic?, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy
& Management 2(2): 203-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S146433320000014X
Partidario, M. R. 1996. Strategic environmental assessment: key
issues emerging from recent practice, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 16(1): 31-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(95)00106-9
Partidario, M. R. 2000. Elements of an SEA framework: improving the
added-value of SEA, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(6):
647-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00069-X
Partidario, M. R. 2007. Scales and associated data: what is enough
for SEA needs?, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27(5): 460-478.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.004
Partidario, M. R.; Arts, J. 2005. Exploring the concept of
strategic environmental assessment follow-up, Impact Assessment &
Project Appraisal 23(3): 246-257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765481
Podvezko, V. 1984. Design and analysis of complex probabilistic
models of prediction: Disertation [Postroenie i analiz kompleksa modeley
veroiatnostnogo prognozirovaniia] (in Russian).
Podvezko, V. 2006. Complex evaluation of social and economic
processes: Habilitation. Vilnius: Technika.
Podvezko, V. 2009. Application of AHP technique, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 10(2): 181-189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.181-189
Podvezko, V. 2011. The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and
COPRAS, Inzinerine Ekonomika --Engineering Economics 2(22): 134-146.
Podvezko, V; Podviezko, A. 2010. Dependence of multi-criteria
evaluation result on choice of preference functions and their
parameters, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16(1):
143-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.09
Podvezko, V.; Mitkus, S.; Trinkuniene, E. 2010. Complex evaluation
of contracts for construction, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 16(2): 287-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.33
Ramirez, F.; Seco, A. 2012. Civil engineering at the crossroads in
the twenty-first century, Science and Engineering Ethics 18(4): 681-687.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9258-2
Ren, Y.; Skibniewski, M. J.; Jiang, S. 2012. Building information
modeling integrated with electronic commerce material procurement and
supplier performance management system, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 18(5): 642-654.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.719835
Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. 2012. Green innovation in
technology and innovation management an exploratory literature review,
R&D Management 42(2): 180-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00672.x
Sheate, W. R.; Dagg, S.; Richardson, J.; Aschemann, R.; Palerm, J.;
Steen, U. 2003. Integrating the environment into strategic
decision-making: conceptualizing policy SEA, European Environment 13(1):
1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.305
Sivilevicius, H.; Podvezko, V.; Vakriniene, S. 2011. The use of
constrained and unconstrained optimization models in gradation design of
hot mix asphalt mixture, Construction and Building Materials 25(1):
115-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.050
Stoeglehner, G.; Brown, L.; Kornov, L. 2009. SEA and planning:
ownership of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the
key to its effectiveness, Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal
27(2): 111-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/146155109X438742
Tamosaitiene, J.; Bartkiene, L.; Vilutiene, T. 2010. The new
development trend of operational research in civil engineering and
sustainable development as a result of collaboration between
German-Lithuanian-Polish scientific triangle, Journal of Business
Economics and Management 11(2): 316-340.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.16
Urbanaviciene, V.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Seniut, M.
2009. The web-based real estate multiple criteria negotiation decision
support system: a new generation of decision support systems,
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 13(3): 267-286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.267-286
Ustinovicius, L.; Podvezko, V.; Ginevicius, R. 2006. A method of
determining risk zones of investment in real estate, Control and
Cybernetics 35(2): 471-486.
Ustinovicius, L.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Podvezko, V. 2007. Application
of a quantitative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM-1) approach to
the analysis of investments in construction, Control and Cybernetics
36(1): 251-268.
Verheem, R.; Tonk, J. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: one
concept, multiple forms, Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal
19(3): 177-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767411
Vicente, G.; Partidario, M. R. 2006. SEA: enhancing communication
for better environmental decisions, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 26(8): 696-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.06.005
Yang, L.-R.; Chen, J.-H.; Wang, H.-W. 2012. Assessing impacts of
information technology on project success through knowledge management
practice, Automation in Construction 22: 182-191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.016
Zavadskas, E. K.; Ginevicius, R.; Tamosaitiene, J.; Banaitis, A.
2013. Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods in civil
engineering: overview and trends, Bauprozessmanagement und
Immobilienentwicklung: Schriftenreihe des Lehrstuhl fur
Bauprozessmanagement und Immobilienentwicklung. Band. 33 Munchen:
Technische Universitat Munchen. (Lehrstuhl fur Bauprozessmanagement und
Immobilienentwicklung, Band 33): 1-10.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A. 2007. Mehrzielselektion fur
Entscheidungen im Bauwesen. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J.
2009. Multi-attribute decision-making model by applying grey numbers,
Informatica 20(2): 305-320 [online], [cited 17 April 2013]. Vilnius:
Matematikos ir informatikos institutas. ISSN 0868-4952. Available from
Internet: http://www.mii.lt/ informatica/pdf/INFO750.pdf
Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J.;
Kalibatas, D. 2011b. Assessment of the indoor environment of dwelling
houses by applying the COPRAS-G method: Lithuania case study,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 10(5): 637-647.
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2011. Multiple criteria decision
making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview, Technological and
Economic Development of Economy 17(2): 397-427.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J. 2011a. Selection of
construction enterprises management strategy based on the SWOT and
multi-criteria analysis, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
11(4): 1063-1082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60096-X
Zhang, Y.; Ng, S. T. 2012. An ant colony system based decision
support system for construction time-cost optimization, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 18(4): 580-589.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.704164
Jolanta TAMOSAITIENE (a), Oleg KAPLINSK (b)
(a) Department of Construction Technologies and Management, Civil
Engineering Faculty, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio
al. 11, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
(b) Faculty of Architecture, Poznan University of Technology,
60-965 Poznan, Poland
Corresponding author Jolanta Tamosaitiene
E-mail:
[email protected]
Jolanta TAMOSAITIENE. Assoc. Prof, Dr, Vice-Dean of Civil
Engineering Faculty, working in the Department of Construction
Technology and Management at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Lithuania. Since 2013, she has been a member of the Editorial Board of
"The Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production
Management". Since 2011, she is a member of the Editorial Board of
the journal "Technological and Economic Development of
Economy". Since 2009, she has been a member of EURO Working Group
OR in Sustainable Development and Civil Engineering, EWG-ORSDCE. Since
2013, she has been a board member of Engineering, Project, and
Production Management Association. She published 50 research papers.
Research interests: miscellaneous management areas (enterprise,
construction project, etc.), risk assessment, construction project
administration, building life-cycle, construction technology and
organisation, decision-making and grey system theory, Decision-Making
(DM), statistics, optimization, strategies, game theory, intelligent
support system, Sustainable Development: developing of alternative
construction processes, economic and other aspects, sustainable
development challenges for business and management in construction
enterprises, environmental impact processes, and others.
Oleg KAPLINSKI. Professor of Civil Engineering at Poznan University
of Technology, Poland. Honorary Doctor of VGTU. He is a member of Civil
Engineering Committee of Polish Academy of Science and Vice-Chairman of
the Section of the Engineering of Construction Projects in this
Committee. He is a board member of EURO Working Group OR in Sustainable
Development and Civil Engineering. His research interests include the
organisation and modelling of construction processes, theory of
decision-making.
Table 1. Dynamics of the research papers in Socio-Economic Systems
Socio-Economic and Decision-Making in technology and social sciences
Research domains, area and keyword
Year of TECHNOLOGY SCIENCES
publication SEA SES SS ES SEP SES SEA
& DM & DM
2010-2013 324 25 31036 4181 44 2 105
2000-2009 404 116 49725 8346 75 7 --
1990-1999 77 34 18602 3138 20 4 --
1980-1989 4 8 5577 367 2 -- --
1970-1979 -- 1 2209 176 4 1 --
1960-1969 -- -- 321 29 2 -- --
1950-1959 -- -- 60 -- -- -- --
[less than or -- -- 5 -- -- -- --
equal to]1950
Total 809 221 107555 16251 147 14 105
approximately
Year of publication SOCIAL SCIENCES
2010-2013 89 12 20083 391 23 3 25
2000-2009 131 27 33725 1673 20 4 45
1990-1999 42 10 1603 285 11 2 6
1980-1989 2 6 5430 76 2 -- --
1970-1979 -- 1 2464 42 4 -- --
1960-1969 -- -- 497 3 2 -- --
1950-1959 -- -- 80 -- -- -- --
[less than or -- -- 2 -- -- -- --
equal to]1950
Year of
publication SS ES SES & DM SEA& DM
& MCDM & DM
(MCDM) (MCDM)
2010-2013 19 6 2 21
2000-2009 22 3 8 24
1990-1999 2 1 4 3
1980-1989 -- -- --
1970-1979 -- -- 1
1960-1969 -- -- --
1950-1959 -- -- --
[less than or -- -- --
equal to]1950
Total 29 11 15 34
approximately
Year of publication
2010-2013 3 1 1 25
2000-2009 4 -- 2 46
1990-1999 2 1 2 6
1980-1989 -- -- -- --
1970-1979 -- -- -- --
1960-1969 -- -- -- --
1950-1959 -- -- -- --
[less than or -- -- -- --
equal to]1950
SEA--Strategic Environmental Assessment; SEP--Socio-Economic
Processes; SES--Socio-Economic Systems; SS--Social Systems;
ES--Economic Systems; DM--Decision-Making; MCDM--Multi Criteria
Decision-Making.
