Description Method(s) Strengths Weaknesses References Compare biomass Comparative case Evaluates Unclear how (Gallardo and crop planning in study; checklist procedural, various dimensions Bond 2011) São and in based on substantive, are connected; England effectiveness transactive, and transactive dimensions normative effectiveness dimensions measured only temporally Case study of SEA Case study; fuzzy Evaluates Relies on one (Wang et al. 2012) for city planning analytical procedural, stakeholder group hierarchy process substantive, and normative effectiveness; compares importance of dimensions; integrate stakeholder values into one model Theoretical of Theoretical Evaluates links of Unclear how SA (Bond et al. 2013a; effectiveness discussion and procedural, should become 2013b) dimensions for SA literature review substantive, more iterative transactive, and normative dimensions; explicitly incorporates pluralism and learning; identifies central role of procedural dimension
Description Method(s) Strengths Weaknesses References Compare biomass crop planning in São and in England Comparative case study; checklist based on effectiveness dimensions Evaluates procedural, substantive, transactive, and normative dimensions Unclear how various dimensions are connected; transactive effectiveness measured only temporally (Gallardo and Bond 2011) Case study of SEA for city planning Case study; fuzzy analytical hierarchy process Evaluates procedural, substantive, and normative effectiveness; compares importance of dimensions; integrate stakeholder values into one model Relies on one stakeholder group (Wang et al. 2012) Theoretical of effectiveness dimensions for SA Theoretical discussion and literature review Evaluates links of procedural, substantive, transactive, and normative dimensions; explicitly incorporates pluralism and learning; identifies central role of procedural dimension Unclear how SA should become more iterative (Bond et al. 2013a; 2013b)
1-s2.0-S0195925516303420-mmc1.docx