*3.2. Primary Research Methodology*

The objective of the primary research was to document the current situation regarding the selection, adequacy, and implementation of current methods and techniques, as well as the current methodological guidance, through the filling out of questionnaires by practitioners experienced in the composition of SEIA. In total, 14 practitioners filled out the questionnaire, while officials from the competent authority of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy were unable to respond to similar requests, citing their heavy workload. The questions were the following:


#### **4. Results**

The results of the research, which was carried out based on the previously described methodology, are presented in three parts: Applied methods and techniques on a global level, applied methods and techniques in Greece, and primary research findings.

#### *4.1. Applied Methods and Techniques on a Global Level*

Following the comprehensive examination of environmental reports in Table 5, a categorization of the SEA methods and techniques by step, according to the frequency of their use, was carried out, as can be observed in Table 6.

Noteworthy conclusions can be drawn from Table 6. Initially, only a limited number of the methods and techniques referenced in international literature were implemented, ten to be precise. Practitioners therefore tend to utilize methods and techniques which they have already used previously. In other words, their professional experience played a crucial role in the selection of the appropriate methods and techniques.

Out of all the utilized methods and techniques, only the GIS and modelling are capable of processing quantitative data, while the data utilized by the others is primarily qualitative. In other words, practitioners exhibited a clear bias in favor of simple, expedited processes, which can be implemented regardless of the quality and quantity of utilized data, with a minimum of personnel and equipment.

The most frequently used methods and techniques were the expert judgment and the matrices. The former was implemented, for the most part, during the screening and scoping processes, while the second was implemented during the determination, evaluation, and assessment of the immediate, indirect, and cumulative impacts, as well as during the specification of measures designed to mitigate these impacts. Of the remaining methods and techniques, the participatory methods were widely implemented during the determination of the extent and breadth of implementation (scoping), while certain reports, the majority of which were carried out in the United Kingdom, also implemented them in the other SEA steps. The GIS were utilized for the production of maps and composite diagrams, and were widely implemented, in tandem with literature/case review, primarily in the description of the current situation. Finally, the majority of reports included the utilization of indicators in order to track the impacts of the plans and programs.

A point of particular interest is the variation in the number of utilized methods and techniques at each individual SEA step. In particular, only two methods and techniques were utilized during the monitoring of impacts. By contrast, the documented methods and techniques utilized during the steps of determination and evaluation of impacts, and determination and comparison of alternative choices were more numerous; eight and seven, respectively. The notable variation in the utilization of methods and techniques during each individual SEA step indicates that, during the screening process, for example, the almost universal implementation of expert judgments yielded precise, objective results, regardless of the scale, nature, and objective of the plans and programs. This is in contrast with the step of determination and comparison of alternative choices, in which the variety of selected methods and techniques indicates the opposite conclusion.



Finally, during the examination of the methodological guidance for the composition of SEA, it occurred that only half of the examined cases referred explicitly to the use of guidance handbooks. In particular, the reports carried out in the United Kingdom and Ireland presented in detail the guidance documents which were utilized, with the universal application of the manual "A practical guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive", while the SEA Transport Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia 2017–2030, which was written in Croatian, contains a general reference to guidance manuals of the European Commission.

#### *4.2. Applied Methods and Techniques in Greece*

A preliminary point worth noting is that during the examination of selected SEA, it was found that guidance manuals for the selection of the most appropriate methodological approach were directly referred to in only seven cases. The manual "Handbook on SEA for Cohesion Policy 2007–2013" was universally implemented during the processes of particular SEA. The general objective of this manual was the advancement of the utilization of SEA for the incorporation of environmental issues in the plans and programs of the EE "Cohesion Policy" during the period of 2007–2013. Two cases utilized the manual "A practical guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive", which is a guide for the implementation of SEA in the plans and programs of the United Kingdom that fall within the scope of the SEA Directive. Furthermore, of particular note is the "circular for the observation of Strategic Environmental Analysis of Operational Programmes of Operational Period 2007–2013", issued by the Ministry of Finance and the Economy, which concerns the basic principles, scope, and general organization of the environmental monitoring of Operational Programs. One SEA, that of the Strategic Framework of Transportation Investment, utilized yearly reports which were produced by TERM, established by the European Environmental Service in 2000 with the objective of determining and utilizing the most appropriate indicators for the monitoring of transportation and the environment. However, the aforementioned manuals do not contain a distinct methodological guide for the comprehension and selection of the most appropriate methods and techniques in each separate case. Essentially, their almost exclusive focus is on directions for the compliance with the demands of the SEA Directive. Even though there are references to methods and techniques, these are indicative and refer to only a few of the SEA processes. The remaining SEA exhibited references to an overview of the relevant literature, which includes books and relevant reports prepared for the corresponding plans and programs.

In order to examine and evaluate the utilized SEA methods and techniques of Table 4, they were categorized according to their frequency of use by step, as depicted in Table 7.

The first conclusion which can be drawn from Table 7 is that only 12 of the 23 total documented methods and techniques were implemented in SEA processes in the entirety of the plans and programs. Subsequently, it was observed that the practitioners displayed an evident tendency to choose qualitative methods and techniques, with 10 out of a total of 12 being used for the processing of exclusively qualitative data. The expert judgment occupies a prominent position among them, due to being implemented most frequently and at the majority of SEIA steps. It is, however, of note that in most of the SEIA, this particular method was documented as an assessment provided by members of the team which composed the study who specialized in a particular field (e.g., geology, etc.). There are no references, in any study, to whether a particular technique, such as the Delphi Technique, was utilized in order to produce the assessment, or if this was produced solely based on the training, knowledge, or experience of the individual team members. Accordingly, an equally popular technique was the utilization of risk assessment matrices, primarily in table (or register) form, during the steps of environmental screening, determination, and evaluation of alternative choices, as well as in the evaluation and assessment of environmental impacts. Literature/case review was often utilized, primarily during the steps which required the use of bibliographical data, the most prominent of which was the description of the current situation. Finally, special reference must be made to the participatory methods. Despite the fact that they were not widely implemented in the majority of SEIA, they were

applied during both the determination of alternative choices and in the selection of the final proposal in the SEIA of local spatial plans (MMP, OCSRP), in tandem with the completion of their first step. In particular, in the General Urban Plan of the Municipal Unit of Kallithea of Rhodes island and the General Urban Plan of the Municipality of Argithea—Regional Unit of Karditsa, the participatory methods included the transmission of the first step of the report to the competent public authorities. This was followed by a concurrent publication for the interested public, both with a relevant post in a specific website and open presentations.

The quantitative methods and techniques are on the opposite end of the frequency of use spectrum. In particular, out of all the documented methods and techniques which process quantitative data, only the GIS and modeling were utilized. The former was utilized during the majority of steps, albeit primarily in the description of the current state of the environment, for the production of maps and composite diagrams. The utilization of the latter, on the other hand, was notably limited in scope, a characteristic example being the use of a model for the population growth of the municipal unit of Argithea until 2031, with the application of various different scenarios during the implementation of the local spatial plan.

According to Table 7, the variation in the number of methods and techniques utilized during each separate SEA step is particularly noteworthy. Only two methods and techniques were selected in both the processes of prevention, mitigation, and treatment of environmental impacts and for their monitoring. In the first case, the expert judgment, which was essentially an assessment produced by the research team, was universally implemented in the SEIA, while in the second the method of indicators, was preferred, in order to ensure the capability of timely discovery and treatment of likely impacts. By contrast, the step of determination and evaluation of alternative choices featured the utilization of no less than seven different methods and techniques. The implementation of various methods and techniques, as well as combinations thereof, during this particular step, demonstrates that each selection of the appropriate methods and techniques directly correlates with factors such as, for example, the sector, the scope of implementation of the plans and programs, etc. Finally, the plans which underwent the environmental screening process, despite utilizing a total of five different methods and techniques, all utilized the compatibility appraisal in combination with the use of matrices.

This methodological approach, i.e., the preference of the practitioners for particular methods and techniques, is substantiated, for the most part indirectly, by a large number of them. Initially, the breadth of differentiation in both the content and the planning level, which is observable in the plans and programs subject to SEA, in addition to the fact that the guidance books describe a wide variety of methods and techniques, without clear instructions, has led practitioners to select a limited number of methods and techniques. Implicitly, the existing knowledge and experience of the practitioners is a crucial criterion in the selection of the methods and techniques, which often supersedes others, such as the scale of implementation of the plan or program, etc.

Accordingly, the evident bias in favor of qualitative, instead of quantitative, methods and techniques, is due to two crucial factors. On the one hand, the immaturity of the plans and programs, due to the lack of detailed characteristics of the projects and activities which comprise them, often makes the quantitative evaluation of environmental changes impossible. On the other hand, the quantitative methods and techniques constitute, for the most part, composite computational tools which require massive volumes of data, as well as specialized personnel and equipment. Essentially, due to the similarity of the quantitative methods and techniques with the EIA approach, their use is made difficult at the SEA level of plans and programs.

To conclude, the breadth of the methods and techniques utilized in the SEA under examination is relatively limited, and is comprised of the most common qualitative methods and a small number of quantitative techniques. In order to achieve the SEA objectives, practitioners selected, according to their own publications, a composite of methods and techniques, i.e., the combined utilization of two or more methods and techniques. This was observed in the steps of specification and evaluation of alternative choices, and in the assessment and evaluation of environmental impacts.


**Table 7.** Utilized SEA methods and techniques by key SEA steps. used in 50% or more of the examined cases, ++ used in 26–49% of the examined cases, + used in 25% or less of the examined cases.

#### *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 3310
