Reconceptualizing public participation in environmental assessment as EA civics

Notwithstanding the considerable attention placed on creating meaningful opportunities for public participation in environmental assessment (EA), many participants and those who have reviewed participation processes often find practice sorely wanting. This reality stands in stark juxtaposition to future environmental governance needs, which will require increased openness, deliberation and transdisciplinary knowledge in order to deal with environmental change that is ever more uncertain, complex and conflictual. In this paper, our purpose was to consider how to meet those needs through reconceptualizing public participation as EA civics, founded on an active citizen base, deliberative in nature and orientated toward learning. We do this through developing a new conceptual model of next generation participation processes that is relevant at multiple spatial scales and institutional levels, is applicable to the entire assessment cycle and spans temporal scales through feedback loops. Our EA civics model builds on the “civics approach” to environmental governance and “action civics” by extending their core ideas to participation in EA. We did this by conducting an integrative literature review (including numerous papers we have contributed over the years) and reflecting on our own experiences as EA participants. We apply current thinking on public participation design to our EA civics conceptualization and highlight important design features that have received scant attention. We conclude that EA civics holds promise for fairer and more robust participation processes if all aspects of the model are considered and the actions related to each are implemented.     

Public participation in China's EIA process and the regulation of environmental disputes

This article reconsiders the role that public participation in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process plays in China. Whilst some commentators have found that public participation has largely failed to make an impact in China, this article argues that it has been an important focal point during environmental disputes over siting decisions. The principles of transparency and public participation embodied in EIA legislation have been prominent frames used to legitimize public action against locally-unwanted-land-uses when decisions are taken unilaterally without sufficient public input or notification. In this sense, the EIA becomes a lightning rod for citizen claims-making in relation to siting disputes. At the same time, these principles help depoliticize contention by channeling it within state-approved discourses, enabling officials to buy time and defuse tension. Here, EIA serves as a shock absorber, helping contribute to social stability when disputes break out. By showing how public participation regulations are closely intertwined with contentious politics, this article highlights the paradoxical and contradictory nature of public participation in China.     

Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis

Environmental assessment (EA) aims to enhance environmental awareness and to ensure that environmental values are fully considered in decision-making. In the EA arena, different discourses exist on what EA should aim for and how it functions. We hypothesise that these discourses influence its application in practice as well as its effectiveness in terms of achieving the above goals. For instance, actors who consider EA as a hindrance to fast implementation of their projects will probably apply it as a mandatory checklist, whereas actors who believe that EA can help to develop more environmentally sound decisions will use EIA as a tool to design their initiatives. In this paper we explore discourses on EA in The Netherlands and elaborate on their implications for EA effectiveness. Based on an innovative research design comprising an online survey with 443 respondents and 20 supplementary semi-structured interviews we conclude that the dominant discourse is that EA is mainly a legal requirement; EAs are conducted because they have to be conducted, not because actors choose to do so. EA effectiveness however seems reasonably high, as a majority of respondents perceive that it enhances environmental awareness and contributes to environmental protection. However, the ‘legal requirement’ discourse also results in decision-makers seldom going beyond what is prescribed by EA and environmental law. Despite its mandatory character, the predominant attitude towards EA is quite positive. For most respondents, EA is instrumental in providing transparency of decision-making and in minimising the legal risks of not complying with environmental laws. Differences in discourses seldom reflect extreme opposites. The ‘common ground’ regarding EA provides a good basis for working with EA in terms of meeting legal requirements but at the same time does not stimulate creativity in decision-making or optimisation of environmental values. In countries characterised by less consensual political cultures we may expect more extreme discourses on EA, the consequences of which are reflected upon in this paper.     

Empowerment through emotional connection and capacity building: Public participation through environmental non-governmental organizations

Environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO) plays an important role in promoting public participation in environmental governance. By semi-structural interviews and participant observations, this paper examines a local ENGO in China to explore how the organization can mobilize and organize the local public to participate in environmental governance. The research finds that mobilizing public participation in local environmental governance is a continuous process in which ENGO needs to continuously enable, empower and emotionally invest in the public. Through emotion construction and capacity building, environmental organizations have been empowering the public to participate and play a major role in local environmental governance. Mobilizing public participation in environmental governance can promote the improvement of local environmental problems, but mobilizing and organizing public participation requires sufficient political opportunity space, sufficient funds, and a culture of public participation.     

Modeling the environmental sustainability of timber structures: A case study

A revival in timber buildings and the appreciation of their positive physical and mechanical properties can be explained by the unique environmental credentials of timber products and their versatility. Heightened public awareness of sustainability in the construction sector places timber among the most preferential sustainable materials. There is plenty of previous research on sustainability assessments for complete buildings, although far less on the sustainability assessment of specific parts of the buildings, such as the case of timber structures. The objective of this study is to present an evaluation model, based on MIVES methodology, specifically designed for timber structures, which can be used to enhance the environmental sustainability and to reduce the impacts that are generated, in those areas where it has been awarded a lower score. The application of the model to the largest multi-storey residential timber building in south-western Europe clearly shows that changes to the material, such as its background and environmental certification, generate significant changes to the overall results of the assessment. A sensitivity analysis is then used to verify the analysis of the results and both the validity and the stability of the proposed model.     

Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why,who and how?

Even a cursory glance at the literature on environmental impact assessment (EIA) reveals that public participation is being considered as an integral part of the assessment procedure. Public participation in EIA is commonly deemed to foster democratic policy-making and to render EIA more effective. Yet a closer look at the literature unveils that, beyond this general assertion, opinions of the precise meaning, objectives and adequate representation of public participation in EIA considerably diverge. Against this background, in this article we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the academic debate on public participation in EIA concerning its meaning, objectives and adequate level of inclusiveness. In so doing, we hope to stimulate a more focused debate on the subject, which is key to advancing the research agenda. Furthermore, this paper may serve as a starting point for practitioners involved in defining the role of public participation in EIA practice.     

Setting boundaries of participation in environmental impact assessment

Public participation processes are touted as an effective way to increase the capacity and legitimacy of environmental assessment and the regulatory process that rely on them. Recent changes to the Canadian environmental assessment process narrowed the criteria for who can participate in environmental assessments from any who were interested to those who were most directly affected. This article examines the potential consequences of this change by exploring other areas of Canadian regulatory law where a similar directed affected test has been applied. This new standard risks institutionalizing the long-understood representational bias confronted by more diffuse interest like environmental protection. Restricting participation to the “directly affected” is far too narrow a test for processes like environmental assessment that are designed to determine the public interest.     

The mediation of environmental assessment's influence: What role for power?

Considerable empirical research has been conducted on why policy tools such as environmental assessment (EA) often appear to have ‘little effect’ (after Weiss) on policy decisions. This article revisits this debate but looks at a mediating factor that has received limited attention to-date in the context of EA — political power. Using a tripartite analytical framework, a comparative analysis of the influence and significance of power in mediating environmental policy integration is undertaken. Power is analysed, albeit partially, through an exploration of institutions that underpin social order. Empirically, the research examines the case of a new approach to policy-level EA (essentially a form of Strategic Environmental Assessment) developed by the World Bank and its trial application to urban environmental governance and planning in Dhaka mega-city, Bangladesh. The research results demonstrate that power was intimately involved in mediating the influence of the policy EA approach, in both positive (enabling) and negative (constraining) ways. It is suggested that the policy EA approach was ultimately a manifestation of a corporate strategy to maintain the powerful position of the World Bank as a leading authority on international development which focuses on knowledge generation. Furthermore, as constitutive of an institution and reflecting the worldviews of its proponents, the development of a new approach to EA also represents a significant power play. This leads us to, firstly, emphasise the concepts of strategy and intentionality in theorising how and why EA tools are employed, succeed and fail; and secondly, reflect on the reasons why power has received such limited attention to-date in EA scholarship.     

Reflecting on mainstreaming through environmental appraisal in times of financial crisis — From ‘greening’ to ‘pricing’?

The issue of mainstreaming has witnessed a revival over the last few years, not least because the latest financial crisis has triggered a renewed enthusiasm and a remarkable comeback amongst policy-making and environmental appraisal (EA) communities. Traditionally, environmental mainstreaming is linked to ideas of (environmental) integration and to the ‘greening’ of public policies. Yet, more recent mainstreaming efforts are building on the idea that the achievement of economic growth and of social well-being is not only dependent upon the protection of the environment, but on the fact that the environment should be valued as a source of goods and a provider of services, as well. In this context and despite the many shortcomings that EA has experienced as a mainstreaming tool over the last two decades, calls for EA to engage with ecosystem services and incorporate pricing valuations in its approach to mainstreaming are emerging, raising questions about the role and purpose of EA as an environmental mainstreaming tool.This paper aims to reflect on the role of EA as a mainstreaming tool, in terms of the extent to which it is mainstreaming the environment into policies for sustainable development and changing ‘the mainstream’ by breaking down the false dichotomy of environment and (economic) development. If mainstreaming through EA was to incorporate both greening and pricing logics, could EA be more effective in reframing the environment and development as correlated variables rather than competing variables?     

Capacity strengthening for environmental assessment in Benin

For over three decades, environmental assessment (EA) has gained increasing international recognition as a means of ensuring sustainable development. In light of environmental challenges, Benin has endorsed the principle that a healthy environment is a human right. This concern is manifested by the creation of many institutions for managing environmental issues. But until today, environmental problems are still on the rise and getting worse day by day because of Benin's limited experience in the field of EA. If EA is to be perceived as an instrument of sustainable development, it is important to take into account the achievements and the needs of the country in this field; because we cannot respond properly and adequately in the field of capacity strengthening in EA without first be familiar with what exists, what is fact, and what is needed. In this study, we address and analyze the status of existing resources in the field of EA in Benin with the purpose of identifying the needs for capacity strengthening to enhance environmental assessment effectiveness in the country. The detailed presentation of the results shows that the legislative and institutional resources are available and represent a strong element in the system of environmental management in Benin. However, there is still a room for improvements towards environmental governance before it becomes a solid system of decision supporting all sectors of intervention because the effective application of those laws and texts still constitute big challenges. Below are the main reasons that explain the particular situation: majority of the laws are put in force very late or taken without implementing decree at all; the organizational capabilities have large gaps; the absence of a mechanism for evaluating the needs for strengthening capacity for EA. Recommendations pinpointed three types of needs which must be filled to enhance the effectiveness of EA in Benin: upstream needs of the structure of EA; implementation and enforcement needs; and, maintenance and efficiency needs.     

Life cycle assessment as an analytical tool in strategic environmental assessment. Lessons learned from a case study on municipal energy planning in Sweden

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is explored as an analytical tool in strategic environmental assessment (SEA), illustrated by case where a previously developed SEA process was applied to municipal energy planning in Sweden. The process integrated decision-making tools for scenario planning, public participation and environmental assessment. This article describes the use of LCA for environmental assessment in this context, with focus on methodology and practical experiences. While LCA provides a systematic framework for the environmental assessment and a wider systems perspective than what is required in SEA, LCA cannot address all aspects of environmental impact required, and therefore needs to be complemented by other tools. The integration of LCA with tools for public participation and scenario planning posed certain methodological challenges, but provided an innovative approach to designing the scope of the environmental assessment and defining and assessing alternatives.     

Public participation modes in China's environmental impact assessment process: An analytical framework based on participation extent and conflict level

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) serves as a gatekeeper to prevent environmental pollution, and public participation is a legal requirement in the EIA process that ensures people's awareness of activities that may jeopardize the environment. Recently, with the elevated awareness of environmental protection and increasing environmental sensitivity, EIA has evolved as a means for the public to show their attitudes towards environmental issues. More frequently, public protests against not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) facilities have become a significant challenge in the government's decision-making process. Government officials and EIA practitioners continue to look for a more effective way of public participation and aim to establish a platform that can involve related stakeholders. However, current research on public participation is limited to individual case studies or lacks a systematic approach to analysing diversified modes of public participation, which may differentiate levels of acceptance by the government in the EIA process and consequently lead to different effects. Therefore, from the perspectives of the participation extent and conflict level, this paper aims to establish an integrated framework to categorize different public participation patterns in EIA practices and to analyse their characteristics, such as preferences and the action logic arising from different stakeholders, including the government and public. The paper concludes that collaborative public participation is a possible way to strengthen the effectiveness of public involvement within the Chinese context.     

Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: Discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development

There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of impact assessment tools, which matters both because of the threat to future practice of the tools which are frequently perceived to be ineffective, and because of the disillusionment that can ensue, and controversy generated, amongst stakeholders in a decision context where opportunities for meaningful debate have not been provided. In this article we regard debate about the meaning of effectiveness in impact assessment as an inevitable consequence of increased participation in environmental decision-making, and therefore frame effectiveness based on an inclusive democracy role to mean the extent to which impact assessment can accommodate civil society discourse. Our aim is to investigate effectiveness based on this framing by looking at one type of impact assessment – environmental impact assessment (EIA) – in two controversial project proposals: the HS2 rail network in England; and the A4DS motorway in the Netherlands. Documentary analysis and interviews held with key civil society stakeholders have been deployed to identify discourses that were mobilised in the cases. EIA was found to be able to accommodate only one out of four discourses that were identified; for the other three it did not provide the space for the arguments that characterised opposition. The conclusion in relation to debate on framings of effectiveness is that EIA will not be considered effective by the majority of stakeholders. EIA was established to support decision-making through a better understanding of impacts, so its ineffectiveness is unsurprising when its role is perceived to be broader. However, there remains a need to map discourses in different decision contexts and to analyse the extent to which the range of discourses are accommodated throughout the decision process, and the role of impact assessment in those processes, before recommendations can be made to either improve impact assessment effectiveness, or whether it is simply perceptions of effectiveness that need to be improved.     

Disparate perceptions about uncertainty consideration and disclosure practices in environmental assessment and opportunities for improvement

The need to better address uncertainties in environmental assessment (EA) is well known, but less known is how those involved in, or affected by, EA processes understand and perceive uncertainties and how uncertainties are considered and disclosed. Based on a survey of 77 Canadian EA practitioners, regulators, and interest groups, this paper explores uncertainties in the EA process, uncertainty consideration and disclosure in EA practice and decision-making, and opportunities for improved disclosure. Nearly 80% of participants indicated that all EAs contain uncertainty; however, uncertainty disclosure was described as poor. Only 15% indicated that uncertainties are sufficiently acknowledged in practice and, when disclosed, considered by decision makers. Perceptions about uncertainty differed significantly between those who conducted EAs compared to those potentially affected by development, suggesting that either communication about uncertainty is poor, or participants' understandings about what is considered ‘good’ practice are very different. Almost half of the participants believe that there is overconfidence in impact predictions and mitigation measures, and the majority indicated that if uncertainties were more openly reported then EA would be a better tool for informing decisions. Most participants did not believe that EAs that openly disclose uncertainties lack credibility; and contrary to proponents' tendencies to limit disclosure, participants perceived limited risk of disclosure in terms of project approval. The majority of participants did not believe that there was sufficient guidance available on how to report uncertainties, or on how to use that information in decision-making. Results indicate a substantial need to better understand how uncertainties are viewed and dealt with in EA; the importance of uncertainty disclosure and consideration in EA; and the risks and benefits of uncertainty disclosure to proponents, decision makers, and the public. We identify several opportunities for improving the practice of uncertainty consideration and disclosure.     

Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment

One of the defining characteristics of sustainability assessment as a form of impact assessment is that it provides a forum for the explicit consideration of the trade-offs that are inherent in complex decision-making processes. Few sustainability assessments have achieved this goal though, and none has considered trade-offs in a holistic fashion throughout the process. Recent contributions such as the Gibson trade-off rules have significantly progressed thinking in this area by suggesting appropriate acceptability criteria for evaluating substantive trade-offs arising from proposed development, as well as process rules for how evaluations of acceptability should occur. However, there has been negligible uptake of these rules in practice. Overall, we argue that there is inadequate consideration of trade-offs, both process and substantive, throughout the sustainability assessment process, and insufficient considerations of how process decisions and compromises influence substantive outcomes. This paper presents a framework for understanding and managing both process and substantive trade-offs within each step of a typical sustainability assessment process. The framework draws together previously published literature and offers case studies that illustrate aspects of the practical application of the framework. The framing and design of sustainability assessment are vitally important, as process compromises or trade-offs can have substantive consequences in terms of sustainability outcomes delivered, with the choice of alternatives considered being a particularly significant determinant of substantive outcomes. The demarcation of acceptable from unacceptable impacts is a key aspect of managing trade-offs. Offsets can be considered as a form of trade-off within a category of sustainability that are utilised to enhance preferred alternatives once conditions of impact acceptability have been met. In this way they may enable net gains to be delivered; another imperative for progress to sustainability. Understanding the nature and implications of trade-offs within sustainability assessment is essential to improving practice.     

Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period

Based on the samples of 113,468 publications on environmental assessment (EA) from the past 20 years, we used a bibliometric analysis to study the literature in terms of trends of growth, subject categories and journals, international collaboration, geographic distribution of publications, and scientific research issues. By applying thresholds to network centralities, a core group of countries can be distinguished as part of the international collaboration network. A frequently used keywords analysis found that the priority in assessment would gradually change from project environmental impact assessment (EIA) to strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Decision-theoretic approaches (i.e., environmental indicator selection, life cycle assessment, etc.), along with new technologies and methods (i.e., the geographic information system and modeling) have been widely applied in the EA research field over the past 20 years. Hot spots such as “biodiversity” and “climate change” have been emphasized in current EA research, a trend that will likely continue in the future. The h-index has been used to evaluate the research quality among countries all over the world, while the improvement of developing countries' EA systems is becoming a popular research topic. Our study reveals patterns in scientific outputs and academic collaborations and serves as an alternative and innovative way of revealing global research trends in the EA research field.     

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

This paper addresses the future of environmental assessment (EA) practice in light of a rapidly changing world. We apply a literature review-based methodology to firstly identify key global megatrends and then reflect upon the implications for EA practice based on some known challenges. The key megatrends identified are synthesised into six categories: i) demographics, ii) urbanization, iii) technological innovation, iv) power shifts, v) resource scarcity and vi) climate change. We then discuss the implications of these megatrends for EA practice against four known EA challenges namely: dealing with i) complexity and uncertainty, ii) efficiency, iii) significance and iv) communication and participation. Our analysis suggests important implications for EA practice such as: increased difficulties with accuracy of prediction; the need for facilitative adaptation; an increase in the occurrence of unexpected events; higher expectations for procedural efficiency; challenges with information and communication management; dealing with significance judgements; and mitigation amidst resource scarcity and increasing pressures on earth systems. The megatrends underscore the need for continued evolution of EA thinking and practice, especially moving away from seeking a predictable single future or outcome towards the possibility of multiple scenarios with associated adaptability and enhanced system resilience capable of responding to rapid change.     

Integrating SDGs in environmental assessment: Unfolding SDG functions in emerging practices

Debates concerning the relation between Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and environmental assessment (EA) have long suggested their integration in some form. The purpose of this paper is to go beyond conceptual debates to explore practices of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in terms of how they change in response to the Agenda 2030. A thorough web search for EA reports integrating SDGs resulted in 45 cases from five continents, which were then analyzed using a framework on levels of integration to examine and reflect on practice. The results show that in the majority of reports, SDGs are merely mentioned with no further function, that there is a trend towards focusing on positive impacts and that there is a high variation in how contributions to SDGs are assessed and displayed. The paper concludes by identifying key directions for further research, such as ways to further understand practices and to close the gap between theoretical considerations and EA practice.     

Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: a regional framework for aquatic ecosystems

Sustainable development of the aquatic environment depends upon routine and defensible cumulative effects assessment (CEA). CEA is the process of predicting the consequences of development relative to an assessment of existing environmental quality. Theoretically, it provides an on-going mechanism to evaluate if levels of development exceed the environment's assimilative capacity; i.e., its ability to sustain itself. In practice, the link between CEA and sustainable development has not been realized because CEA concepts and methods have developed along two dichotomous tracks. One track views CEA as an extension of the environmental assessment (EA) process for project developments. Under this track, stressor-based (S-B) methods have been developed where the emphasis is on local, project-related stressors, their link with aquatic indicators, and the potential for environmental effects through stressor-indicator interactions. S-B methods focus on the proposed development and prediction of project-related effects. They lack a mechanism to quantify existing aquatic quality especially at scales broader than an isolated development. This limitation results in the prediction of potential effects relative to a poorly defined baseline state. The other track views CEA as a broader, regional assessment tool where effects-based (E-B) methods specialize in quantification of existing aquatic effects over broad spatial scales. However, the predictive capabilities of E-B methods are limited because they are retrospective, i.e., the stressor causing the effect is identified after the effect has been measured. When used in isolation, S-B and E-B methods do not address CEA in the context necessary for sustainable development. However, if the strengths of these approaches were integrated into a holistic framework for CEA, an operational mechanism would exist to better monitor and assess sustainable development of our aquatic resources. This paper reviews the existing conceptual basis of CEA in Canada including existing methodologies, limitations and strengths. A conceptual framework for integrating project-based and regional-based CEA is presented.     

Ethical implications of democratic theory for U.S. public participation in environmental impact assessment

Traditional mechanisms for public participation in environmental impact assessment under U.S. federal law have been criticized as ineffective and unable to resolve conflict. As these mechanisms are modified and new approaches developed, we argue that participation should be designed and evaluated not only on practical grounds of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, but also on ethical grounds based on democratic ideals. In this paper, we review and synthesize modern democratic theory to develop and justify four ethical principles for public participation: equal opportunity to participate, equal access to information, genuine deliberation, and shared commitment. We then explore several tensions that are inherent in applying these ethical principles to public participation in EIA. We next examine traditional NEPA processes and newer collaborative approaches in light of these principles. Finally, we explore the circumstances that argue for more in-depth participatory processes. While improved EIA participatory processes do not guarantee improved outcomes in environmental management, processes informed by these four ethical principles derived from democratic theory may lead to increased public engagement and satisfaction with government agency decisions.