Environmental impact assessments and public participation: Goals,

Implications, and Lessons for Public Policy Making

ABSTRACT
The necessity to increase public involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
the effectiveness of alternate procedures in accomplishing this aim have become major
themes in the EIA literature in recent years. Because the advantages of public participation
are frequently taken for granted, it can be challenging to decide how to effectively pursue it.
This is partly because the underlying justification for greater public participation is
occasionally poorly stated. The justifications for requesting public engagement are also
extremely varied and frequently incongruent. Few studies have examined the effects of
various types and levels of public engagement on public decision-making based on EIA, and
there has also been little discussion of how public participation in EIA debates links to
discussions about participation in policy.

INTRODUCTION

Even a quick look at recent material on EIA and related decision-making processes reveals
that researchers and practitioners are heavily focused on the topic of public participation in
EIA. Although some academics have suggested that public engagement may, under certain
conditions, have unfavourable effects, the overwhelming consensus is that it is extremely
desirable, and the main challenge for academics and practitioners is to discover ways to make
it more efficient. For instance, according to Stewart and Sinclair, "The benefits of public
participation have been clearly outlined in both theoretical and practical terms but the design
and implementation of specific public participation initiatives remain disputed."

The exact justification for wanting more public participation is not usually clearly stated,
maybe because its advantages are thought to be evident and significant. Multiple reasons are
frequently mentioned without distinction between them, without explanation of how they
connect to one another, or without consideration of whether some potential benefits are left
off because they are not deemed important. As an illustration, Momtaz and Gladstone state
that the goals of public participation include "sharing information, involving the community
at an early stage of decision making, taking community aspirations into considerations, and
giving the community the ability to influence the outcome of decision making." Stewart and
Sinclair envision an even broader range of advantages, such as access to local knowledge, a
wider range of potential solutions, the avoidance of expensive litigation, the strengthening of
the democratic fabric of society, serving as a vehicle for individual and community
empowerment, and promoting broadly based individual and social learning, facilitating the
transition to sustainability.

The identification of different goals and the presumption that the main challenge is how to
seek effective participation both pose a number of issues. First off, many of the objectives
call for very distinct ideas, actions, and results. For example, disseminating knowledge to the
public is fundamentally different from giving a community the authority to influence
government policies or from "empowering" people and groups. Given this, it is challenging
to envision how one might approach the question of "effective participation" without first
making a clear distinction between various purposes and taking into account what each
entails and implies. Second, the literature's suggested unanimity regarding the advantages of
involvement is actually more apparent than real, reflecting the reality that the phrase can refer
to a variety of things. The topic of public engagement is contentious and quite political in the
real world of public policy decisions. For example, Chinese authorities might be eager to
encourage public participation if it increases the calibre of information available to
government decision-makers, but they might not be as responsive to Yang's call for the public
to be "given power to contribute to and influence decision-making by participating in the
formulation of a proposal, the entire EIA process, the implementation and evaluation of a
proposal."

Further issue is that even some of the particular goals mentioned in the literature are difficult
to define and analyse. For instance, allowing for the consideration of community interests or
ambitions in decision-making is an often mentioned objective. However, such a mandate
might cover a wide range of strategies, from considering community opinions as one of the
many factors to be taken into account when making decisions to automatically rejecting
choices that do not receive support from the community.

Another issue is that it is rarely realised that various elements of public engagement might
interact. It seems to be thought that using public involvement as a strategy for community
empowerment can occur independently of using it to improve the quality of empirical
information for decision makers. When the possible interaction between various forms of
participation is acknowledged, which is a rarity, it is typically treated superficially and with
the presumption that these elements will likely reinforce one another. For instance, Sinclair et
al. observe that "on-ramps to more deliberative procedures" may be provided through more
"passive" types of engagement. Del Furia and Wallace-Jones acknowledge that there might
be a relationship between the many objectives they outline for public participation, but they
also assume that the accomplishment of one objective can help with the accomplishment of
another and restrict further discussion to a footnote. In actuality, there is no logical
justification to rule out the possibility that pursuing one goal can compromise pursuing
another. It's important to look into their relationship in more detail.

In fact, broad models of public engagement in policymaking also lack the ability to take into
account the interactions between various forms of public participation. This brings up another
problem. Rarely are the wider implications of public policy making for public engagement in
EIA examined. It seems important to take into account how concerns about public
participation in EIA relate to broader discussions about public participation in policy making
given that EIA is, by and large, undertaken as a component of public policy decisions
regarding (primarily) large-scale project development and (less frequently) public
programmes and policies. One idea for increasing public involvement in EIA, for instance, is
to "empower" certain communities. What are the broader implications of such
"empowerment" for public policymaking, and how are public policy actors likely to respond
to community-level demands for greater power?

In three ways, this article aims to contribute to the debate on public participation in EIA. The
first involves the modest but important goal of distinguishing clearly between a variety of
distinct purposes for public participation. The second step is to consider how such goals can
be interpreted and valued, drawing on a broader body of literature on public participation in
policymaking. The third consideration is how experience with public participation in EIA can
aid in evaluating the utility of various models of public participation in policy making in
general. The primary goal in pursuing the second and third goals is not to provide definitive
answers to the issues raised, but to highlight their importance and the fact that they deserve
more attention from researchers.

Before proceeding, one definitional issue concerning the term "public participation" should
be clarified. The concept has long been debated and defined in a variety of ways. Some
analysts argue that the term should only be used when the public is actively involved and
decision makers are significantly influenced by that involvement. A restrictive definition,
however, is not appropriate given that one of the article's main goals is to identify and
investigate the full range of ways in which members of the public interact with EIA
processes. As a result, 'public participation' is defined here as any form of interaction between
government and corporate actors and the general public that occurs as part of EIA processes.

Because EIA occurs as part of public decision making processes, it is logical to categorise the
goals of public participation into three broad categories based on their relationship to those
processes: as an aid to decision making that is separate from the participating public; as a
mechanism for achieving a role for the public as joint decision makers; and as a mechanism
for reconstituting decision making structures. No assumption is made in making this
distinction that these areas are discrete in the sense that the boundaries between them can be
precisely delineated, or that causal chains do not run between them, with actions in one
having consequences in others. However, they do involve conceptual distinctions that are
useful in identifying different approaches and exploring their implications. Table 1
summarises some of the more specific purposes covered by each broad approach; these are
discussed in the sections that follow.

Section snippets
Provision of information
The public may be involved in EIA as information recipients, with decision makers providing
details about proposed projects or activities, their timing, and the expected impact on specific
groups and localities. While not requiring the public's active participation and considered of
little value in some cases (see Section 5), such information provision can be critical in
allowing affected groups to prepare for project impacts. It could be a necessary prerequisite
for

Public participation in decision making

This broad perspective is distinguished by the fact that participation includes an element of
public control over decisions made through existing decision-making structures and
processes. The extent of this control, as well as the mechanisms used to exercise it, can vary
greatly.

Empowering marginalised groups

The broad approaches outlined in Participation as decision-making input, Public participation

in decision making assumes that existing decision-making structures and the power
distribution they reflect are acceptable and will not change. In the first case, public or
corporate officials will make decisions based in part on public information and ideas. The
second approach assumes that the current distribution of power allows citizens to participate
in decision-making.

A broader view: public participation in policymaking

How should these various approaches to public participation be interpreted and valued? In
this regard, the general literature on public participation in policymaking may be useful. In
turn, experience with public participation in EIA may provide useful insights into the utility
and validity of public participation models included in that literature.

The approaches described above could be interpreted within frameworks that establish a
hierarchy of forms of communication.

Conclusion
This article proposed a classification of public participation in EIA purposes based on three
fundamental relationships between the public and decision-making structures and processes.
These include public input to decisions made apart from the public, public participation in
decision making, and attempts to change the distribution of power in society in order to
reconfigure decision making. There are ten distinct purposes identified, each of which varies
significantly in degree.

REFRENCES
1 WeblerT. et al. - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019592559500043E