Speaker
Description
Environmental assessments (EAs) serve as key instruments for evaluating the socio-environmental impacts of large-scale infrastructure projects (Hanna and Arnold, 2022). They are essential for the implementation of energy and mobility projects as part of a sustainability transformation. Public participation is a crucial component of EAs, offering opportunities for stakeholders to engage, shape their environment, and influence decision-making (Sinclair et al., 2022).
However, formally implemented public participation in EAs is often criticised as insufficient – too late in the process, with no possibility to alter a project, and not designed for everybody, just to name a few (Doelle and Majekolagbe, 2023; Elling and Nielsen, 2018). This contribution investigates how legally regulated participation processes in EA procedures align with the criteria of “good” participation outlined in the literature. The goal is to develop a systematic approach for identifying gaps in legal participation frameworks and EA practices that can be applied across different countries.
The contribution focuses on environmental impact assessments of linear infrastructures in Germany where railway, road, and power grid projects undergo a formal approval process called the Planfeststellungsverfahren. These processes are complex, time intensive, involve numerous stakeholders and have to deal with diverse spatial impacts (Gharehbaghi et al., 2022).
The research follows three steps: First, key elements of public participation in EAs will be identified through a structured literature review of key publications. Second, the legal foundations of planning approval procedures and publicly available guidelines from permitting authorities will be analysed to determine at what process stage which form of public participation is mandated. Current debates on streamlining and the simplification of planning and assessment processes (given their potential impact on public participation) will also be considered. This analysis will be conducted through systematic, category-led document review and expert interviews.
Two outputs are expected: First, a process visualisation of the stages of planning and assessment showing when forms of formal public participation occur. Second, a list of criteria for good public participation and whether they are met by just fulfilling formal requirements. It is expected that processes that only fulfill the minimum formal requirements, fail to meet essential participation criteria in EAs. The identified gaps provide a basis for further research on non-formal participation methods and their potential to enhance the quality of environmental assessment.
References
Doelle, M., Majekolagbe, A., 2023. Meaningful public engagement and the integration of climate considerations into impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 101, 107103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107103
Elling, B., Nielsen, H.N., 2018. The misleading of public participation in environmental assessment – exploring four infrastructure cases in Denmark. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 20, 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1381591
Gharehbaghi, K., Hosseinian-Far, A., Hilletofth, P., 2022. The predicaments of environmental impact assessment (EIA) for transport infrastructure: an examination of policy stagnation and progress. TG 16, 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-04-2022-0055
Hanna, K., Arnold, L., 2022. An introduction to environmental impact assessment, in: Routledge Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Routledge, London, pp. 3–21. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429282492-2
Sinclair, A.J., Doelle, M., Gibson, R.B., 2022. Next generation impact assessment: Exploring the key components. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 40, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1945891
| Keywords | environmental assessment; public participation; large-scale infrastructure; energy and mobility transition |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
