Stakeholder’s opinion of public participation in Thai environmental and health impact assessment

ABSTRACT

This paper evaluates the efficacy of public participation in the EHIA (environmental and health impact assessment) process of Thailand based on the opinions of 53 interviewees from various stakeholder groups in relation to certain public participation criteria. The evaluation revealed that public participation in Thai EHIA was partially effective. The project proponents provide an opportunity to anybody interested in the project to get involved from the scoping stage onwards. However, the important decisions are already made before the public can get involved. In addition, government officers and non-governmental organizations appear to be able to influence outcomes of public hearings more concretely than the project-affected people due to the highly technical nature of the discussions. The stakeholders were questioned whether their concerns were taken seriously during the decision-making process. In our conclusions, we make three major recommendations to enhance the public participation process and practice in Thai EHIA, based upon: (1) stakeholder analysis, (2) public participation in EHIA guideline revision, and (3) validation the authenticity of the concerns raised by stakeholders.

KEYWORDS:

• Public participation
• public consultation
• environmental and health impact assessment
• EHIA: Environmental and Health Impact Assessment
• Thailand

Introduction

The Thai government has accelerated infrastructure projects in transportation, tele-communications, hydro-dams, and ports in order to promote investment and to boost economic growth (Watanabe 2003; Pansuwan and Routray 2011). Although economic development since the 1980s has expanded the country’s GDP (Hewison 1992), Thailand has been confronted with various negative repercussions such as income inequality (Ikemoto and Uehara 2000; Deolalikar 2003), environmental problems (Barbier 1987; Office of the Forest Land Management 2017), and often severe conflict between the government and local people in terms of natural resources allocation (Chaisomphob et al. 2004; Chompunth 2017; Sumnaunyen et al. 2013).

In order to address the negative impacts of economic development, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been applied in Thailand as a tool to screen economic development projects since 1981 (Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning 2006; Suwanteep et al. 2017). Later in 2007, section 67 of the Thai Constitution B.E.2550 additionally required that a health impact assessment be part of the EIA process. Thus, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment listed 12 types of projects that should be subject to EHIA (environmental and health impact assessment) as part of the approval process (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2017). As a result, Thailand is one of a few countries in the world where EHIA is mandated (Chanchitpricha and Bond 2018).

Public participation is being considered as an integral part of the impact assessment procedure to ensure sustainable development (Shepherd and Bowler 1997; Palerm 2000; Hartley and Wood 2005; Doelle and Sinclair 2006; Glucker et al. 2013). At the global level, Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and the Aarhus Convention firstly recognized the need to involve the public in decisions relating to environmental issues (Hartley and Wood 2005). Both developed and developing countries responded to these global initiatives by converting the principle of public participation into practice. For examples, public hearings are a requirement for environmental assessment in Canada at the federal level since 1992 (Doelle and Sinclair 2006). In Japan, the public can express their opinion at the scoping stage and at the draft environmental impact statement stage since 1999 (Suwanteep et al. 2017). The Chinese government established an instruction for public participation in the technical guidelines for EIA since 2006 (Brombal et al. 2017). Since 1992, the environmental impact statement system in the Philippines has had provisions for public involvement including public consultation and public hearings (Cooper and Elliott 2000). The amendments of EIA Notification in 1997 made public hearings mandatory in India (Sainath and Rajan 2015). In Pakistan, public participation is mandatory under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 and needs to take place during the competent authority review stage of EIA (Nadeem and Fischer 2011).

Public participation affords stakeholders the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2017). Stakeholders’ involvement through public participation process in environmental assessment leads to better quality decisions and increased trust among the parties involved (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Reed 2008). Stakeholders’ views toward public participation in EHIA processes are therefore important. Many scholars developed key elements of successful public participation such as early involvement (Videira et al. 2006; Chompunth 2017), true representativeness (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Chompunth 2017), educating the participants (Beierle 1998; Hartley and Wood 2005), and transparency of the process (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Chompunth 2017). Although the public participation guideline for EHIA has been implemented in Thailand since 2010, there are gaps between public participation theory and practice. The literature reviews found many criticisms on the public participation process in environmental assessment in Thailand (Chompunth 2017; Chanchang et al. 2016; Wells-Dang et al. 2016; Chompunth 2017). Chompunth (2017) found that the practice of public participation in EIA system in Thailand was not being successfully established and the implementation of public participation in Thailand is now reaching an impasse (Chompunth 2017). Wells-Dang et al. (2016) stated that the public participation in Thailand was a process of gathering people together rather than meaningful participation. Suwanteep et al. (2017) evaluated EIA reports in the transportation sector in Thailand and found that 84.6% of total EIA reports in the period between 1992 and 2005 are of low quality with respect to the topic of public participation. The outcome of participation is also questioned (Chanchitpricha and Bond 2018). Otwong and Phenrat (2017) found that weak participation process in environmental assessment leads to strong public resistance. Many projects have cancelled or delayed by local people or protestors (Chanchang et al. 2016; Chompunth 2017). For example, the EHIA of Tha Sala Port in the South of Thailand was poor in community involvement of the risk assessment which led to improper information and finally the company announced the termination of the project after it could not give any satisfactory explanations to the society regarding the problematic processes in doing EHIA (Chanchang et al. 2016). In addition, villagers protesting against the construction of the Khao Hin Son coal-fired power plant in East region of Thailand claimed that they did not have chance to participate in the site selection (Chompunth 2017). The findings gained form this study can lead to recommendations for filling gaps between public participation theory and practice.

The objectives of this paper are to reflect on the opinions of stakeholders toward public participation in EHIA projects, to evaluate the existing public participation practice, and to propose recommendations for the public participation process for EHIA in Thailand.

The context of public participation in Thai EHIA

The public right to participation in decision-making in general is codified in Thai law. Section 78 of the Thai Constitution B.E.2560 mentioned about the promotion public participation in various aspects of the development of the country (Office of the Council of State 2017). The Regulation of the Ministry of Interior on the Development Plan of Local Administration Organization requires local people participate in the planning process and prioritize the projects in the 3-year development plan (Lorsuwannarat 2017). The Ministry of Interior also requires that provincial development planning seek the people’s opinions during the drafting process and return the draft to the people before it is finalized (Kabiri 2016). The public participation in environmental assessment process has been implemented since the enactment of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality 1992 law (Chompunth 2017). Section 58 of the Thai Constitution B.E.2560 also clearly indicates that the state shall arrange a public hearing of relevant stakeholders in order to take them into consideration for the implementation or granting of permission to any undertaking that may severely affect the natural resources, environmental quality, health, sanitation, quality of life or any other essential interests of the people or community or environment (Office of the Council of State 2017). This study focuses on the public participation implemented in environmental assessment process.

The Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) recommended that seven specific groups of stakeholders be involved in the public participation process: (1) affected people, (2) project proponents and consultants, (3) environmental assessment reviewing agencies, (4) government agencies, (5) academics and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), (6) media, and (7) interested people (Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning 2006). In addition, the guideline for public consultation within the EHIA process is addressed in Annex C of the Notification of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2017).

The EHIA process in Thailand requires the project proponent to conduct public participation activities at least three times: (1) during scoping stage, (2) during assessment, and (3) during public review (Wells-Dang et al. 2016; Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2017). The scoping stage generally involves the determination of the terms of reference and guidelines for EHIA in consultation with the public. The project proponent must make a notification of a public hearing at least 30 days in advance and disclose project information at least 15 days in advance through at least three public communication channels. The consultation with the public shall be organized during an appropriate period, but for not less than 2 h and the total period shall not be less than one-half of the total duration of the forum (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2017).

At the assessment stage, the public is consulted during the preparation of the actual EHIA report. The project proponent shall disclose information related to the project including type, size, production capacity, and the precise geographical area of the project, as well as indicating the pollution which may emerge from the operation of the project or related activity, the source of water, and any public place to be used as a waste-yard for waste-water or other waste-substances of the project, plus noting any other factors which may affect health. Surveys and consultation can be organized via individual discussions; post/telephone surveys, group discussions; workshops; or meetings with the representatives of the related parties (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2017).

At the reviewing stage, the draft EHIA report is opened-up for discussion with the public. The project proponent must make a notification of a public hearing at least 30 days and disclose of the draft EHIA at least 15 days in advance through at least three public communication channels. As with the first stage, the consultation with the public within the second stage should be organized for an appropriate length of time, but not less than 3 h and the total period shall not be less than one-half of the total duration of the forum (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2017).

Method

Three development projects were selected as case studies. The researchers selected the latest EHIA approved projects from each type of project in order to acquire the most recent information from the stakeholders. However, the projects in Maptaphut Industrial Estate were excluded from this study because many public participation activities for both EIA and EHIA studies were conducted in that area. Thus, the opinions of stakeholders in that area may not reflect the general perceptions to EHIA. The EHIA of all case studies were approved by ONEP and the public participation process of the Permitting Agency to avoid any intervention. The Three selected cases included: (1) a port with more than 300 m of berth length and more than 10,000 square meters of port area, (2) central waste treatment plant burning unused material defined by the Factory Act, and (3) thermal power plant with more than 3000 MW productivity. All projects were located in the Eastern region of Thailand. The public participation activities of the central waste treatment plant and thermal power plant were completed in 2014 while the public participation activities of port project were completed in 2015. The chronicle of the public participation process of the selected case studies is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Chronicle of the public participation process of the case studies.

Case	Date of public participation in EHIA process			EHIA report approved by ONEP	Public hearing held by permitting agencies
	Public scoping	Assessing stage	Public review
(1) Port	13 October 2012	6–20 February 2013	13 July 2013	30 September 2014	3 August 2015
(2) Central waste treatment plant	28 January 2011	9–14 March 2011	10 June 2011	12 June 2013	10 June 2014
(3) Thermal power plant	1 June 2011	20–31 August and 16–21 September 2011	9 November 2011	30 April 2013	13 March 2014

This study used qualitative research method. In-depth interviews were carried out with 53 informants during May 2017 to February 2018. The informants included all groups of stakeholders in the public participation process such as project-affected persons (PAPs), project proponents and consultants, environmental assessment reviewing agencies, government agencies, academics and NGOs, media, as well as the representatives from the Independent Commission on Environment and Health (ICHE) and the National Health Commission Office (NHCO), as well as the representatives from permitting agencies. Each informant had participated in public participation activities in at least one of three selected projects (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of informants from each case study.

Type of stakeholders	Number of informants	Number of info7rmants in each case
		Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Project affected person (PAPs)	10	3	4	3
Project proponents and consultants	10	5	4	1
Reviewing agencies	4	2	1	1
Government agencies	10	3	2	5
Academics and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)	6	1	1	4
Media	2	1	–	1
Representatives from the Independent Commission on Environment and Health (ICEH), the National Health Commission Office (NHCO)	5	5
Permitting agencies	6	3	1	2
Total	53

Interview data were transcribed and encoded to maintain the privacy of the interviewees. Data were analyzed by examining the transcribed data and coding. A coding scheme guide was formed as the basis of the analysis to address issues such as: how were the stakeholders involved in the public participation activities? What information has been provided to the stakeholders? What participation methods were used in public participation activities?, and What were barriers and constraints to implementing public participation? From this a great number of characteristics were formulated.

Evaluation framework

A number of scholars have previously proposed evaluation frameworks to assess the effectiveness of public participation. For instance, Beierle (1998) provided an evaluation framework to assess the outcomes of participatory processes by considering the achievement of six social goals, which are: (1) inform and educate the public, (2) incorporate public values, assumptions, and preferences into decision-making, (3) increase the substantive quality of decisions, (4) foster trust in institutions, (5) reduce conflict among stakeholders, and (6) cost-effectiveness. Palerm (2000) offered a dualistic approach to assess public participation in environmental assessment by considering both, legal provisions and actor’s attitudes and capacities. Rowe and Frewer (2000) provided acceptance criteria and process criteria for meaningful public participation. The acceptance criteria include representativeness of participants, independence of participants, early involvement in the process, influence on final policy, and transparency of the process to the public. The process criteria include resource accessibility, task definition, structured decision making, and cost-effectiveness. Nadeem and Fischer (2011) evaluated public participation in Pakistan by looking at legal requirements, effectiveness of methods used, timing and venue, awareness of the public involved, consultation methods, consideration of public concerns in the EIA, and transparency of decision-making process.

The best approach to evaluate public participation depends on the specific situation and contexts (Beierle 1998); therefore, there is no accepted evaluative framework for every practical case (Rowe and Frewer 2004; Chompunth 2017; Bryson et al. 2013). This study uses evaluation criteria provided by Chompunth (2017) to assess public participation process in Thai EHIA because it was designed and applied within a Thai context. The evaluation criteria, definition of criteria, and the operationalization of criteria to evaluate public participation in Thai EHIA are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Operationalization of criteria to evaluate public participation in Thai EHIA.

Evaluation criteria	Definition	Operationalization of criteria to evaluate public participation in Thai EHIA
Early involvement	The participation process begins early enough to ensure that all participants can have their input into the process.	(1) The stakeholders are involved in the public participation process before important decisions are made. (2) The stakeholders get involved in the selection of project alternatives.
Inclusiveness and representativeness	The public participation programs are inclusive and included all stakeholders who are affected by the decisions and the wider public who are interested.	(1) Various stakeholders including general public are allowed to get involved. (2) The public participation programs include all members from affected communities.
Resources accessibility and educating the public	The participants have an ability to access all the appropriate resources and sufficiently educated to effectively debate the issues and participate in the participation process.	(1) The given documents are correct, complete, and understandable for general public. (2) The public participation program provides resources to enable participants to identify their concerns and actively get involved in the public participation.
Clarification of goals and stakeholder roles	The nature and scope of the participation goals and tasks are clearly identified.	(1) The objectives and process of public participation are clearly indicated to the stakeholders. (2) The stakeholders mutually agree on the rules of participation.
Multiple and appropriate participation methods	The participation methods used for conducting and displaying the decision making process should be varied and appropriate to the situations and involved parties.	(1) There are many forms of participation methods that appropriate to each stakeholder group. (2) The employed participation methods allow all stakeholders to contribute effectively.
Two-way communication and transparency	The dialogue between stakeholders is a two-way communication involving information coming in and going out. The participation process is transparent in order to let the public see what is going on and how the decisions are made.	(1) The project proponent and consultant are able to answer all questions and to clarify all concerns raised during the public participation meeting. (2) Concerns of the public raised during the public participation activities are properly addressed in the EHIA report. (3) The stakeholders are able to access the EHIA submitted to ONEP and able to follow the process of EHIA approval.

Source: Adapted fromChompunth (2017).

Result and discussion

The effectiveness of the public participation process for three selected case studies is evaluated. This is done in order to determine whether participatory programs are working and how they can be improved (Beierle 1998; Luyet et al. 2012). An evaluation was based on experiences and opinions of various stakeholder groups in relation to evaluation criteria.

Early involvement

According to Shepherd and Ortolano (1996) and Doelle and Sinclair (2006), a major problem of public participation in environmental assessment is the lack of recognition of the need for early and ongoing participation and a lack of openness to rethink a project at the time the public is engaged. Many scholars confirm that the effectiveness of public participation is positively influenced by involving the public from the early stages (Del Furia and Wallace-Jones 2000; Hartley and Wood 2005; Reed 2008; Portman 2009; Luyet et al. 2012). In the case of Thailand, the stakeholders get involved at the scoping stage. However, the decision on site selection and project design were already made before public participation at the scoping stage. Stakeholders were allowed to give comments toward the scope of any EHIA study but had no chance to give opinions as to whether the project should be developed. The interviewees in PAPs and NGOs group stated that they did not get involved in the selection of project alternatives (PAPs#4#5#6, NGO#2). The public participation in EHIA process started after the decision to develop the project was made (NGOs#2, NGOs#3). The project proponent and consultant only considered the stakeholders’ opinions toward scope of EHIA study and sufficiency of mitigation measures (PAPs#6, NGOs#2#3).

The project proponent already made a decision that they will build the project in this area. Although they set up public participation program in the beginning of EHIA study, we can only give opinions toward the scope of study and mitigation measures. We informed in the meeting that the design of port should be slightly modified in order to reduce impacts. However, the project proponent did not make any changes to the project or consider other alternatives. The consultant only defined mitigation measures that cannot guarantee the reduction of impacts

PAPs#6, 2 July 2017

Videira et al. (2006) and Doelle and Sinclair (2006) suggested that the public should be involved in the design of alternatives. According to Shepherd and Bowler (1997), public participation needs to start before project planning; otherwise, public participation becomes a procedural exercise rather than a substantive democratic process. Stakeholders should be engaged much earlier in the project conception and selection phase, when decisions are being made about the opportunities and the possible types of development (Doelle and Sinclair 2006). In the case of Thailand, thus, involving the public to gather opinion about the scope of EHIA study in the public scoping phase might be considered as being too late because the decision about site selection and project design were already made.

Inclusiveness and representativeness

The common practice in environmental assessment is that everyone interested in a project is invited to participate (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Videira et al. 2006; Glucker et al. 2013). According to Doelle and Sinclair (2006), anyone who may have something to contribute must be permitted to participate. Being inclusive can minimize the risk that unidentified stakeholders appear later and have negative impacts on the project (Luyet et al. 2012). By contrast, Petts (2003) argued that allowing everybody to participate may lead to difficulty because different members of the public have different interests resulting in different expectations toward participation.

Each country defines stakeholders differently. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 redefined them as a people who are ‘directly affected by the carrying out of the designated project or who has relevant information or expertise’ (Gibson 2012; Fluker and Srivastava 2016). In Japan, only stakeholders who happen to be affected by the project can express their opinions at the scoping stage while anyone is allowed to review and comment on the project during the draft environmental impact statement stage (Suwanteep et al. 2017). In Thailand, ONEP identifies seven groups of stakeholders including interested people. It is likely the definition of stakeholders defined in the ONEP guideline met the criteria of inclusiveness because anyone who is interested in the project can get involved in the public hearing in scoping and reviewing stage. This study found different views toward the issue of inclusive stakeholders. The interviewees in PAPs, NGOs and media group stated that the seven groups of stakeholder were complete (PAPs#1#3#4#6#7#8#9, NGOs#3#4#5#6, media#1#2) but defining stakeholders within 5 km radius meant it was doubtful whether it covered all affected people (PAPs#1#6#7#8, NGOs#2#3, ICHE and NHCO#1#2#3#4#5). The interviewees in project proponent and consultant groups indicated that the seven stakeholder groups in ONEP guideline were too general (project proponent and consultant#1#2#3#4#7). The interviewees from reviewing agencies group thought that the scope of participation of the interested people was not clearly identified (reviewing agencies#2#3#4). The interviewees from the permitting agencies group stated that the opinions of people who did not directly receive the impacts from the project should not be considered (permitting agencies#1#2#3#4#5#6).

In terms of true representativeness, Rowe and Frewer (2000) suggested that members of all affected communities should be involved. In this study, the interviewees from all groups stated that the number of PAPs engaged in the meeting is inadequate. The public participation meeting is normally organized for a working day. Since most of PAPs were day laborers, attending public participation meeting means that many would have to take a day off and therefore lose their earnings (PAPs#2#3#4#6#7#8#9#10, government agencies#5, media#2). Thus, perhaps only unemployed PAPs and elders were actively involved in the public participation process (PAPs#2, government agencies#3#5,) while the truly-affected people did not get involved (PAPs#1#2#6#7#8#9, reviewing agencies#2, government agencies#2#3#4#5#10, NGOs#2#3#4#5#6, ICHE and NHCO#1#2#3#4#5).

It is recommended by many studies that stakeholder analyses are vital tasks to identify the degree of involvement of stakeholder groups and to ensure that marginalized groups are considered and properly engaged in the public participation process (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Reed 2008; O’Faircheallaigh 2010; Bryson et al. 2013). However, there was no stakeholder analysis in Thai EHIA. The project proponents and consultants only include seven groups of stakeholders as many as possible without investigating the relationship between stakeholders (project proponents and consultants#1#5#6#8#9). The interviewees indicated that local politicians play a major role in the public participation meeting (PAPs#1#3#4, project proponents and consultants#5#7, government agencies#8, media#2). The presence of local politicians may limit the independence of participants to express their real concerns to the projects because they did not want to have personal conflicts with an influential person.

For reasons discussed earlier, we could not claim that the participants involved in the public participation process of the Thai EHIA meet the criteria of representativeness.

Resources accessibility and educating the public

Information provision is important in allowing affected groups to prepare for project impacts (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010). Hartley and Wood (2005) suggested that the public should be informed where material relevant to the decision-making process can be obtained and the material should be presented in a non-technical format and is understandable to lay people. Although informing the public is important to confirm meaningful participation, it was not achieved in this study.

In this study, the interviewees expressed different opinions toward the information provision. The interviewees in the project proponent and consultant group stated that they published information 15 days in advance but the participants did not read the document (project proponent and consultant#1#2#3#4#7). However, the interviewees indicated that the consultant usually contacted the community leaders to disseminate project information for them (PAPs#2, reviewing agencies#3#4, media#2). The community leaders only provided information to the supporters. There were many complaints that the project opponents never received information of the project which led to conflict. In addition, the interviewees in NGOs group stated that they had difficulty to access the project information (NGOs#3#4#5) because they did not receive documents from the consultant and they searched for information from the internet by themselves.

It has been previously suggested that informing/educating participants is important to ensure meaningful engagement when the decisions are highly technical (Reed 2008). In the study, the interviewees from project proponents and consultants group said that they tried to simplify technical information by using pictures and color codes in their power point presentations. However, the interviewees from other groups stated that the project documents included many English words and technical terms which were difficult for the general public to understand (PAPs#2#3#4#5, reviewing agencies#2#3#4, government agencies#3#5, media#1, ICHE and NHCO#2#3#4#5). The project proponents and the consultants used many technical terms to present the project description and impacts (PAPs#1, media#1). When the participants did not clearly understand the project information, they could not provide for an informed or reliable perception and/or opinion of the project (government agencies#5, media#1, ICHE and NHCO#2#3#4#5).

The consultant used too technical terms in the meeting. For example, they indicated about dust 10 ppm. Will local people understand ppm? Or they said noise level was less than one hundred decibel. Local people don’t know whether it is loud or not. Are there other wordings that make local people see the scale of impacts?

Government agencies#5, 20 July 2017

Besides the information provision, many scholars suggest that public participants should have access to necessary resources such as access to scientist or decision analysts (Rowe and Frewer 2000) in order to enable participants to develop their skills and provide participants with an opportunity to actively get involved in the public participation (Glucker et al. 2013). Appleton and Lovett (2005) and Bryson et al. (2013) suggested to use technologies to provide technical information, to build shared understanding and to facilitate interaction among stakeholders. In the study, there was no public information process before the public participation meeting. The project proponent only provided technical documents to the affected people without simplifying the content for them. When the participants did not clearly understand the project information, they could not provide an informed or reliable perception and/or opinion of the project (ICHE and NHCCO#3#4#5#6).

Although the information was disseminated to the stakeholders in advance, there was no process to simplify information and to prepare stakeholders for active participation. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that public participation in Thai EHIA meet the criteria of resources accessibility and educating the public.

Clarification of goals and stakeholder roles

According to Reed (2008), clear objectives for the participatory process need to be agreed among stakeholders at the beginning of a process. When the responsible agency develops clear rules for a participatory process with serious efforts to share that understanding with the participants, it increases the legitimacy of public participation process (Bryson et al. 2013) and public willingness to engage in the participation (National Research Council 2008).

The interviewees expressed different opinions toward this issue. Although the interviewees from the project proponent and consultant group indicated that they informed the participant about the purposes of public participation in the beginning (project proponents and consultants#1#2#3#4#7), the interviewees from environmental reviewing agencies and permitting agencies (reviewing agencies#2#3#4, permitting agencies#3#4#5#6) stated that the consultant did not emphasize the expected outcome of the public participation meeting. As a result, the stakeholders were confused about the objectives of public participation activities in EHIA and always raised problems about their daily lives and requested solutions at every stage (reviewing agencies#2, permitting agencies#3). Some participants thought public participation meeting was the forum to select between with project or without project (reviewing agencies#2#3#4). This is confirmed by the interviewees in PAPs group who stated that the project would be developed no matter they participated in the public meetings (PAPs#1#2#3#5#7).

The interviewees from project proponent and consultant group stated that they attempted to set up the timing rules in order to give equal time for all stakeholders to give their opinions in the meeting (project proponents and consultants#2#3#4#7).

We set up the rule for the stakeholders who intend to give opinions in the meeting. Firstly, the stakeholders have to register their names with the consultant. Secondly, the order of speaker is ranked by draw lots. Thirdly, each stakeholder has 8 minutes to express their opinion with an audible warning when 3 minutes remain. The microphone will be turned off after 8 minutes. If the stakeholders still has comments or opinions towards the project, they can register their name with the stakeholder again for the second round speaking

Project proponents and consultants#7, 26 May 2017

However, the interviewees from NGOs group indicated that the timing rule set by project proponents and consultants was not conducive because it limited the time for participants to express opinions (NGOs#2#3). According to Rowe and Frewer (2000), it is important to ensure that the stakeholders agree on the scope of a participation exercise, its expected output, and the mechanisms of the procedure. Due to the fact that the participants did not express the opinions toward the scope of EHIA study in the scoping stage and toward the completeness of mitigation measures in the reviewing stage, there is still a gap of goals and stakeholder roles clarification in theory and in the real practice.

Multiple and appropriate participation methods

There is no single best public participation method that can be applied to any situation. Many scholars mutually insist that the public participation method depends on the context such as type of stakeholders, local cultural and social norms, intended timing and experience of the project manager (Luyet et al. 2012; Bryson et al. 2013; Glucker et al. 2013). In Sweden, the form of public consultation is decided by the nature, type and scope of the project, and who the target audience for this consultation is (Nenasheva et al. 2015). The effective public participation method must allow stakeholders to contribute to the process excellently (Doelle and Sinclair 2006). Reed (2008) suggested to use public participation methods that equalize power between participants to avoid marginalizing the voices of the less powerful. Since inadequate public participation methods can lead to an unsuccessful participation process, Luyet et al. (2012) suggested to apply two or more different participation methods to a stakeholder group.

In this study, formal public hearing is only one format used for public participation in the scoping and reviewing stage. The project proponents and consultants arrange a formal public hearing with all stakeholders. In the views of interviewees, the benefit of involving all stakeholders in one meeting was the opportunities to hear inclusive opinions (PAPs#1#3#4, reviewing agencies#2, ICHE and NHCO#1). However, the interviewees indicated that the government officers and NGOs greatly dominated the discussion in public participation meeting while the PAPs was uncomfortable to demonstrate their concerns (project proponents and consultants#1#2#3#4#6#7#8#9, reviewing agencies#1#2). This is consistent with Chompunth (2017) who found that a public hearing in Thailand hardly ever allows people to participate equally in the process with government officers and experts. According to Reed (2008), power inequalities within groups represent an equally important barrier to meaningful engagement. The PAPs considered themselves lower status than the government and academic sector (reviewing agencies#1). Thus, they were reluctant to actively get involved and their concerns were not clearly shown in the public meeting (PAPs#2#3#5#10). The interviewees stated that the atmosphere of the second public participation of the EHIA better facilitated the participants to get involved in the discussion (project proponents and consultants#1#2#3#4). The second public participation activities were flexible and organized in informal way with small groups of stakeholders. The opinions gathered from the second public participation mostly reflected views and concerns of direct-affected people (project proponents and consultants#1#2#3#4, reviewing agencies#1, government agencies#8). The interviewees had different views on number public participation activities. The interviewees in reviewing agencies thought that the three public participation activities mandated in the law were sufficient to collect opinions of stakeholders. Nevertheless, some interviewees stated that three times of participation were too frequent (PAP#2, government agencies#8).

The interviewees also indicated that the public hearing in the scoping and reviewing stage was inappropriate due to strict timeframe and fixed methods. All interviewees in project proponents and consultants group reported their difficulties in complying with fixed period condition. The result is consistent with Chanchitpricha and Bond (2018) who found that the strict time frame and fixed methods of public participation in EHIA mean that practice is not cost effective. The process was inflexible and consumed too much time from the stakeholders. A Longer period of public participation meeting did not necessarily reflect an increased quality of public participation (PAPs#2#6#7#8#9#10, project proponents and consultants#1#6#7#8#9, government agencies#5, NGOs#2#3, permitting agencies#1#3#4#5).

The participants finished discussion and did not have any questions to ask. It was time for lunch and everybody wanted to leave the meeting. However, we have to keep the meeting going on by playing games until we achieved the mandated three hours.

Project proponents and consultant#1, 19 May 2017

Due to the strict timeframe and fixed methods, it seems that public participation of EHIA in Thailand still needs to be improved to meet the criteria of multiple and appropriate participation methods.

Two-way communication and transparency

Theoretically, the information exchange in public participation process has two-side flow (Aasetre 2006) between project owner and the public. However, Chompunth (2017) found that the communication in public participation in Thailand was mainly a one-way approach from the developers. This study also found that public participation in Thai EHIA is one-way information flow. Although the public have chance to express their concerns to the developer, there is no response to the public concerns. In the public participation meeting, the project proponent could not clearly answer the questions and unable to relieve public concerns (PAPs#1#6#7#8, NGOs#2#3#4#5#6). In their perspective, the project proponents and the consultants were insincere because they only talked about the benefits of the project but avoided notifying the public of potential negative impacts which led to mistrust between the project proponents and other stakeholders (PAPs#1#3#6#7#8, NGOs#2#3, permitting agencies#1#2#6). In additions, some presented data were incorrect which make the environmental assessment unreliable (environmental reviewing agencies#2#3#4, government agencies#3, NGOs#3).

Water in the river is a common resource among industries, households, and fishermen. That’s why we are really worried about the impact of proposed project to water quality. In the public participation meeting, I asked the project owner about the emergency response procedure and compensation in case that there is any chlorine leak to the river. Instead of answer my questions directly, the project proponent said that there is no chlorine leak from this project without any evidence to support his statements.

NGO#3, 11 September 2017

Besides two-ways communication, Johnson and Dagg (2003) stated that the public must be informed about how the information which is gathered during the consultation process is going to be used in order to reduce public skepticism about the procedures. However, the interviewees in this study indicated that they never received feedback from the project proponents about how their concerns and suggestions were considered and acted upon (PAPs#1#2#3#4). They never saw the final EHIA report and did not know about any mitigation measures that were addressed in the report (PAPs#1#2#6#7#8, government agencies#9#10, NGOs#2#3). The interviewee felt that their contribution to the public meeting was worthless and they were not enthusiastic about potential involvement in future public meetings of any project (PAPs#2).

I used to be involved in the meetings frequently but I feel that my involvement was meaningless. I don’t know whether they take my concerns seriously. These days, I avoid attending the meeting because there is no reason to go. Whatever we say in the meeting, all projects finally started their operations.

PAPs#02, 15 June 2017

Rowe and Frewer (2000) suggested that the public participation process should be transparent so that the public can see what is going on and how decisions are being made. In the final decision, an explanation should be given on how stakeholders input/concerns were considered and how the final decision was made in order to build trust among stakeholders. However, the interviewees informed that the EHIA report was approved although the mitigation measures cannot minimize impacts (PAPs#2, NGOs#2#3#4#5). Some interviewees were worried that their concerns never really appeared in the report submitted to ONEP (PAPs#1#6#7, government agencies#09, NGOs#2#3). The approval process is also very confidential to the public (NGOs#2#3). The interviewees indicated that they never know about the After the progress of EHIA approval (PAPs#1#2#6#7#8, government agencies#9#10, NGOs#2#3). They only noticed that the EHIA report was approved when the construction started (PAPs#1#2#6#7#8, NGOs#2).

According to the interview results, the environmental decision making in Thailand is considered as ‘decide-announce-defend’ (DAD) rather than ‘announce-discuss-decide’. The literature review confirmed that DAD often leads to social conflicts, delays and even cancellations of the project (Komendantova and Battaglini 2016). In this regard, it is assumed that public participation in Thai EHIA does not achieve the criteria of two-ways communication.

Conclusion and recommendation

This paper has demonstrated the evaluation of public participation in Thai EHIA by using the evaluation framework. An evaluation was based on experiences and opinions of 53 interviewees from various stakeholder groups in relation to evaluation criteria. The main finding is that public participation in Thai EHIA was partially effective when verified by the pre-set evaluation criteria. The strength of public participation in Thai EHIA is that three times public consultations are mandatory. The legislation forces the project proponent to disclose information to the public in advance and provides opportunity to anybody interested in the proposed project to get involved since scoping stage. However, there are some gaps between theory and practice. Although the public participation in Thai EHIA starts since scoping stage, the stakeholders are only allowed to give opinions to the scope of EHIA study. This is not early enough because the important decisions such as site selection and project design are already made before the public get involved. Regarding stakeholders’ roles during public hearings, government officers and NGOs appear to be able to influence outcomes of public hearings more positively than PAPs due to the technical terms used in the discussing. The stakeholders are also questioned about the impact of their involvement whether their concerns are seriously considered in the EHIA report.

Three major recommendations for improving the public participation process and practice in Thai EHIA are subsequently recommended: (1) to conduct stakeholder analysis, (2) to revise public participation in EHIA guideline, and (3) to validate the authenticity of the concerns raised by stakeholders.

Firstly, we strongly recommend the project proponents and the consultant to undertake a stakeholder identification and stakeholder analysis before designing public participation method. Stakeholder identification and analysis are important step to understand stakeholders’ interest and influence (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000), to identify stakeholders’ relationships (Reed 2008; Reed et al. 2009), to determine level of engagement (Reed 2008), and to ensure that marginalized groups are at least considered and have opportunity to get involved (Bryson et al. 2013). Thus, stakeholder analysis can lead to the design of public participation method that more effectively represent and involve stakeholders (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000; Reed et al. 2009). Bryson et al. (2013) suggested that approaches to involving and communicating with stakeholders should be differentiated throughout a process. For example, in Japan only stakeholders who affected by the project can express their opinions in the scoping stage while anyone is allowed to review and comment on the accuracy of the report during draft environmental impact statement stage (Suwanteep et al. 2017).

To raise the level of effective, our second recommendation is to revise public participation for EHIA guideline. We agree with Chanchitpricha and Bond (2018) that the EHIA guideline revision should be a collaboration among academics, ONEP and EHIA practitioners based on integration of lessons learned, professional experience sharing and documentary analysis. Our research points out two major concerns from the stakeholders which could be considered in the guideline revision. First, there is a need for data simplification during the public participation meeting. According to Fitzpatrick and Sinclair (2003), sending a box of documentation to the stakeholders is of little benefit without technical support. Educating public confirms meaningful engagement when the decisions are highly technical (Reed 2008). Many scholars suggested using the technologies such as public participation geographic information systems, computer generated visualizations, interactive web sites, keypad voting, and strategy mapping tools to provide technical information and enhance understanding of context (Appleton and Lovett 2005; Conroy and Evans-Cowley 2006; Bryson et al. 2013; Wanarat and Nuanwan 2013). Wanarat and Nuanwan (2013) studied the experiences through the creation of Koh Mudsum plan in Thailand and found that providing information about the site conditions and plan using 3D models can improve the public knowledge and help them understand the proposed land use and its impacts. These various technologies should be listed in the revised guideline. Second, the study reveals a need for more flexible timeframe and multiple methods that facilitate participation of various stakeholders. In Thailand, the public hearing is only one method used in public scoping and public review stage. However, many studies criticized that formal public hearing is ineffective because the role of people in the process is unclear (Paliwal 2006) and it tends to be dominated by a small number of individuals comfortable with that format (King et al. 1998) as well as discount the view of local stakeholders (Bawole 2013). In additions, the lesson drawn from the second public participation exercise is that the flexible and informal meeting with small groups of stakeholders better reflect views and concerns of direct affected people rather than formal public hearing.

Lastly, the study reflects the perception of stakeholders that their contribution to the public participation meeting was worthless and they were not enthusiastic about potential involvement in future public meetings of any project. This finding is consistent with Abelson et al. (2001) who stated that the public may unwilling to participate in time consuming, face-to face processes, especially if they cannot be assured that their involvement will make a difference. The scholars suggested that generating legitimacy is among the most important objectives of public participation in EIA (King et al. 1998; Petts 2003; Glucker et al. 2013). Part of establishing the legitimacy of the process is letting potential participants know the purpose of the process and how their participation will influence outcomes (Bryson et al. 2013). In the United States, Environmental Protection Agency publishes draft environmental impact statement for public review and comment for a minimum of 45 days and publishes final environmental impact statement which provides response to substantive comments for the minimum 30 days wait period before making a final decision on a proposed action (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2017). Thus, this study recommends the ONEP as an EHIA reviewing agency to develop the mechanism to validate the authenticity of the concerns raised by stakeholders in order to increase the legitimacy and accountability in the context of decision making.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Thailand Research Fund and Office of the Higher Education Commission. The authors thank Dr Alan Marshall for his useful suggestions during the preparation of manuscript. We sincerely thank all reviewers for constructive criticisms and valuable comments, which were of great help in revising this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Thailand Research Fund and Commission on Higher Education (MRG6080100).