Communication problems and alternatives in the process of collecting resident opinions for environmental impact assessment through text mining: A case study of the Dangjin landfill in Korea
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, ISSN: 0195-9255, Vol: 95, Page: 106781
2022
- 12Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Do even projects that have already collected residents' opinions as a part of their environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes face opposition from residents later? Previous studies have noted that the public participation process of EIA is regarded as a mere formality, and that its effectiveness in reflecting residents' opinions remains unclear. Nevertheless, research on the public participation process is lacking. It should be supplemented with sufficient communication and address the potential of achieving this through policy application. This study aimed to identify the problems with, and alternatives to, the current process of collecting resident opinions during EIA by analyzing the case of the Dangjin landfill project in Korea, which was opposed by residents despite their having participated in the assessment. According to the analysis results, the contents of the conversations were divided into two categories: establishment of reduction measures and environmental impact surveys. Most resident opinions were related to the establishment of reduction measures (71.70%), followed by those related to the local (65.20%), metropolitan (63.32%), and central governments (62.96%). However, the change between the preliminary small-scale review (52.29%) and third-round decision review (58.06%) was not significant. In terms of high-frequency words, the first preliminary review and third-round decision by the Ministry of Environment were similar, but both greatly differed from the second-round resident opinions. These results indicate that although residents had many questions regarding measures for reducing environmental pollution, the preliminary small-scale review and third-round decision phases only involved discussions on conducting environmental impact surveys. The contents of the conversations pertained to the residents requesting long-term, wide-ranging, and realistic health-related alternatives; however, the responses were highly technical, and the discussions only concerned performing procedural environmental impact surveys. Additionally, the use of different content and language perspectives hindered communication. It was also difficult to confirm whether the residents' opinions were reflected. These results suggest the need for the use of more relatable and comprehensible language by experts during the public participation process, and that a mutually understandable language perspective through multilateral participation should be the foundation for policy application.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925522000476; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106781; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85126927030&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0195925522000476; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106781
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know