Public involvement in the planning process: EIA and lessons from the Örebro airport extension, Sweden

Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

Public involvement in the planning process: EIA and lessons from the Örebro airport extension, Sweden Linda Soneryd∗ Man-Technology-Environment Research Centre, Örebro University, SE-70182 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been developed to include techniques for involving the public in environmental decision making. Although there is evidence from the evaluation of EIA in many countries that these ambitions often fail, little research has been done on EIA from the viewpoint of the public or from a deliberative democracy perspective (a deliberative democracy creates high demands for participation and argumentation for all concerned). This paper discusses public involvement from the perspective of local residents and their possibilities for engaging in deliberative processes in varying arenas. A case study on an airport extension in Sweden is used as an illustrative example of more general questions of public objectives, means, strategies and influence that are raised in relation to public involvement in planning. When local residents find that the EIA process does not provide them with the tools necessary to make an impact, they may find other creative ways of acting, outside as well as within formal arrangements for public involvement. As shown by this case study EIA opens up an arena for deliberation between concerned parties, but which may then be closed by mechanisms that restrict public involvement and impact. However, there are many arenas for deliberation, both within the traditional representative system and through local protests—an important issue to address if we want to understand involvement (or non-involvement) in EIA from the viewpoint of the public as well as from a deliberative democracy perspective. © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; Public involvement; Deliberative democracy; Power; Airport; Sweden

1. Public involvement and environmental decision making Current practice with environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to involve citizens directly in the planning process through consultation on specific plans or projects and their potential environmental impact. There are international conventions with respect to public participation in EIA; including the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus, 1998). Most European Union countries have legislative requirements for EIA and have also integrated the EIA Directive of the European Commission (1985) into their national legislation. Alongside this there are what EIA handbooks refer to as “good principles for EIA”, stating that the EIA process should be open and inclusive of all concerned. All this supposedly means that the number of venues for citizen participation and influence has increased.

∗

Tel.: +46-70-5791507; fax: +46-8-164908. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Soneryd).

1462-9011/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2003.10.007

An EIA process involves several steps (see Bjarnadóttir and Hilding-Rydevik, 2001, pp. 42–43) which are described as following. Screening narrows the application of EIA to projects that may have significant environmental impact. Scoping seeks to identify the significant issues relevant to further assessment and evaluation. Assessments and evaluations are carried out with respect to project alternatives and the possible impact of each alternative. At the EIA presentation and review stage a preliminary EIA report is written and made public for review. Decision making on the project involves consideration of the EIA, together with other relevant considerations that form the basis for the decision. Post-decision monitoring and auditing involve recording and assessing the outcome after the decision has been made. Public involvement is typically recommended at the scoping and review stages, as well as in the monitoring and auditing processes. This means that the public is given the opportunity to provide an input at an early stage as well as to fulfil a check-up function at later stages. The European EIA Directive includes minimum criteria for public information and consultation. These criteria concern access to information and the option to make statements. Public concerns should be considered in the decision, but it is unclear how and to what degree this is practised.

60

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

Despite these regulations, which have been applicable in many European countries for more than a decade through the integration of the EIA Directive 85/337/EEG in national legislation, ambitions to involve the public often fail (Renn et al., 1995; Wood, 1996; Petts, 1999; Dresner and Gilbert, 1999; Hilding-Rydevik, 2001). This raises the question what are the mechanisms which include or exclude the public in these processes in practice, given that the explicit aim is to include them? Even though EIA might not be the most efficient arena for public involvement from the perspective of local residents, it can, according to Hokkanen (2001, p. 120) be seen as one among several venues for public involvement (suggestions, complaints or protests) that strengthen a deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy means, in this context, a democracy that only gains its legitimacy from the degree to which political decisions are on one hand preceded by discussions among those concerned and on the other hand motivated by arguments. This emphasis on deliberative democracy does not exclude traditional venues for public involvement such as elections and contacts with representative politicians, it just suggests that these are of less importance for the legitimacy of political decisions. The aim of this paper is to discuss participation from the perspective of the public and of democracy in relation to the EIA process, using an illustrative case study of public participation in the planning procedure for an extension of an airport runway in Sweden. The Section 2 of the paper outlines the theoretical framework, which discusses public involvement in terms of the objectives for participation, the degree of autonomy from policy making, as well as public influence in terms of base, means and scope of power. The Section 3 of the paper presents the case study of the Swedish airport extension mentioned above. The Section 4 gives the conclusions and discusses the wider implications of these findings for EIA and public involvement in relation to a model of deliberative democracy.

2. Public involvement: objectives, autonomy and power Efforts to integrate the public in decision-making processes have been variously referred to as public involvement, public participation or more recently deliberative inclusive processes (DIPs) (see, e.g. Fiorino, 1990; Irwin, 1995; Joss, 1998; Renn et al., 1995). These vary in their objectives. DIPs cover a wide range of procedures and practices but aim particularly at deepening the level of discussion between participants in relation to environmental decision making (O’Riordan et al., 1999). The term public participation has been used to refer to processes that facilitate communication, engagement or even citizen power. For example: Public participation is “forums for exchange that are organised for the purpose of facilitating communication between government, citizens, stakeholders and interest

groups, and business regarding a specific decision or problem”. (Renn et al., 1995, p. 2) Public participation is “a process of engagement, where people are enlisted into the decision process to contribute to it. Participation methods provide for exchange of information, predictions, opinions, interests and values. Participation requires that those initiating the process are open to the potential need for change and are prepared to work with different interests to develop plans or amend or even drop existing proposals”. (Petts, 1999, p. 147) Citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-nots citizens, presently excluded from political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the strategy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs are parceled out. (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216) The above definitions differ. Judith Petts and Sherry Arnstein give even stronger definition which includes public influence on decisions, while Ortwin Renn and his co-authors leave this aspect out of their general definition of public participation. Sherry Arnstein’s (Arnstein, 1969, see also Petts, 1999) ‘ladder of participation’ illustrates different degrees of public involvement—from being manipulated in the first steps, receiving information and being consulted in the middle steps, to controlling the decisions in the final steps. A major criticism of the ‘citizen participation ladder’ has been that it is top-down oriented because it is modelled on the view of those who have power to delegate to others. Furthermore, it might be more fruitful to view the steps as a continuum, where the different elements can be more or less present at all stages in the process (Petts, 1999, p. 147). Seen as a continuum, public participation covers a wide range of procedures and practices, which do not have to be seen as facilitating communication or empowering citizens, but which nevertheless can entail such elements. A fundamental dilemma in many EIA and planning processes is that the public is invited to participate in the process, but in practice their role becomes informative or consultative. The decision makers are already committed to policies, plans and proposals that are difficult to compromise on. The developers’ or decision-makers’ objective to include the public could actually be to gain evidence of public support for a plan. In order to evaluate public influence it seems that it is important to know more about the objectives of local residents or activists. It is only in relation to what you want to have influence on that ‘influence’ is given substantial meaning. So far this has been a relatively neglected field for research (Petts, 1999). 2.1. Objectives for participation The motives or objectives for public participation, of both proponents and opponents to proposed plans, can be divided

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

61

Table 1 Objectives of different participants in environmental impact assessment Developer environmental group

Decision-authority

Local resident

Local

Speed decision process an proposal

Resolve conflict so as to reduce appeals

Stop or delay an unwelcomed proposal

Stop or delay unwelcomed

Ensure a focus on knowledge to significant issues process

Speed implementation process

Input local knowledge to the decision process

Input detailed decision

Reduce or eliminate alternative protest expertise

Add to professional knowledge decision

Ensure personal interests are protected

Ensure knowledge and is input to

Bring people onto their side objectives

Introduce additional information and knowledge to the decision process

Change proposals to minimise personal and community disbenefits

Protect local environmental

Ensure control over the check on local information process authority

Provide an additional check on project proponents

Provide a check on local decision authority

Provide a decision

Enhance company/organisational image objectives and affiliated groups

Enhance confidence of politicians to take a decision

Ensure people are listened to

Protect broader environmental of the group

Ensure a permission to develop

Inform and educate people about the development/planning process

Source: Petts (1999, p. 150), by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

into outcome and process objectives (Petts, 1999, p. 149). For planners, outcome objectives might be the resolution of conflicts; gaining support for the plan or proposal; increasing public confidence in decision making; or legitimising decisions, while for an opposing group, the outcome objective might be that the plan is stopped. Process objectives for planners can be to reduce costs and decision delays, by ensuring that concerns, accurate information, local knowledge and alternatives are considered early on in the process; encouraging different stakeholders to express their views and making decision makers and proponents accountable. By contrast, for local residents the process objectives can be to keep a check on local authority. Some varying objectives of different participants in EIA are listed in Table 1. Thus, a ‘concerned public’ might have very different motives for and expectations of the process in which they are invited to participate, than planners and developers do. Other studies have stressed that it is important that all participants formulate and agree upon the objectives for participation (see, for instance, Renn et al., 1995). 2.2. Public autonomy in plugged-in and unplugged processes In a discussion of how deliberative inclusive processes (DIPs) might be understood in relation to theories of civil society, Hunt and Szerszynski (1999) distinguish between different forms of public engagement making an important distinction between what they term plugged-in and unplugged processes. Plugged-in processes form a part of the policy decision process. Unplugged processes refer to discrete arrangements with no direct linkage to policy-relevant output (but which nevertheless may become plugged-in during the process). A process that is plugged-in could be

efforts to involve the public concerned in discussing, e.g. the planned route of a new motorway. An unplugged process could be more general discussions between different stakeholders (at conferences or study circles) of a country’s energy supplies. The difference is that in the former case the process will be followed by a decision to modify, abandon or to go through with the plans, while in the latter case the discussions do not have a direct impact on a decision. In relation to this distinction they discuss four aspects: motivation, calculation, placation and translation. Their argument is that DIPs might be understood as either strengthening civil society or contributing to a wider absorption of civil society into the state. In terms of motivation on the basis of their earlier studies of DIPs Hunt and Szerszynski (1999) argue that people can be motivated to engage in processes in which they have no influence on policies or decisions. People find the process valuable for other reasons such as bonding as a group, a sense of being recognised and useful, or personal development by thinking more about the issues that are the subject of discussion. These findings contrast to the hypothesis that citizens only find participation valuable when it can be related to influence in a more direct way. The second aspect, calculation, concerns the participants’ orientation towards common goals and public good, rather than their own interests and preferences. Some studies (see Hunt and Szerszynski, 1999) have shown that plugged-in processes generate more strategic behaviour. If people know that their contributions might have an influence on the decision, there is some evidence that they are keener to protect their individual interests than in unplugged processes, which seem to be more favourable for considering the public good. One important critique that has been directed against plugged-in processes is that they only strengthen already established power structures and that participation functions

62

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

as therapy, or as legitimating decisions already made. This critique is not a new frame for understanding public participation in planning research (see, for instance, Kemp et al., 1984). Public participation can be understood as a legitimating strategy by the state, to create an image of full participation (through, e.g. public hearings in EIA or public inquiries), presenting only a fragmented view of the issues at stake to the public, while policy makers can control the more comprehensive overall view. This fragmentation creates two struggles—a rational struggle over individual projects concerning evidence of certain environmental impact or legal restrictions and a political struggle over values and needs and the relationship of an individual project to policy issues (Wynne, 1982, p. 60; cf. Habermas, 1975, p. 70). The restriction of the public debate to “facts and evidence” can function as a mechanism that excludes a wider public, in that it does not allow for local residents’ knowledge to be expressed and fully integrated in the process (Cortner, 2000). This critique can be related to what Hunt and Szerszynski (1999) describe as placation—they argue that plugged-in processes can become disempowering because of the authority of expert knowledge over lay or local knowledge. In contrast, in unplugged processes participants can feel freer to contradict experts. Finally a distinction can also be made in terms of translation—in plugged-in processes public deliberations are always translated into a report or recommendation that in the end might distort the authenticity of public statements (Hunt and Szerszynski, 1999). The results of unplugged processes might also be documented and face the problem of translation. They do not, however, have to be summed up as ‘recommendations’, which presumably leave more room for diverging opinions and suggestions to be recognised. This distinction between plugged-in and unplugged processes is used in the following section where a specific case study is discussed. The value of making this distinction in relation to this particular case is that EIA is and will always be plugged-in in one respect—it is a formalised, top-down process in which the public is invited to participate. But in another respect, however, EIA is not necessarily very well plugged-in to the decision-making process, since it can be unclear what role EIA actually plays in making the decision and second it is unclear what influence the public can have on the decision by engaging in EIA. In this paper, however, plugged-in processes refer to the use of the EIA process, which explicitly aims at integrating the public, but in which the objectives of the developer or decision-making authority has framed the way in which the interaction with the public will occur. In these interactions the developer and their consultants do not merely respond to public demands, they also establish norms of expected performance (cf. Renn et al., 1995, p. 28). Unplugged processes, in this context, are processes of interaction that are framed by the objectives of local residents or local environmental groups, but which cannot be seen as part of the EIA process.

2.3. The base, means and scope of power Power can be understood not only in terms of the power to make decisions, but also in terms of non-decision making—by preventing issues from even entering the decision-making arena (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 948; Lukes, 1974, p. 20). In the context of EIA, the economic interests of the developer and other proponents of the plan can lead to a mobilisation of bias that excludes both environmental considerations in general and the specific concerns of members of the local public. Eder (2000, p. 235) argues that in processes where the public have no effective decision-making power, their influence can still consist in preventing such bias. In relation to citizen power or possibilities to influence the EIA process, Robert Dahl’s (1957) distinction between the base, means and scope of power is also useful. In this approach to power, the invitation of a wider public into the EIA could be described as a base of citizen power. The bases of power are the possibilities and resources that an actor can exploit. In this context it involves the possibility of going to a consultation meeting, the possibility to make statements and to challenge other people’s statements at the meeting. Dahl’s dimensions of power can also be related to Arnstein’s ladder of participation. One difference is that while Arnstein’s terminology captures negative aspects at the bottom steps of the ladder (such as manipulation), Dahl’s terminology makes no such negative associations, but rather sets up some aspects of power that are related to each other. For instance, one example of a base of power can be access to certain arenas. Access possibilities do not automatically mean ‘actual presence in’ or ‘influence on’ the decision-making process, but it might be understood as an important pre-requisite (cf. Uhrwing, 2001, p. 56). Dahl’s approach seems to be more useful than Arnstein’s, since it does not eliminate the possibility that some aspects of public power might be operating at the same time as ‘manipulative aspects’ might be in force. According to Dahl (1957, p. 203), the means of power are the ways in which people actualise their possibilities. In this context the means could be to actually go to the meeting, to make claims and to challenge statements. The scope of power consists of the responses of the actors you want to exercise power on. One example of a response could be that the decision-making authority listens to local residents’ objections to the proposed project and then denies permission. However, the objectives of local residents are not always restricted to stopping proposed plans or projects—they could be any of the objectives listed in Table 1, or other ones for that matter. The question of public influence on the final decision, in this context, also has to be viewed as related to the role played by EIA in these decisions (see Leknes, 2001). Using the distinction between plugged-in and unplugged processes, the bases and means of power that can be adopted by local residents could be unplugged, e.g. by making protests in other ways than at the EIA meeting

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

such as demonstrations, signing protest lists or by writing statements to authorities. What happens next in response to an unplugged process is important. If these activities lead to responses by the decision-making authority they may then become plugged-in to the process. Alternatively if local protests resulted in changed thinking among the industry or local government actors involved and changed relationships, they might not directly become plugged-in, in terms of leading to changes in policy, but could still have an impact on future planning processes and interactions. This paper suggests that public participation from the viewpoint of the public and of deliberative democracy should consider (1) the objectives for participation—which might be so divergent that it is impossible to speak of public objectives, (2) the degree of autonomy from decision-making structures, and (3) different aspects of power. These three aspects will be discussed in Section 3 in relation to a case study of public consultation as part of the EIA for an airport extension in Sweden. This case study demonstrates how local residents’ dissatisfaction with conventional plugged-in processes in EIA led to protests in the form of new unplugged processes. 3. Objectives, autonomy and power in a practical case: the use of EIA in the extension of Örebro airport, Sweden 3.1. Background to the case study The case study refers to an extension of an airport runway and the EIA process involved. It highlights several of the issues raised above. There were massive local protests against the plans for the airport extension, but local residents’ objectives in these protests varied. There was also a great variation amongst local residents and protest groups in the preferred forms of involvement. Örebro airport is located in central Sweden, 12 km west of Örebro. In the area surrounding the airport the land is under agricultural cultivation and some farming families in the area have been living there for four to five generations. The airport was established in 1979 and has since then gradually expanded both its passenger traffic and freight transports. The airport is owned by the surrounding municipalities and the County Council. In April 1997, Örebro-Bofors Airport Company applied for an extension of the runway of 600 m (to a total of 2600 m), and for an increase of the number of permitted starts and landings from 21,000 to 30,000 per year, i.e. by nearly 50%. The EIA (1997) attached to the application concluded that the extension would not imply any serious impact on the environment, animals, vegetation or humans. In February 1997, the company arranged a public consultation meeting in which the results of the preliminary EIA were presented to local residents, approximately 50 of whom were present.

63

In April 1998, the national Franchise Board for Environmental Protection gave the airport permission for the expansion (EIA, 1998). The Franchise Board was the decision-making authority for these kinds of projects at the time, before it was replaced by a system of environmental courts in 1999. This decision was objected to in appeals from both the Local Board for Environmental Protection and from approximately 200 local residents. It is always difficult to demarcate a concerned public. In this case study local residents refer to those who were affected by certain levels of decibel, which means a geographical demarcation of the concerned. Potentially all citizens in the surrounding municipalities (hundreds of thousands of people) were concerned, but only the people living in small villages close to the airport (a few hundred people) and included in my geographical demarcation engaged in protests or other activities related to the plans. This situation was nevertheless judged by the decision-making authority to be a situation of ‘massive protest’. However, in September 2000, the Swedish Government made the final decision to allow the extension. By then the greater part of the extension had already been constructed despite many protests and actions amongst people living in the vicinity of the airport. The decision concerning noise mitigating measures was not resolved until February 2003. This case study is based on public records, as well as interviews with eight residents in the vicinity of the airport. The focus for the study was on local residents’ objectives, responses and actions. Although the number of interviews was limited, they are valuable since residents were selected on the basis of their varied objectives and engagement in the process. Some of the interviewees were very active, starting a protest group and later a political party. Others were engaged in other forms, such as in written statements or individual negotiations, or not at all. Due to the small number of interviews and qualitative data collected it was not appropriate to summarise the results in statistical form, instead each significant development is identified and the material is presented in illustrative quotes. 3.2. EIA as a plugged-in process The first base or arena for public influence on the EIA process was opened up by the invitation to the public to attend a consultation meeting. The airport company arranged a public consultation meeting in February 1997. Approximately 50 local residents were present at the meeting, together with representatives from the airport company and the Franchise Board for Environmental Protection, which at the time was the decision-making authority for enterprises on this scale (in 1999, the Franchise Board was replaced by an Environmental Court). The interviews indicated that some of the local residents felt that the meeting had been arranged only to fulfil legislative demands and that the company took no real interest in hearing what the locals had to say.

64

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

The interviews also made clear a number of concerns amongst local residents at this early stage. One of the participants was very upset about the way in which the public were invited to the meeting—by a small note in the local newspaper. Another view was that the information given at the meeting was very technical and difficult to understand (Interviews b, d and g). The impartiality of employed experts was also questioned since the company only presented figures that their own consultants had produced (Interview h). Other points raised about this consultation meeting were connected to the company’s tendency to “talk themselves out of things and not give any concrete answers” and the feeling that the issue was already decided in advance (Interviews c and e). The statements above reflect local residents’ disappointment with the method of public consultation and distrust of the objectives of the developer. The wider implication of this for EIA and public involvement in general is that since it is not self-evident that the objectives for participation is the same for different actors, the process should start with a careful discussion of the objectives. The technical character of the information presented by the airport company can be described as an excluding mechanism in that it makes it difficult for lay people to counter facts presented by the company and its consultants. The means local residents could adopt in order to actualise their possibilities for influence seem to be either to employ experts or to become experts themselves. One local resident, for example, who lives south of the airport, had himself made thorough preparations before the consultation meeting. He had arranged his own measurements of noise and water quality and prepared a thorough critique against the company’s treatment of these issues in the preliminary EIA. During his interview he stated that the representatives from the Franchise Board listened to the facts presented by locals at the meeting, but made another assessment in their decision (Interview h). Furthermore, the fact that parts of the airport extension had already been carried through before the decision was presented by the Franchise Board in April 1998 strengthened the feeling amongst the local residents involved that the issue had been decided in advance. In an appeal signed by local residents against this decision it was stated that they had not had a fair chance to make their voices heard—not all participants were given the opportunity to make claims at the meeting and not all issues raised by local residents were recorded in the minutes from the meeting (Appeal, 1998). This illustrates the problems connected to translation—even if people have a chance to make statements they are not in control as to how their concerns are selected, summarised, and transformed in documentation and reports. 3.3. Local residents’ objectives, engagement and the development of unplugged activities The engagement among local residents in action against the airport expansion was motivated by concerns about

increased noise pollution, air pollution and in relation to this, worries about decreased property value or continued farming possibilities. In addition, there was a general concern for environmental and democratic values (Interviews a–h). Some local residents had clear objectives of ensuring the protection of personal interests and that personal disbenefits were minimised. As one woman said: “the airport must be located somewhere. I totally understand that. But what I cannot understand is that they don’t want to take any responsibility and help those who are affected” (Interview c). The means used by local residents to ensure some compensation was to employ professional lawyers to help them make their claims. The woman mentioned above was one of 14 people living north of the airport that hired a lawyer to speak for them, her main concern being the decline of property values. However, she did not describe this help as very efficient (Interview c). Another means used by locals was individual negotiation with politicians and officials concerning compensation and the buying up of affected property. For example, one man said that he was not opposed to the airport in principle, but that “it is unlucky that it turned out to be at my farmyard”. He was willing to sell his farmyard to the municipality for a reasonable amount, but wished to keep some of the houses on his estate. He had spoken to officials and politicians extensively since the airport extension was first planned in order to bring about a deal he could be satisfied with (Interview e). However, the possibility to negotiate the amount received should the municipality affected the property existed only for a few of the residents. The question of buying up was only deemed relevant to houses that were subjected to the maximum levels of 80dB(A) to a certain amount of noise events each year. But even for those who had the possibility of negotiating the price of their house with the municipality, the result was dependent on the employment of efficient means, i.e. social and intellectual resources, for negotiation. It was thus a matter of individual influence rather than public and also a case of personal interest as the objective for participation, rather than objectives that had been collectively agreed upon. 3.4. The development of a protest group Some local residents were also engaged in collective activities, on the initiative of a local protest group. Three men were the most active and initially formed the protest group with the aim of stopping or limiting the airport expansion. They had local support, expressed in the signing of an appeal against the decision to permit expansion by about 200 local residents. Others were engaged in different actions on a more temporary basis. Their engagement included both formal contacts (written statements, appeals, etc.), as well as informal contacts with politicians, officials and the company. There have also been attempts at initiating a debate in the media with the help of letters to the local daily newspaper (Interview a). It is noticeable that it was three middle-aged

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

men who were the most active protesters. It is not possible to fully establish how representative they were of the objectives and motives of other local residents. Although the signing of the appeal was a way of showing support for the protest group, it hides the fact that local residents might have diverging interests and motives for stopping the airport expansion. In January 1998, the activists started a campaign in which daily visits were paid to the environmental office in Örebro. One of the activists says “There was a sense of being part of a David and Goliath situation. It started out as a good ambition but it was deemed to fail—there were no resources. In addition, the environmental office is located 10 km from where the people concerned live” (Interview g). This action can be interpreted as seeking alternative venues than the EIA process to stop the airport expansion. But it can also be seen as an objective to keep a check on the local decision-making authority. One of the interviewees claimed that the Local Board for Environmental Protection should have measured noise levels independently instead of taking the company’s calculations as a guarantee (Interview g). Another type of action, which happened outside the formal EIA process, but nevertheless within formal administrative arrangements, was related to the routing of a local highway. The extension of the take-off and landing strip that the airport had applied for was only possible if a highway was moved. The Road Administration (1999) held a public information meeting in spring 1999 and was interested to know if the local population had any special wishes concerning the new route of the highway. About 50 local residents, as well as representatives from Örebro Municipality were present at the meeting. At the meeting one of the representatives of the protest group stood up and proclaimed that the issue was related to the airport expansion and that it was illegal to hold a meeting concerning the highway before the issue of the airport had been decided on. He also stated that they (the protest group) would do everything they could to delay the planning process for the highway. The calculation in taking this procedural approach was the time for probation would run out and the airport would have to send in a new application that would be treated according to the new regulations in the Environmental Code. This declaration was met by the answer that “this is another issue and is not a subject for the meeting today” (Minutes, 1999). This administrative separation of single projects could be interpreted as a mechanism for excluding the public. From the opponents’ perspective these two projects were clearly related; if the road was not changed the take-off and landing strip could not be expanded. But from an administrative point of view the issues were not related. In this case however, the separation provided another base for public action against the airport expansion in ways that were not plugged-in to the EIA process. Local residents made statements and opposed the plans to move the highway on the basis of their engagement in the airport expansion (Road Administration, 2000). Despite these efforts, however, construction of the new route

65

of the highway started in October 2001 and finished during the spring of 2002. In summary, the bases and means local residents employed as individuals or as a collective varied from being directed through formal venues (the hiring of a lawyer, writing statements etc.) to direct action and writing protest letters. In practice none of these strategies seemed to be very effective as they did not change the decision of the Franchise Board to permit the airport expansion. However, on an individual basis it was possible to negotiate a better deal with the municipality concerning the buying up of property. The objectives of local residents did not only concern the airport expansion and its environmental impact, but also the democratic process and the possibilities for obtaining information and making their voices heard. However, the bases for such influence changed somewhat in the next development when the protest group started a political party. 3.5. The establishment of a new political party In September 1998, the three men involved in the protest group established a new political party; the ‘Environmental Radicals’. The party was established a fortnight before the local government election and after the election they got one seat in the local council. They had no financial means but ran their own campaign, travelling around and copying notes for the election themselves. Initially the Environmental Radicals was a single-issue party opposing the airport expansion. The reasons for engagement amongst those who started the party were several. One of them said that “in a democratic society, if you and your neighbours are affected by a change, you should also have the possibility to participate. One first prerequisite for this is that you have to be informed about what is going on [. . . ]. What I reacted most strongly against was that it was so undemocratic [for instance, the announcement time for the consultation meeting]. Secondly, an important issue for me is how a big international airport can be so unsatisfactorily located. There are farms here where the land has been cultivated for centuries and then everything is ruined. The airport company didn’t have to take any responsibility. They could put extra glass on the windows of the houses most affected, but they didn’t care about the others” (Interview g). The Environmental Radicals stated that the establishment of the party had changed the opportunities for them in obtaining relevant information about the airport expansion. One of them said: “when I called in a private capacity to different authorities they never sent me any documents, but when I called from the party the papers were delivered the following day” (Interview h). Thus there is evidence of the value of using the broader political process of representation rather than just the EIA, in terms of transparency and insight to the process, as well as of the increased opportunities to voice any concerns. The main reason for going into local politics was also the disappointment with the local council, who had stated an

66

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

almost indubitably positive attitude towards the airport expansion (Interview f). The establishment of the party gave the activists the opportunity to make statements directly to local politicians “we now had the opportunity to give a presentation at the local council for one and a half hours” (Interview h). The members of the new party think that they have had some influence and that the establishment of the party made a difference; they feel that they have had some influence on the local politicians and that they have convinced many people—also in the local council (Interview h). The base of power changed when the protest group became a political party, opening up to more influence on some issues. The changes primarily concerned information exchange. The active party-members said that they now had the opportunity to express their claims and also that access to information had increased. However, it is difficult to be conclusive about how far the party acted on behalf of all local residents and their concerns. For example, one woman said in her interview that the Environmental Radicals “have support [from other opponents of the airport expansion], but they haven’t pushed enough for that issue in the local council” (Interview a). Although both the Environmental Radicals and the initial protest group might have had some support from other residents, some people’s objectives were connected with their daily contacts with the airport, which could not be fully replaced by representation by other residents. One woman, who was engaged by participating at the public meeting, writing to the Franchise Board and who had been interviewed by the local radio station, also felt that the information from the company had been very poor. From a resident’s perspective, a sense of being listened to and of having influence might be related to very different objectives than those of the activist group/party: “You get no information whatsoever from the airport company and I think that the atmosphere would be a bit more pleasant between house owners and the company if they showed some go-ahead spirit in that respect.” (Interview d). To conclude: the protest actions of local people did not stop, but perhaps delayed, the airport expansion. Whether it succeeded in changing the relationship of local residents, the protest group or the political party to the airport company remains a question for the future. The next section elaborates on the issues raised in this case study and their implications for public participation in EIA in general.

4. Conclusions: from consultation to direct action and local politics In this case study local residents did not succeed in their engagement to stop the proposed airport expansion. This was the outcome of both plugged-in and unplugged processes. But for some this was not their only objective. For some the engagement was viewed as meaningful for other reasons

than the possibility of exerting influence, and was motivated by the sense that “you have at least done something”. Some of the local residents expressed the view that they had actually had some influence; their appeals delayed the airport expansion and the possibility for exchange of information increased for the small group that started the political party. However, the planning process was still characterised by excluding mechanisms, such as the technical framing of the environmental and health aspects; ignorance of local residents’ claims and a lack of resources on behalf of the public. To the extent that the protest group had support from local residents, they also provided access to an arena in which local people’s claims could be expressed in a novel way and this was seen as a meaningful and important result of their engagement. The protest group’s scope of power also changed when they established the political party—they now found that they could express their demands more freely and also interpreted this as having an impact on local politicians, at least in changing the way in which they were thinking about these issues. It is worth noting that the protest group had support from local residents for their activities, but this support was perhaps less extensive when they went into formal politics. EIA, when it is conducted with the aim of integrating the public in environmental decision making, can provide a new base for public influence and have the function of strengthening democracy. But whether EIA can really be seen as doing this could of course also be questioned on the basis of case studies like the one discussed above, which shows that some people are more engaged than others and the ones that are engaged may not be legitimate representatives of all people involved. Furthermore, from a social learning perspective it is not evident that the developer learns something that will result in more contacts with the public, since public involvement can lead to time-delays and more ‘trouble’. However, as Gambetta (1998, p. 22) argues the effects of deliberation should be related to the “imperfect deliberative models we have anyway”. Democracy tends to consist of discursive practices and deliberative elements, regardless of what we may think of its deficits in relation to representative models. One positive consequence of deliberation, according to Gambetta, is the distribution of information. If information is unequally distributed, deliberation can at least bring about a change in the information distribution and open up a discussion of the relative merits of different means. A second positive consequence is that when issues are discussed in public, participants tend to raise issues guided by reason, rather than self-interest (Elster, 1998, p. 118). To the extent that EIA does this, it can at least partly be seen as strengthening a deliberative democracy. On the basis of this case study, care is needed in drawing the conclusions suggested above. Environmental conflicts, in this study and in others, indicate that citizens no longer accept being spoken for—they want to take part in discussions

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

of what makes political decisions legitimate and good for all. In spite of its deficiencies, EIA does provide equal rights to access to information on planned proposals, to participate in meetings and to comment on plans. Seen from a wider perspective of democracy, it could perhaps be regarded, in Habermas’s (1999) terms, as a sluice gate which gives the opportunity for citizens to challenge biased power structures through a venue that is open to all. If this does not have an effect in terms of changed decisions, the political system’s dependency on legitimation is still an opening in the long run. If too many EIAs are characterised by exclusion and an inability to integrate public concerns, the political and administrative systems are likely to have to react in some way. These reactions might only result in slight amendments of EIA regulations, for example those seen in the corrections of the EU EIA Directive (1997) as well as in the Swedish Environmental Code (1999), which give greater consideration to public involvement than previous regulations. Slow reformatory steps might be seen as a limited response, but viewed in a longer-term perspective they might still lead to substantial changes. From the perspective of deliberative democracy, public participation can be understood as a matter of forcing social problems, based on experiences from individual lifeworlds, to be attended to by the political and administrative systems that have the capacity to deal with them. This is an ongoing process and it is important to recognise public involvement in formalised arrangements such as EIA as well as actions outside them.

References Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Planners 35 (4), 216–244. Bachrach, P., Baratz, M., 1962. Two faces of power. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 56, 947–952. Bjarnadóttir, H., Hilding-Rydevik, T., 2001. Final Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Sweden. Some Unresolved Issues and Challenges in the Design and Implementation of the Forthcoming Planning and EIA Processes. SKI Report 01:24. Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm. Cortner, H.J., 2000. Making science relevant to environmental policy, environmental science. Environ. Sci. Policy 3 (1), 21–30. Dahl, R.A., 1957. The concept of power. J. Soc. Gen. Syst. Res. 2, 201– 215. Dresner, S., Gilbert, N., 1999. Decision-making processes for projects requiring environmental impact assessment: case studies in six European countries. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manage. 1 (1), 105–130. Eder, K., 2000. Taming risks through dialogues: the rationality and functionality of discursive institutions in risk society. In: Cohen, M.J. (Ed.), Risk in the Modern Age. MacMillan Press Ltd., London, pp. 225–248. EIA, 1997. The application from Örebro Airport Company. The National Franchise Board for Environmental Protection. Journal number 171-190-97. Act number 221. The Environmental Office in Örebro, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden. EIA, 1998. Decision from the National Franchise Board for Environmental Protection. Report number 52. The Environmental Office in Örebro, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden.

67

Elster, J., 1998. Deliberation and constitution making. In Elster, J. (Ed.), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 97–122. Fiorino, D.J., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 15 (2) 226–243. Gambetta, D., 1998. “Claro!”: an essay on discursive machismo. In: Elster, J. (Ed.), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 19–43. Habermas, J., 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press, Boston. Habermas, J., 1999. Popular sovereignty as procedure. In: Bohman, J., Rehg, W. (Eds), Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1997, second edition 1999), pp. 35–66. Hilding-Rydevik, T. (Ed.), 2001. EIA, Large Development Projects and Decision making in the Nordic Countries. Nordregio, Stockholm. Hokkanen, P., 2001. EIA and decision making in search of each other. In: Hilding-Rydevik, T. (Ed.), EIA, Large Development Projects and Decisionmaking in the Nordic Countries. Nordregio, Stockholm, pp. 95–151. Hunt, J., Szerszynski, B., 1999. How was it for you? Issues and dilemmas in the evaluation of deliberative processes. In O’Riordan, T., Burgess, J., Szerszynski, B. (Eds.), Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes. A Report From Two Seminars. CSERGE Working Paper PA 99-06, pp. 29–35. Irwin, A., 1995. Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. Routledge, New York. Joss, S.A., 1998. The Role of Participation in Institutionalised Technology Assessment. A Case Study of Consensus Conferences. Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, London. Kemp, R., O’Riordan, T., Purdue, M., 1984. Investigation as legitimacy: the maturing of the big public inquiry. Geoforum 15 (3), 477–488. Leknes, E., 2001. The role of EIA in the decision-making process. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 21, 309–334. Lukes, S., 1974. Power: A Radical View. Macmillan Press, London. O’Riordan, T., Burgess, J., Szerszynski, B. (Eds.), Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes. A Report from Two Seminars. CSERGE Working Paper PA 99–06. Petts, J. (Ed.), 1999. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 1. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Renn, O., Webler, T., Wideman, P. (Eds.), 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Uhrwing, M., 2001. Tillträde till maktens rum. Om intresseorganisationer och miljöpolitiskt beslutsfattande (Access to the power sphere. On interest organisations and decision making on environmental policy). Gidlunds Förlag, Hedemora. Wood, Ch., 1996. Evaluation of the Performance of EIA Process. Final Report. Volume 1: Main Report. Directive 85/337/EEC: Report 1, European Commission, Manchester. Wynne, B., 1982. Rationality and Ritual. The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain. The British Society for the History of Science, Chalfont St Giles.

Further Reading Official Documents and Interviews Appeal, 1998. Appeal against the decision in 1998 by the Franchise Board. Journal number 171-190-97. Act number 230. The Environmental Office in Örebro, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden. Interview a, 2001-05-08, and telephone interview 2001-08-27. Woman 28 years old, has lived on an estate south of the airport, since 1997. She works as a teacher, her husband’s family have been farming in the area for three generations.

68

L. Soneryd / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 59–68

Interview b, 2001-05-10. Man 72 years old who is a farmer and has lived on the same estate since 1928 when he was born. Interview c, 2001-05-07. Woman 60 years old has lived on her estate since 1961. She was born and grew up only a few kilometres away. Interview d, 2001-05-10. Woman 58 years old has lived on an estate north of the airport since 1989 and before that she lived for ten years in a house in the vicinity. Interview e, 2001-05-28. Man 54 years old, is a farmer and has lived on an estate south of the airport since 1980. He was born in the area. Interview f. Telephone interview, 2001-09-08. A man who is a representative of the protest group and later established the political party. Interview g. Telephone interview, 2001-09-10. A man who is a representative of the protest group and later established the political party. Interview h. Telephone interview, 2001-09-12, and interview 2001-09-26. A man who is a representative of the protest group and later established the political party.

Minutes, 1999. Observation of public meeting concerning Highway 540 south of Örebro-Bofors Airport, 1999-11-04, Nybble kyrka. Road Administration, 1999. Highway 540 south of Örebro-Bofors Airport. Minutes from public information meeting. 1999-11-04, Nybble kyrka, Swedish National Road Administration, Box 1140, SE-631 80 Eskilstuna, Sweden. Road Administration, 2000. Statements to the Road Administration Region Mälardalen concerning working plans for changing Highway 540, south of Örebro-Bofors Airport, Örebro Municipality. Swedish National Road Administration, Box 1140, SE-631 80 Eskilstuna, Sweden.

Linda Soneryd has a PhD in sociology and is affiliated to the ManTechnology-Environment Research Centre, Örebro University and Stockholm Centre for Organizational, Sweden Research. Her research is related to environmental risk regulation, knowledge production and public involvement.