which occur because of undemocratic and non-participatory processes (Holifield
et al., 2009). This body of literature also places issues like the enforcement of
environmental laws, access to information, transparency, accountability and access
to legal processes on the agenda. Authors like Hunold/Young (1998) and
Shrader-Frechette (2002) highlight the deliberative democracy in addressing procedural inequalities experienced in environmental decision-making processes.
Additionally, the Aarhus Convention is utilized by Mason (2010), De Santo (2011),
and Walker/Day (2012) as the key way to pursue procedural justice in similar
processes.
Within these discussions, one concept emerges as “the central concern of procedural environmental justice”: meaningful participation (Holifield, 2012: 592).
Accordingly, environmental justice literature identifies meaningful participation as
a prerequisite for attaining justice in environmental governance (Schlosberg, 2004;
Paavola/Adger, 2006; Holifield, 2009). Although the concept can be defined in
different ways, Solitare’s (2005: 921) approach to the concept as ‘successful
communicative planning requir[ing] conditions that allow all citizens to participate
freely and equally’ is seen as one of the broadest and most open-ended definitions
of the concept.
The prerequisites of meaningful participation have been seen in two ways. In the
first, Solitare (2005: 921) lists the conditions of meaningful participation as follows:
For citizens to want to participate: (1) there must be a commitment to their involvement
from all …; (2) they must be aware of the opportunities to participate; (3) they must have
time, as a resource, to commit to the process; (4) they must trust that other[s] are fair and
honest; and (5) the issue under consideration must be one they perceive to be a problem.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA, 2013), on the
other hand, defines them as follows:
Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in
decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s
contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) their concerns will be
considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and
facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.
The prerequisites of meaningful participation are not radically different in either
of these approaches. The delineation of such prerequisites indicates that meaningful
participation should be guaranteed in environmental governance. This makes the
process fairer, and ultimately the decision is more likely to be widely accepted by
the community. This is because the representation of the affected population can be
ensured and decisions taken as a result of such an inclusive process can be regarded
as legitimate, since it gives the affected population a chance to influence the
decision-making process (see Solitare, 2005; Paavola/Adger, 2006; Holifield,
2012). Although there are similarities with deliberation, this concept is more
open-ended and more applicable to the contextual studies.
The concept of meaningful participation inherently carries the main assumption
of procedural (environmental) justice, asserting that fair processes are likely to lead
to fair outcomes. Despite the concept’s relation to deliberative models, it is not too
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
143
et al., 2009). This body of literature also places issues like the enforcement of
environmental laws, access to information, transparency, accountability and access
to legal processes on the agenda. Authors like Hunold/Young (1998) and
Shrader-Frechette (2002) highlight the deliberative democracy in addressing procedural inequalities experienced in environmental decision-making processes.
Additionally, the Aarhus Convention is utilized by Mason (2010), De Santo (2011),
and Walker/Day (2012) as the key way to pursue procedural justice in similar
processes.
Within these discussions, one concept emerges as “the central concern of procedural environmental justice”: meaningful participation (Holifield, 2012: 592).
Accordingly, environmental justice literature identifies meaningful participation as
a prerequisite for attaining justice in environmental governance (Schlosberg, 2004;
Paavola/Adger, 2006; Holifield, 2009). Although the concept can be defined in
different ways, Solitare’s (2005: 921) approach to the concept as ‘successful
communicative planning requir[ing] conditions that allow all citizens to participate
freely and equally’ is seen as one of the broadest and most open-ended definitions
of the concept.
The prerequisites of meaningful participation have been seen in two ways. In the
first, Solitare (2005: 921) lists the conditions of meaningful participation as follows:
For citizens to want to participate: (1) there must be a commitment to their involvement
from all …; (2) they must be aware of the opportunities to participate; (3) they must have
time, as a resource, to commit to the process; (4) they must trust that other[s] are fair and
honest; and (5) the issue under consideration must be one they perceive to be a problem.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA, 2013), on the
other hand, defines them as follows:
Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in
decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s
contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) their concerns will be
considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and
facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.
The prerequisites of meaningful participation are not radically different in either
of these approaches. The delineation of such prerequisites indicates that meaningful
participation should be guaranteed in environmental governance. This makes the
process fairer, and ultimately the decision is more likely to be widely accepted by
the community. This is because the representation of the affected population can be
ensured and decisions taken as a result of such an inclusive process can be regarded
as legitimate, since it gives the affected population a chance to influence the
decision-making process (see Solitare, 2005; Paavola/Adger, 2006; Holifield,
2012). Although there are similarities with deliberation, this concept is more
open-ended and more applicable to the contextual studies.
The concept of meaningful participation inherently carries the main assumption
of procedural (environmental) justice, asserting that fair processes are likely to lead
to fair outcomes. Despite the concept’s relation to deliberative models, it is not too
9 Exploring Environmental Justice: Meaningful Participation …
143