Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Contextual attributes associated with public participation in

environmental impact assessments in Thailand: Perspectives
obtained from authorities and academics
Kanang Kantamaturapoj a, *, Chaunjit Chanchitpricha b, Parinee Hongsuwan a, c,
Pannipa Suebsing d, Suwicha Thaweesuk a, e, Suwit Wibulpolprasert f
a
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand
b
School of Environmental Health, Institute of Public Health, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
c
Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
d
Division of Environmental Impact Assessment Development, Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok,
Thailand
e
National Health Commission Office, Nonthaburi, Thailand
f
International Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Context can enhance or hinder public participation (PP) in environmental impact assessments
Context (EIAs). This study aimed to investigate and discuss how PP-related contextual attributes influence
Contextual attributes the quality of PP in Thai EIA processes. The study adopted the qualitative approach and inter­
Public participation
viewed 20 key informants with insightful PP-associated experience in Thai EIAs. The results
Environmental impact assessment
Thailand
showed that four major groups of contextual attributes are believed to influence PP in Thai EIAs:
the legal and political frameworks, the capacities of key actors, environmental awareness and the
right to participate in decision-making processes, and cultural context. The greatest strength of PP
in Thai EIAs is that PP is mandated by law, followed by increased environmental awareness and
the right to participate in the decision-making process. Different key actors such as project
owners, consultants, non-governmental organizations, and reviewing agencies encounter diffi­
culties in discharging their prescribed functions, which affects the quality of PP. The authoritarian
culture of Thai society also prevents PP in EIAs. The study offers certain recommendations,
including public communication about how civic inputs can influence decision-making processes,
the employment of social sector specialists to facilitate PP in EIA, and the application of appro­
priate participation techniques associated with the prevailing culture.

1. Introduction

Thailand began to transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy in the early 1960s and was designated as a newly
industrialized economy by the end of the 1990s [1]. The nation’s rapid industrial development and exploitation of natural resources
during this transfiguration have caused severe environmental externalities such as the depletion of natural resources, deforestation,
and pollution [2]. Relevant laws and measures, including environmental impact assessments (EIAs), have since been implemented to

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, 73170 Thailand.
E-mail address: kanang.kan@mahidol.ac.th (K. Kantamaturapoj).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21786
Received 9 January 2023; Received in revised form 26 October 2023; Accepted 27 October 2023
Available online 3 November 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

address these environmental challenges.

Thailand has mandated EIAs as a screening device since the mid-1970s to minimize the adverse environmental impact of mega­
projects [3]. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment currently denotes three major types of impact evaluations: the Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE), the EIA, and the Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA) [4,5]. In practical terms, the
three evaluation types operate at different scopes and scales. The IEE attends to projects exerting minor environmental effects, while
the EIA is designed for projects that can cause major environmental impact. The EHIA is utilized when significantly greater re­
percussions are expected to accrue on society, health, or the environment than would be caused by conventional development projects.
Examples of projects that could be subjected to EHIA scrutiny include nuclear reactors, industrial estates, central waste treatment
plants, or coke production. Conceived in the latter part of the first decade of the 21st century, the EHIA is the latest type of envi­
ronmental evaluation to be introduced. However, this paper uses the term EIA to encompass all three aforementioned impact
assessment types.
The EIA is currently viewed as a mechanism that encourages public participation (PP) and supports environmental decision-
making. Development projects exert unintended consequences for people’s well-being. Therefore, citizens should be included in the
decision-making processes related to projects and should be able to negotiate, mediate, and respond to expected consequences. Hence,
PP represents a vital component of EIAs [6]. Integrating PP into EIA processes enhances democratic environmental decision-making
[7] and EIA practices worldwide emphasize PP. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States of America
allows citizens to voice their concerns and submit statements during an EIA [8]. The Environmental Protection Act of The Netherlands
stipulates public consultations during the EIA preparation phase [9]. In Uganda, EIA regulations allow stakeholders and citizens at
large to participate in EIA studies and reviews [10]. Furthermore, the legislative requirements for PP were incorporated into the EIA
laws of China [11] and Vietnam [12] in 2002 and 2005, respectively.
Section 58 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand [13] and Section 48 of Thai National Environmental Quality Act (No. 2)
B.E. 2561 (2018) (Amendment) [14] mandate PP for EIAs undertaken at the project development stage. However, previous research
has shown that inadequate participatory techniques, lack of information and transparency, token representation of stakeholder
involvement, and inconsequential public consultation have made PP in Thai EIAs only partially effective. A study of stakeholders’
opinions in EHIA in eastern Thailand revealed that people affected by projects felt uncomfortable about expressing their concerns
because the PP process was excessively bureaucratic [15]. In addition, distrust, and even conflict, were reported to result from the lack
of information flow and transparency about PP in an iron mining project in northeast Thailand [16]. Furthermore, an EHIA conducted
for a state-owned coal-fired power plant project in southern Thailand noted that the affected people were excluded from PP, leading to
public protests against the project [17]. Moreover, a PP study on a privately owned coal-fired power plant project in eastern Thailand
observed that the project owner had decided on the location of the power plant before consulting with stakeholders [18]. These ex­
amples reflect token PP bids that have diminished the power of communities and citizens in Thailand.
It is important to note that a significant amount of scientific research has focused on the effectiveness of PP in EIAs in Thailand [15,
18–21]. However, research on the effects of contexts on PP in EIA remains scant; thus, a knowledge gap exists. Indeed, the quality of PP
is not determined solely by the PP process; it depends also on the contexts within which PP occurs. Context is deemed a crucial aspect of
the design of participatory processes relating to environmental policies [22]. For example, PP is usually ignored in countries that do not
legally require public engagement [23]. People are also less likely to participate in decision-making processes in societies that display
hierarchical cultures. Conversely, people are more likely to participate and achieve compromises in consensus culture societies [24].
Therefore, context has a strong influence on the public’s willingness and opportunity for PP.
This study aims to contribute significantly to bridging the existing knowledge gap by clarifying how context determines partici­
pation in Thai EIAs. The study aims to (a) investigate contextual attributes associated with PP in EIAs, and (b) explain how these
contexts influence the quality of PP in EIA. This paper comprises five sections. First, it describes how PP developed in the Thai EIA
system. Second, it elucidates the study’s theoretical approach, reviews the concept of PP in EIA, shows a literature review on the
contextual attributes affecting PP, and thus defines the framework developed for the study’s analysis of PP in Thai EIAs. Third, the
paper delineates the study methodology, detailing the rationale for the research approach, the sampling method, the key informant
selection criteria, the data collection method, and data analysis. Fourth, it presents and discusses the study’s findings about the
contextual attributes associated with PP in Thai EIAs. The final section encompasses the concluding remarks, recommendations, and
limitations of the study.

2. The development of PP in Thai EIA

Numerous international agreements have widely acknowledged many forms of PP to resolve environmental problems, such as
Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [25], and the Aarhus Convention [26]. PP in environmental
policy, and particularly in EIAs, did not materialize in Thailand until the late 1990s. However, some preceding developments may be
mentioned as government signals that paved the way for PP in EIAs.
EIA was initially considered a screening instrument in Thailand and policymakers used this tool to mitigate the environmental
impact of projects. However, PP has not yet been strongly promoted in EIAs. The 1975 Enhancement and Conservation of National
Environmental Quality Act (NEQA) was the first environmental legislation in Thailand to address natural resource protection and
pollution control. The notification dedicated to EIA was issued in 1978 under the purview of the NEQA. This notification first specified
the types and sizes of projects for which an EIA report was mandatory and stipulated the National Environmental Board (NEB) as the
approving authority for EIA reports [3]. The first NEQA was updated and replaced by the 1992 Enhancement and Conservation of the
NEQA.

2
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

The promulgation of the 1997 Constitution introduced a difference by indicating that the public possessed the right to participate in
environmental protection undertakings and that the government was responsible for promoting PP in its projects at all levels [27]. PP
has become more integrated into official EIA practices since the 1997 Constitution came into effect, and the current 2017 Constitution
preserves this notion. The Conservation of the NEQA (No. 2) has added penalties for projects developed without EIA approval. More
importantly, it requires PP in the EIA process [14].
The Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) is the government agency responsible for regu­
lating and facilitating EIA approvals. ONEP published detailed guidelines for the institution of PP in the EIA process after the advances
mentioned in the previous paragraph. These guidelines were first applied in 2006 and were updated in 2019. They specified the
aforementioned EIA types and established a minimum number of public consultations per project for each type of impact assessment
[28]. For example, a minimum of two public consultations must occur for every EIA-type evaluation but each EHIA-type investigation
must avail of three public consultations (see Box 1). The guidelines also categorize project stakeholders into seven major groups:
affected individuals, project owners and consultants, EIA reviewing agencies, government agencies, academics and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), media, and any other interested person. The 2019 version of the guidelines clarified that stakeholder analyses
should be implemented for both EIA and EHIA types.
NEB appoints several expert review committees (ERCs) chaired by the ONEP secretary-general to evaluate and approve EIA reports
[14]. Each ERC includes qualified experts from diverse academic disciplines. Notably, every ERC must include a PP expert who can
faithfully review the content and comment about the PP recorded in the EIA report. Thus, ERCs are granted the authority to approve or
censure EIA reports. Approvals are followed by permit applications tendered by the project owner to the regulators (permitting
agencies). The permitting agencies must organize their own public consultation projects under the purview of EHIAs before such
projects can be approved [15]. PP mandates for EHIAs are thus more rigorous than for EIAs.

3. Theoretical approach

3.1. General concept of PP in EIA

The PP process involves stakeholders in project-related decision making. In the EIA context, PP offers affected individuals and
relevant stakeholders the opportunity to voice their concerns and thus influence decisions that could affect their lives [29]. The extant
research highlights that PP in EIA generates higher-quality decisions [7,29], fosters trust among stakeholders [30], creates informed
citizens [31], enhances problem-solving skills [7], and encourages social learning [30]. Existing studies have also identified the
essential components for effective PP in EIA: early involvement [18], sufficient and understandable information [31], representa­
tiveness [15,32], transparent PP processes [16,33], and appropriate approaches [34].
EIA stakeholders are defined as individuals who benefit or incur disadvantages from a project [35] or any other interested persons
[7]. In effect, EIA stakeholders usually include government officials, company representatives, NGOs, community-based organizations,
and members of local communities [6].
Discrete actors can harbor different expectations from EIAs [34]. Scholars have classified stakeholders, assigning different levels of
participation for each stakeholder category. For example, Arnstein’s oft-cited PP ladder framework [36] originally proposed eight
major levels of participation: manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegation, and citizen control.
Similarly, a framework presented in a study on a Swiss river restoration project differentiated stakeholder participation in environ­
mental projects at five levels: information provision, consultation, collaboration, co-decision, and empowerment [34]. The PP spec­
trum posited by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) is widely employed worldwide in different domains,
including EIAs. This spectrum considers participation to occur when an authority or project developer informs, consults, involves,
collaborates with, and/or empowers citizens [37]. Each participation mode helps stakeholders define their roles in the
decision-making process. Informing entails providing the public with the necessary facts so they can understand the issues. Consulting
signifies listening to public opinion and soliciting feedback. Involving denotes working with the public to ensure due consideration of
the concerns of citizens. Collaboration requires partnering with the public to identify alternatives and solutions. Finally, empowerment
means granting the ultimate decision-making authority to the public.

Box 1
Public consultations in Thai EIA and EHIA

An EIA-type study must conduct public consultation at least twice. The first consultation is to collect public opinions regarding
the scope of the EIA study. The second consultation is held during the EIA report-drafting stage to gather feedback on the
proposed mitigation measures. Public consultation for an EHIA-type study requires more frequent public consultation. At least
three public consultations are required in EHIA process. Two of them (public scoping and public review) are similar to an EIA-
type study. The third, during EHIA preparation, is distinctive and set between the other two consultations. Additionally, the
public notice for the EHIA consultation must be distributed via at least three communication channels 30 days before the
consultation. At least 15 days before the consultation, the project owner and consultant are required to disclose the materials to
the affected parties. After the consultation, the record must be made publicly available.

3
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

Participatory techniques are designed based on different degrees of participation [34]. The techniques frequently observed in EIAs
include public meetings, public hearings, focus group discussions, advisory panels, open houses, interviews, questionnaires, citizen
juries, field visits, workshops, cognitive maps, and participatory appraisals [34,38]. Stakeholders should be involved in the designing
of techniques [39] and varied techniques should be strategically utilized [34] to ensure effective and appropriate participation
processes.

3.2. Developing a framework for the analysis of contextual PP-related attributes in Thai EIAs

Contexts can influence PP in decision-making. For EIAs, context denotes the set of facts or circumstances that influence selected
approaches [40]. Socio-economic factors such as accessibility, environmental awareness, and trust in decision-making influence the
desire of citizens to engage with EIA processes [41–44]. Legal frameworks [42,43,45], the formality of PP [45], norms related to PP
[45], political systems [42], stakeholder capacities [43,46], and the public’s awareness of its rights to participate [44] represent some
contextual factors that can facilitate (or constrain) the quality of PP in EIA. Therefore, these factors can be categorized into four major
contextual attributes that constitute the core analytical framework of this study: the legal and political frameworks, the capacities and
attitudes of key stakeholders, the environmental awareness of citizens and their right to participate in decision making, and the
cultural context. The sections that follow demonstrate that these attributes are arguably fundamental and relevant to the compre­
hension of how PP operates in Thai environmental decision making.

1) Legal and political frameworks: PP in EIAs is facilitated in Thailand by the existence of laws and regulations that certify the
participation rights of citizens [38]. Uncertain legislation could result in poor PP in EIAs; therefore, a robust legislative framework
should be adopted to increase the efficacy of PP in EIAs [23]. Ineffective law enforcement also occurs because of the absence of
penalties levied for EIA violations [44,47]. However, legislation alone does not confirm the success of PP in implementing EIAs
[18]. The political system and economic climate also greatly influence public involvement [42]. EIAs and PP could be executed
merely as token actions if political leaders are more concerned with economic development and view EIAs as barriers to in­
vestments [29,43]. Political influencers could intervene to utilize PP as a political instrument and mislead policymaking. In many
cases, project owners could only conduct PP activities to satisfy legal requirements and may not include all stakeholders during the
PP process [11,12].

Fig. 1. Framework for analyzing contextual attributes associated with PP in Thai EIAs.

4
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

2) Attitudes and capacities of key actors: The quality of PP and impact assessments may be affected by the ways in which key actors
such as project owners, consultants, NGOs, and EIA authorities think and act during a PP program [48,49]. For instance,
open-minded project owners would earmark adequate funds to perform sufficient PP activities and would consider public input in
their project-related decision making [50]. The competence of EIA consultants is determined by their skills, knowledge, and
budgetary allocations [50]. Budget and human resources are factors that enable NGOs to participate effectively in PP processes
[44]. The capacities of EIA authorities include adequate human resources and high autonomy [44,51].
3) Environmental awareness and the right to participate in the decision-making process: Participation levels have improved in
Thailand because of the increased environmental awareness of its citizens [52,53]. Ignorance about environmental problems
represents a constraint factor that reduces the willingness of the public to participate in the decision-making process [48] and
hinders effective PP in EIAs [23,44,51]. In addition, public awareness of the rights of citizens to participate in environmental
decision making can also influence how individuals engage with EIA processes. Previous research has shown that the public tends
to become motivated to engage in PP if people are aware that their participation can significantly influence decision-making
processes [11,15].
4) Cultural context: The cultural context is important to know how citizens desire to participate in environmental decision-making
processes [54]. Culture includes the social members’ shared emotions, thoughtfulness, and actions. The cultural context is defined
as the core values, rituals, and symbols of a society. Culture directs human behaviors and assigns meanings to actions [55]; hence, it
indirectly influences PP. For example, people in democratic countries generally respect others’ opinions and are willing to debate
with those holding opposing views [56]. In contrast, political disagreement becomes a source of anxiety for the inhabitants of less
democratic nations because such disputes can destroy social bonds and people are uncomfortable about expressing opposing
opinions [57]. People’s willingness to participate in environmental decision making is therefore influenced by the participation
culture. A previous study confirmed that inadequate PP in EIAs is typically attributable to the absence of a participatory culture
[44]. EIA practitioners must consider cultural contexts when designing participation methods. For instance, open discussions are
effective in individualistic countries but could be unproductive in collectivist societies where the expression of differing opinions
could undermine communal unity [54].

The analytical framework adopted in this study to analyze how the aforementioned contextual attributes relate to PP in Thai EIAs is
summarized in Fig. 1.

4. Methodology

The qualitative approach was employed in this study to investigate contextual attributes associated with PP in Thai EIA. The
qualitative approach was suited to this study because it can be applied to explore the perspectives of key informants (KIs) who can offer
insightful experiences associated with the phenomenon to understand the essence of a phenomenon [58].
The positionality of researchers unavoidably affects the design and outcomes of qualitative studies. Therefore, researchers must
employ self-reflexivity to acknowledge and disclose the involvement and impact of their stances on their research [59]. Thus, the
authors of this paper endeavored to ensure self-reflexivity by identifying their opinions and personal values vis-à-vis PP in Thai EIAs.
Three of the authors are thoroughly experienced in Thai EIAs: one is a participation expert in an ERC and has reviewed EIA reports on
PP for nine years, one works for the ONEP EIA development division, and another has worked for the Health Impact Assessment unit of
a government agency. Thus, the authors deem themselves “insiders” with extensive previous knowledge and experience apropos PP in
the Thai EIAs. It was acknowledged that some participants could be unwilling to take part in the study, while others might be reluctant
to offer honest opinions on some topics because some of the current study’s researchers were authorized to grant EIA approvals. The
anonymity of all participants was assured and informed consent was obtained for the study. In addition, the researchers honestly
disclose their positionalities in this paper so readers can make better-informed judgments regarding the research findings.
The authors used purposive sampling strategies to identify KIs with robust experience with PP in EIAs who could offer practical
opinions on how contextual attributes might influence the quality of PP in Thai EIAs. Purposive sampling is typically used in quali­
tative research to choose informants most likely to deliver relevant and insightful information [60]. This nonrandom sampling
technique does not stipulate a predetermined number of KIs.

Table 1
KIs involved in the in-depth interviews.
KI Groups ID Description Number Of
KIs

Expert review ERC They review, comment on, and approve the PP section of EIA reports. They comprehensively understand PP- 7
committee related concepts, guidelines, practices, and decision-making procedures.
Statutory authority SA Members of this EIA authority imbibe a thorough understanding of the EIA system along with the PP and decision- 4
making procedures.
Permitting agency PA Members of this agency are charged with monitoring whether project owners follow the mitigation measures 3
mentioned in EIA reports. They understand the EIA system and its decision making, monitoring, and public
complaint handling processes.
Scholars S They are knowledgeable about the theories that inform EIA processes and have researched varied PP concepts. 6
TOTAL 20

5
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

The KIs in this study include 20 people from four groups working intensively with PP in EIAs: ERC, the statutory authority,
permitting agencies, and scholars. First, 15 participation experts in the ERC in Thailand commented on the PP section of EIA reports.
The authors contacted all these experts except for one, who is one of the present researchers of this study. However, only seven experts
agreed to be interviewed. The statutory agency in this study denotes the unit that is charged with granting permission for EIA reports
and developing PP guidelines. Second, the statutory authority group was purposively selected by contacting four representatives who
worked closely with EIA: one from the executive level, two from the EIA division, and one from the EIA development division. The
statutory authority passes ERC-approved EIA reports to the permitting agency for project approval. Third, the authors selected three
representatives from three permitting agencies that encompassed PP departments and were familiar with PP in EIAs. Finally, par­
ticipants classified to the scholar group were identified by searching for articles on PP in Thai EIAs published between 2017 and 2021
and approaching the first or corresponding authors of these articles. Six scholars could be contacted and were willing to be inter­
viewed. The authors believed that the six participating scholars had thoroughly evaluated and analyzed PP in Thailand and could offer
academic perspectives on the contextual factors influencing participation. Table 1 shows the KIs who participated in the in-depth
interviews for this study and reveals the rationales for the selection of the four different KI groups.
In-depth interviews lasting between 60 and 90 min were conducted between November 2021 and May 2022. A semi-structured
interview guide was developed based on the four contextual aspects described in the conceptual framework. The open-ended ques­
tions discussed with all KIs are summarized in Box 2. Interviews were conducted online or in person, depending on the KI’s choice. For
the in-person interviews, KIs selected locations in which they were most comfortable. Interviews were conducted in Thai if the re­
searchers and the KIs were native Thai speakers. Interview data were triangulated by confirming data consistency among KIs.
The compiled data were transcribed and coded before analysis. A coding scheme guide was devised as the analytical basis for
answers to the key questions. The researchers translated the codes into English and presented them as narrative accounts in text form,
listing the KIs who supplied the information in parentheses. Four contextual attributes related to PP in EIAs in Thailand were used as
the framework for the analysis (Fig. 1). Data were mapped into attributes to examine how these contexts influence PP in Thai EIAs. All
researchers worked together to analyze and interpret data to ensure the reliability of the analysis.

5. Results and discussion

This section investigates the contextual attributes influencing PP in Thai EIAs. Table 2 summarizes the contextual attributes
identified by KIs vis-à-vis PP in EIAs. Each contextual attribute arises from the analysis of the viewpoints expressed by KIs per the
framework presented in Fig. 1.

5.1. Legal and political frameworks

This study found that having PP mandated by law is the greatest strength of PP in Thai EIAs because project owners are compelled
by law to inform and consult stakeholders before projects are implemented (ERC#1#2#3#6#7, SA#1#2#3#4, PA#1#2#3,
S#2#4#5#6).
The aforementioned ONEP guidelines on PP in the EIA process are also highlighted as being momentous because they deliver
precise information on the number of required consultations, the objectives of each consultation, and the stakeholders that should be
involved. Some KIs stated that the guidelines outline clear procedures and encourage inclusive stakeholder engagement at an early
stage of EIAs (ERC#1#2, SA#1#2#3#4, PA#1). The guidelines encourage project owners to respond to public concerns by recom­
mending measures to mitigate such apprehensions.
Scholars contend that political influence most hinders effective EIAs and hampers deliberative decision making [42]. PP may occur
as a mere formality if political leaders prioritize economic development and perceive EIAs as hindrances to investment [23,29]. This
statement also applies to PP in Thai EIAs. Interviews conducted for this study revealed that project owners were not legally obliged to
incorporate public concerns into their project-related decisions (ERC#2#3#6#7, S#1#6). Thus, most project owners only conducted
PP activities to satisfy legal requirements, rarely providing feedback to the public on how their concerns influenced project-related
decisions (ERC#2#3#6#7, SA#3, S#1#3#4#5#6). The interviews also revealed that PP in Thai EIAs was obstructed because of a
paucity of political support. Political leaders tend to prioritize economic development over PP (ERC#1#4#7, S#3#6#7); therefore, PP
often becomes a mere technical tool deployed to legitimize EIA projects without actually caring about their social impact (ERC#7,
S#1#5#6). Some KIs also specified that some developers of a megaproject employed military and police forces to prevent public
protests, complete the requisite public consultations, and submit an EIA report to ONEP (S#1#5).

Box 2
Key questions for the investigation of contextual attributes associated with PP in Thai EIAs

- How do Thailand’s legislation and political systems affect PP in EIAs?

- What PP-related capacities do project owners, consultants, NGOs, and reviewing agencies in Thailand possess in EIAs?
- How aware are Thai residents of environmental problems and of their rights to participate in environmental decision-making?
- How does the Thai culture impact PP in Thai EIAs?

6
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

Table 2
The contextual attributes associated with PP in Thai EIAs.
Number of KIs Mentioning the Attribute
Contextual Attributes
ERC SA PA S

1) Legal and political frameworks

Legal requirement for PP in EIAs 5 4 3 4
A clear PP guideline in EIAs 2 3 1
Discretionary status of the PP results in EIAs 4 1 5
Policy prioritization and political support 3 5
2) Attitudes and capacities of key actors
2.1 Project owners
Willingness and resources of project owners to follow the PP result in EIAs 5 3 1 3
2.2 Consultants
Independence (e.g., ability to create EIA reports without project owners’ influence) 3 1 4
Social sector specialists (i.e., understanding the societal dynamics of communities) 4 3 2
2.3 NGOs
Community empowerment strategy 3
Funding-related transparency 4 2 1
2.4 Reviewing agencies (ERC and ONEP)
Opportunities for field visits 1 2
Autonomy (e.g., independence from government intervention) 2
3) Environmental awareness and right to participate in decision-making processes
Public environmental awareness 2 3 3 3
Right to participate in EIAs 2 3 3 2
Political efficacy in the EIA process (i.e., trust in the citizens’ ability to influence EIAs and deliver consequences) 1 2
4) Cultural context
Participatory culture 8 3 5 4
Social hierarchy 2 2 3 2

The ways in which these contexts influence the quality of PP in EIA are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

“The law forces the project owner to conduct PP. They hold public consultations to get their EIA approved, not because they truly want to
consult the public.” ERC#2
According to IAP2’s spectrum of PP, EIAs in Thailand feature low PP levels. The laws require project owners to inform and consult
with the public, but the interviews conducted for this study elucidated that in actuality, project owners merely listen to public opinion
and rarely reveal how public concerns are incorporated into the development of their projects. In other words, consultations in EIA in
Thailand are generally unidirectionally organized by advisers and project owners without the feedback loop being completed.
This situation of PP observed in EIAs in Thailand corresponds to other Asian countries. Public concerns are partially reported in
EIAs in China without feedback delivery to stakeholders [11]. People In Vietnam are skeptical about whether their opinions contribute
to EIA decision-making processes even though it is mandated by law [12]. Likewise, PP is treated in EIAs in Malaysia as a procedural
requirement, and scant attention is paid to public concerns [61]. Nations such as the Maldives do not even officially require project
owners to offer feedback to the public [44].
PP in EIAs is grounded in a solid legal foundation in Thailand and a comprehensive set of guidelines has been tendered for its
efficacy. However, PP outcomes are rather unsatisfactory in EIAs due to the paucity of political support for PP results and their
discretionary status for project-related decisions. Thailand shares this challenge with many developing countries worldwide. For
example, Kenya and Tanzania find it difficult to persuade the public to participate in EIAs because the government is not committed to
facilitating PP [51]. Moreover, PP is practically ignored in Iran because the government lacks the political will to include citizens in
decision-making processes [43]. Similarly, PP is neglected in the Maldives because the government is focused on short-term economic
goals and lacks the political will to promote sustainable development [44].

5.2. Attitudes and capacities of key actors

The perspectives and performances of key EIA stakeholders such as project owners, consultants, NGOs, and statutory authorities
can significantly influence the quality of PP [48,49]. This study found that the performances of key stakeholders in Thailand impact the
quality of PP in EIAs. The KI interviews revealed that PP differs according to discrete project owners (ERC#1, SA#1#2#3, S#2). Public
limited companies tend to adopt positive attitudes about PP in EIAs and input public opinions into their decision-making because they
are resource-advantaged, obliged to maintain accountability, and enjoy a reputable public image (ERC#1, SA#2, PA#2). Conversely,
small businesses own limited resources for PP. Thus, responding to public demands could require project alterations, increase costs,
and delay their projects. Therefore, small project owners usually choose to conduct PP merely to meet their minimum legal obligations
rather than to seriously consider ideas obtained from the public (ERC#2#5#6#7, SA#2, S#2#5#6). A similar situation is observed in
other countries. In Indonesia, some project owners think of PP as a formality to acquire EIA permits, rather than a chance to hear public
opinions [62]. Project developers in China perceive PP in EIAs as time-consuming and costly [39]. The Chinese government imple­
ments PP to the minimum extent required by law, even for state-owned projects [63].
In addition, project owners in Thailand hire EIA consultants to negotiate the requirements for the EIA report. This practice is

7
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

problematic in principle because such direct contact between project owners and the consultants can reduce the consultants’ inde­
pendence and affect their professional image (ERC#2#3#7, PA#1, S#1#4#5#6). Some KIs contended that such associations allow
consultants to execute PP under the influence of project owners; thus, consultants tend to manage PP to satisfy the project owners
(ERC#2#7, S#1#4). This situation is similar to that of all Mekong countries in which project owners select consultants and pay for all
EIA costs; as a result, the consultants do not operate as independent third parties in the EIA process [64]. A study conducted in India
also reported identical findings: project owners who pay for EIA reports can influence consultants to downplay the environmental
impact in their EIA reports [65].
Moreover, many EIA consultants in Thailand overlook the role of social sector specialists in community and stakeholder
engagement. Accordingly, the quality of PP is rather poor due to consultants’ naive perception of power relationships and societal
dynamics, causing them to misidentify participation techniques or neglect inviting key stakeholders to consultations (ERC#1#3#5#6,
SA#2#3#4, S#3#4). Consultants in Western countries represent wide range of disciplines and expertise encompassing, for example,
the natural and social sciences. Thus, they tend to undertake holistic studies to assess the environmental impact [66]. However, this
scenario does not apply to developing nations. In Vietnam, there is a shortage of EIA professionals in distant regions since highly skilled
and experienced specialists tend to work in large cities [12]. In Pakistan, the EIA consultants are tended to hire fresh graduates rather
than experienced specialists to save money, as a result, the quality of EIA and PP is low [48].
The ONEP guidelines also identify NGOs as key stakeholders for EIAs. In this context, the discrete KI groups of KIs articulated
different opinions of NGOs. The scholar group KIs tended toward the belief that NGOs functioned actively to empower local residents,
enabled public awareness of the potential environmental impact of projects (S#2#4#6), and spoke for the voiceless (S#2). In contrast,
KIs in the ERC and statutory agency groups regarded NGOs as biased and inclined to oppose projects without rational cognition, and
thus fail to seek mutual agreements (ERC#1#3#6, SA#2). Furthermore, KIs from the ERC group believed that only registered NGOs
could legitimately participate in public consultations (ERC#3#4), while unregistered NGOs lacked credibility because their sources of
income were questionable (ERC#1#3#4#6, SA#1#2, PA#3). Such ambiguous perceptions of NGOs result from the history of strange
bedfellows type of state-civil society relations in Thailand in which NGO funding is underexamined and the state is predominant in
exerting and authoritarian control over the NGO sector [67]. Other societies in the Mekong region face identical circumstances. NGOs
active in EIA are funded by international organizations in Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam and are thus despised by the officials of
these nations [64]. However, NGOs are not always compelling forces for EIAs. For instance, NGOs in China [68] and Pakistan [49] are
actively involved in environmental education but are reluctant to engage with EIAs to avoid conflict with the governments of these
nations. In the Maldives, NGOs were inactive in EIAs due to budget and human resource constraints [44].
Finally, the capacity of EIA reviewing agencies (ERC and ONEP) are limited. For instance, the ERC can only read reports without
visiting affected individuals at actual sites (SA#3, S#1#2). Accordingly, some essential information on social and cultural assets could
be disregarded because they were not reported. The members of the ERC may be independent, but they are chaired by the ONEP
secretary-general who works directly under the hierarchical command of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. This
structure makes it harder for ERC to be autonomous, particularly in light of the government’s need to expedite projects (S#1#2). Given
the current dependent power structure, a project could be approved in Thailand despite public opposition (S#1). Such political
pressures are also evident in other countries. For example, political forces intervene in Pakistan to hasten EIA approvals for gov­
ernment projects [48]. The Environmental Protection Agency of the Maldives is also controlled by the Ministry of Environment and
Energy and often finds itself compelled to approve government projects [44]. Similarly, a study conducted in East Africa found that the
autonomy of the EIA authorities of Kenya, Rwanda, and Tanzania is limited because they are subordinated to their relevant ministries
charged with environmental issues [51].

5.3. Environmental awareness and right to participate in decision-making processes

The awareness of environmental problems [48] and the right to participate in related decision-making [11] are facilitating factors
that foster the willingness of people to engage with EIA processes. The extant literature supports this finding. According to the in­
terviews conducted for this study, the environmental awareness of the Thai people has increased rapidly because of their exposure to
environmental problems that affect their well-being (ERC#1#7, SA#1#3#4, PA#1#2#3, S#1#4#6). People who have personally
experienced environmental difficulties feel more connected to the environment and are more willing to participate in environmental
decision-making. Some KIs indicated that people tend to become concerned about the environment only when it affects them
(ERC#3#4#5, S#2#3). As previously mentioned, the proclamation of the 1997 Constitution also caused PP in environmental decision
making to grow. The KIs of this study stated that Thai citizens are now more aware of their rights to participate in EIA processes
(ERC#2#3, SA#1#2#4, PA#1#2#3, S#1#4). Many people know they harbor the right to file petitions to relevant government
agencies to verify the transparency of EIA processes (SA#1#2). This assertion is confirmed by the following KI statement from a
member of the statutory group:
“The number of petitions to our agency has significantly increased, particularly for housing projects that have an impact on the sur­
rounding communities. People know the right to submit a petition.” STA#1
People’s awareness of their rights to participate in environmental decision making has increased, and this trend is visible in a wide
range of countries. In Laos, local villagers have unprecedentedly voiced their concerns about land use and environmental violence in
their communities to the National Assembly and the administration [64]. Public awareness has significantly improved in India, where
grassroots villagers opposed to government projects have strongly voiced their concerns on numerous occasions through public
consultations undertaken during EIA processes [69]. Community participation increased in Indonesia after the government published

8
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

PP guidelines to facilitate the rights of citizens with respect to information and participation. This rise in engagement is evidenced by a
growing number of public submissions to the government [62]. However, people in many other countries remain unaware of their
right to participate in environmental decision making. For example, people in Pakistan have never been informed about their rights
because the government fears the public rejection of projects. Likewise, people in the Maldives remain uninformed of PP opportunities
provided to them through EIA processes [44].
Noteworthy, three KIs stated that many people remain reluctant to participate in EIA processes despite increased public awareness
because citizens cannot perceive the consequences of their participation (ERC#7, S#1#3). Previously conducted studies support this
result. The public in Central and Eastern Europe does not engage with EIAs even when given the opportunity because people generally
assume that public input would not affect decision-making processes [41]. Similarly, people in Pakistan are unwilling to participate in
EIAs because they believe their concerns will not be addressed in the final decision [48]. A study on high-speed railways in China also
revealed that most stakeholders do not participate in EIAs because they assume their input would not be taken into consideration [70].
Therefore, political efficacy matters for EIA processes: for PP to be effective, citizens must have faith in their ability to influence EIAs
and create consequences.

5.4. Cultural context

Thailand has not experienced a high degree of participatory culture. However, PP is constrained in Thailand by the authoritarian
administrative culture of the nation, which produces a formidable social hierarchy and encourages the patronage system [71,72]. The
political regime shifted from absolute to limited monarchy in 1932. However, the political culture has remained authoritarian,
obstructing the growth of a participatory culture [73]. The findings of this study concur with this argument. Kis reported that the Thai
people do not openly voice their thoughts in public and tend to avoid conflict by not articulating views that differ from others’ opinion
(ERC#1#2#3#5#6#7, SA#1#2, PA#1#2#3, S#1#2#4). The Thai people, particularly those residing in rural areas, are seen as
obedient to government or community leaders and are comfortable expressing opinions that align with the views of such leaders
(ERC#1#3, SA#1#3, PA#1#2#3, S#2#3). However, this perception has changed in the last decade, especially in younger genera­
tions, who have started to express ideas and offer information supporting their opinions, and have begun to participate actively in
decision-making processes (ERC#4#6, SA#3, PA#1#3, S#4).
Authoritarian cultures and social hierarchies also hinder the development of PP in other countries such as Malaysia [74], China
[24], and Iran [23]. Some studies have found that culture indicates the ways in which people wish to participate in environmental
decision making. People in Greenland are unwilling to participate in EIAs because their traditional conflict management style makes
them avoid sensitive public debates [54]. People in Indonesia are also underrepresented in EIA processes because their traditional
participatory culture differs from formal modern EIA-related participation modes [62]. Women in the Maldives do not engage at all in
PP in EIAs because religious conservatives believe that women should stay within their homes and cannot be visible in the same forums
as men.

6. Conclusion

This paper aimed to examine contextual attributes influencing PP in Thai EIAs. It postulated four major contextual attributes to
construct a framework through which to investigate the contexts associated with PP in EIA processes. These factors included the legal
and political frameworks, the attitudes and capacities of key actors, the environmental awareness of people and their right to
participate in decision-making processes, and the cultural context. The main findings of this study are summarized as follows.

• The contextual attributes facilitating PP in Thai EIAs include the existing legislation, increased publics’ environmental awareness
and the civic right to participate in environmental decision-making processes. PP is mandated by law in EIAs in Thailand and
ONEP’s comprehensive guidelines direct its implementation, introducing opportunities for inclusive stakeholder engagement in
EIA processes. Additionally, Thai people are aware of environmental problems affecting their lives and recognize their right to
participate in environmental decision making. Thus, the participation of affected people has increased in EIAs.
• Obstacles to effective PP in EIA in Thailand include the discretionary status of PP results, the absence of political support, the
limited capacity of key actors, and the subdued participatory culture; these difficulties are shared by other developing countries.
• The discretionary nature of incorporating PP results in EIAs in Thailand occurs because project owners are not legally obliged to
integrate public opinion into their project-related decision-making processes. Consequently, PP is typically perceived as a necessary
aspect of legal procedures for obtaining EIA permits rather than as a means of actually listening to the voices of affected parties.
Since the Thai government’s policy has prioritized economic development; therefore, there is a lack of political will to promote PP
as a tool for sustainable development. Thus, practice of effective PP in EIAs remain challenging.
• Constraints on key actors also hinder PP in EIAs. Project owners who own limited resources view PP as a technical procedure
designed to obtain EIA permits for their projects. The professionalism of consultants could be compromised because they can be
influenced by project owners. The absence of social sector specialists in consulting organizations obstructs the implementation of
comprehensive practice of PP in EIAs. NGOs are perceived to function significantly in community empowerment; however, they are
also viewed by the authorities as untrustworthy. Furthermore, reviewing agencies lack the opportunity to visit affected people at
actual sites and could thus overlook important but unreported information. Under government hierarchy, it is difficult to review
agencies to maintain autonomy.

9
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

• Thailand’s long history of authoritarian structures and patronage systems has resulted in a depressed participatory culture in Thai
society. Most Thais refrain from the public expression of their thoughts. However, Thailand’s participatory culture is expected to
improve as its younger generation becomes more familiar with PP.

Numerous studies have been conducted on PP in Thai EIA processes and on strategies to enhance its effectiveness. Nevertheless, no
comprehensive study has yet investigated contextual factors hindering PP in Thailand. This scholarly gap is evidenced by the absence
of prior research on this topic. Notably, this study’s principal strength is vested in its pioneering effort to enhance the extant knowledge
of PP in EIAs in Thailand contributes substantively by identifying contextual factors that impact the willingness and capacities of
diverse actors to participate in EIA processes. Several scholars have proposed enhancing the PP process in Thai EIAs to achieve
meaningful civic participation. Such suggestions include ameliorating stakeholder representativeness, providing adequate informa­
tion, applying appropriate techniques, and augmenting transparency. Conversely, this study contends that the quality of PP is
extremely context-dependent and transcends the concept of general process-related improvements. Hence, contextual factors favoring
or impeding PP should also be contemplated in resolving PP issues associated with EIAs.
At least three recommendations can be derived from this study. First, EIA processes should oblige project owners to inform the
public about how their opinions influence project-related decision making. This obligation could be discharged by disclosing the EIA
report submitted to ONEP to validate public engagement in the concerned EIA and informing the public about how its participation
affected the ultimate EIA outcome. PP would increase in future EIAs if citizens believe their views matter. In addition, the ERC approval
checklist should include responding to all public concerns as a necessary item for attaining a favorable EIA report. Such an inclusion
would increase the legitimacy of the reviews and adjudications of ERCs.
Second, due to the lack of a social sector specialist on the EIA team, our findings show that the capacity of consultants related to PP
practices in EIAs. Professional and comprehensive PP activities can only occur when consultants recruit social sector specialists skilled
in identifying representative stakeholders and capable of applying participatory approaches that enhance the discussion’s efficacy. In
Thailand, consultants must register with ONEP and obtain a license to execute EIA reports. The presence of at least one social sector
specialist with experience in PP should be made mandatory for obtaining consultant licenses.
Finally, this study found that Thais refrain from voicing their opinions in public due to the country’s longstanding authoritarian and
patronage systems. Project owners and consultants are urged to become cognizant of this cultural attribute and choose appropriate
engagement techniques. Thailand is a collectivist nation in which individuals tend to agree with their leaders and avoid disagreements
with others. Thus, open public debates such as public hearings may be inadequate for the acquisition of accurate information from all
stakeholders. It could be beneficial to arrange small sessions with similar groups before organizing a public hearing. Other techniques
such as written comments and surveys should be combined with public consultations with all stakeholder groups to accommodate
individuals who do not wish to speak out in public forums.
This study must acknowledge some unavoidable limitations. First, the authors explored only a few contextual attributes: the legal
and political frameworks, the attitudes and capacities of key actors, the environmental awareness of the public and its right to
participate in decision-making processes, and the cultural context. Thus, this study could not elucidate other contextual attributes not
included in the framework. Second, this study attended solely to professional perspectives spanning the authorities charged with
implementing EIAs and academics. Diverse stakeholders, such as NGOs and the general public, were not represented. Therefore, the
study results of this study were based on the analysis of authoritative sources and scholarly perspectives. These viewpoints could
include biases favoring particular themes or organizations. Third, this study examined the contextual attributes associated with PP in
Thai EIAs in general; consequently, results pertaining to specific project types or regions in Thailand could differ from the findings of
this study. However, the findings obtained in this study could foster a more comprehensive understanding of contextual factors related
to PP in EIAs. Finally, this study did not demonstrate how Thailand and other developing countries can adapt their PP activities to their
specific requirements of their context. Therefore, studies pertaining to potential models apt for authoritarian countries would be
worthwhile.

Ethics statement

This study has been approved by the committee for research ethics (Social Sciences), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Mahidol University, Thailand (certificate of approval No. 2021/003.1901). Written consent forms were requested. Interview data were
transcribed and encoded to maintain the privacy of the KIs.

Funding

This work (Grant No. RGNS 63-172) was supported by Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science,
Research and Innovation (OPS MHESI), Thailand, Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI) and Mahidol University, Thailand.

Data availability statement

Data included in article/supp. Material/referenced in article.

10
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Kanang Kantamaturapoj: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology,
Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Chaunjit Chanchitpricha:
Supervision, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Parinee Hongsuwan: Data curation, Project adminis­
tration. Pannipa Suebsing: Data curation. Suwicha Thaweesuk: Data curation. Suwit Wibulpolprasert: Supervision.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our gratitude to all reviewers for their constructive critiques and insightful comments, which
were very helpful in improving this manuscript. We appreciate Smit Chiramongkol’s assistance during data collection and Dr. Alan
Marshall’s proofreading efforts. We also thank Dr. Theerapat Ungsuchaval for the support he provided during this research.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21786.

References

[1] P. Regnier, Small and Medium Enterprises in Distress: Thailand, the East Asian Crisis and beyond, Routledge, New York, 2017.
[2] S. Komin, A social analysis of the environmental problems in Thailand, in: M.C. Howard (Ed.), Asia’s Environmental Crisis, Routledge, New York, 2019,
pp. 257–274.
[3] The Prime Minister, The enhancement and conservation of the national environmental quality act (No. 2), B.E. 2521 (1978) issued on 31th december 1978, in:
Thai Government Gazette, No 95, Section 156, 1978. Bangkok (Thailand) 1-11, https://eiadev.onep.go.th/Show_Detail.aspx?DetailId=164/. (Accessed 9 May
2023).
[4] Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Re: Prescribing Types and Size of Project/
Business Which Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Report, and Prescribing Criteria, Procedure, Regulation, and Guideline to Prepare Environmental
Impact Assessment Report, 2019. http://www.onep.go.th/eia/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/EIA040162.pdf/. (Accessed 9 May 2023).
[5] Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Re: Rule, Procedure, Method and Guideline
for Preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for Project or Activity Which May Seriously Affect Community with Respect to Quality of
Environment, Natural Resources and Health, 2019. http://www.onep.go.th/eia/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/EHIA040162.pdf/.
[6] M.A. Hasan, K.M. Nahiduzzaman, A.S. Aldosary, Public participation in EIA: a comparative study of the projects run by government and non-governmental
organizations, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 72 (2018) 12–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.001.
[7] A.N. Glucker, P.P. Driessen, A. Kolhoff, H.A. Runhaar, Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 43 (2013) 104–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003.
[8] M. Hourdequin, P. Landres, M.J. Hanson, D.R. Craig, Ethical implications of democratic theory for US public participation in environmental impact assessment,
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 35 (2012) 37–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.02.001.
[9] S. Akerboom, R.K. Craig, How law structures public participation in environmental decision making: a comparative law approach, Environ. Policy Gov. 32 (3)
(2022) 232–246, https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1986.
[10] T.E. George, K. Karatu, A. Edward, An evaluation of the environmental impact assessment practice in Uganda: challenges and opportunities for achieving
sustainable development, Heliyon 6 (9) (2020), e04758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04758.
[11] D. Brombal, A. Moriggi, A. Marcomini, Evaluating public participation in Chinese EIA. An integrated public participation index and its application to the case of
the new Beijing airport, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62 (2017) 49–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.001.
[12] B. Clarke, C.C. Vu, EIA effectiveness in Vietnam: key stakeholder perceptions, Heliyon 7 (2) (2021), e06157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06157.
[13] Office of the Council of State, Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2560 (2017), 2017. https://cdc.parliament.go.th/draftconstitution2/ewt_dl_link.
php?nid=1460&filename=index/. (Accessed 9 May 2023).
[14] The Prime Minister, The enhancement and conservation of national environmental quality act (NEQA) (no.2) B.E. 2561 issued on 16th april 2018, in: Thai
Government Gazette, No 135, Special Section 27a, 2018. Bangkok (Thailand) 29–43, https://www.pcd.go.th/laws/11068/. (Accessed 9 May 2023).
[15] K. Kantamaturapoj, G. Piyajun, S. Wibulpolprasert, Stakeholder’s opinion of public participation in Thai environmental and health impact assessment, Impact
Assess. Proj. Apprais. 36 (5) (2018) 429–441, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1491172.
[16] A. Kilajian, P. Chareonsudjai, Conflict resolution and community engagement in post-audit EIA environmental management: lessons learned from a mining
community in Thailand, Environ. Challenges 5 (2021), 100253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100253.
[17] C. Chompunth, Public participation practice within the environmental and health impact assessment system in Thailand, Int. J. GEOMATE 19 (72) (2020)
137–144, https://doi.org/10.21660/2020.72.4608.
[18] C. Chompunth, Role of public participaiton in environmental impact assessent in Thailand, Int. J. GEOMATE 12 (33) (2017) 109–113, https://doi.org/
10.21660/2017.33.2634.
[19] A. Otwong, T. Phenrat, Comparative analysis of public participation in the EIA process for Thai overseas investment projects: krabi coal terminal, Hongsa coal
power plant, and Dawei special economic zone, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 35 (4) (2017) 325–339, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1354641.
[20] C. Chanchitpricha, A. Bond, Investigating the effectiveness of mandatory integration of health impact assessment within environmental impact assessment
(EIA): a case study of Thailand, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 36 (1) (2018) 16–31, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1364019.
[21] K. Suwanteep, T. Murayama, S. Nishikizawa, The quality on public participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports in Thailand, J. Environ.
Assess. Pol. Manag. 19 (2) (2017), 1750008, https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333217500089.
[22] J. De Vente, M.S. Reed, L.C. Stringer, S. Valente, J. Newig, How does the context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes?
Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands, Ecol. Soc. 21 (2) (2016), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08053-210224.

11
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

[23] F. Khosravi, U. Jha-Thakur, T.B. Fischer, Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Iran, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 74 (2019) 63–72,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.10.005.
[24] W. Dang, How culture shapes environmental public participation: case studies of China, The Netherlands, and Italy, J. Chin. Gov. 5 (3) (2020) 390–412, https://
doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2018.1443758.
[25] United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/
docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf/. (Accessed 9 May 2023).
[26] UNECE, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 1998. https://unece.
org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/text/. (Accessed 9 May 2023).
[27] Office of the Council of State, Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2540 (1997), 1997. http://www.oic.go.th/act/cons2540.pdf/. (Accessed 11 May
2023).
[28] Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Annoucement of Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning Re:
Guideline for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment, 2019 (in Thai), http://www.onep.go.th/eia/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/S080262.
pdf/. (Accessed 9 May 2023).
[29] Y. Zhou, L. Hou, Y. Yang, H.-Y. Chong, S. Moon, A comparative review and framework development on public participation for decision-making in Chinese
public projects, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 75 (2019) 79–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.12.006.
[30] R.E. Mitchell, B. Leach, Knowledge coproduction in environmental impact assessment: lessons from the mining industry in Panama, Environ. Policy Gov. 29 (2)
(2019) 87–96, https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1832.
[31] N.P. Simpson, C. Basta, Sufficiently capable for effective participation in environmental impact assessment? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 70 (2018) 57–70,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.03.004.
[32] I. Gulakov, F. Vanclay, Social impact assessment and stakeholder engagement in the Russian Federation: representativeness, deliberativeness and influence,
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 75 (2019) 37–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.11.004.
[33] T. Johnson, Public participation in China’s EIA process and the regulation of environmental disputes, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 81 (2020), 106359, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106359.
[34] V. Luyet, R. Schlaepfer, M.B. Parlange, A. Buttler, A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects, J. Environ. Manag. 111
(2012) 213–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.026.
[35] M. Mumtas, C. Wichien, Stakeholder analysis for sustainable land management of pak phanang river basin, Thailand, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 91 (2013)
349–356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.432.
[36] S.R. Arnstein, A ladder of citizen participation, J. Am. Inst. Plan. 35 (4) (1969) 216–224, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
[37] International Association for Public Participation, Core Values, Ethics, Spectrum – the 3 Pillars of Public Participation, 2018. https://www.iap2.org/page/
pillars/. (Accessed 9 May 2023).
[38] A.J. Sinclair, A.P. Diduck, Reconceptualizing public participation in environmental assessment as EA civics, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62 (2017) 174–182,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.009.
[39] T.H. Li, S.T. Ng, M. Skitmore, Public participation in infrastructure and construction projects in China: from an EIA-based to a whole-cycle process, Habitat Int.
36 (1) (2012) 47–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.05.006.
[40] A. Bond, J. Pope, A. Morrison-Saunders, F. Retief, Exploring the relationship between context and effectiveness in impact assessment, Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 97 (2022), 106901, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106901.
[41] J.R. Palerm, An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact assessment, J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 43 (5) (2000)
581–600, https://doi.org/10.1080/713676582.
[42] A.J. Kolhoff, P.P. Driessen, H.A. Runhaar, An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing
countries—illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38 (2013) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.04.004.
[43] F. Khosravi, U. Jha-Thakur, T.B. Fischer, Enhancing EIA systems in developing countries: a focus on capacity development in the case of Iran, Sci. Total Environ.
670 (2019) 425–432, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.195.
[44] M.H. Zuhair, P.A. Kurian, Socio-economic and political barriers to public participation in EIA: implications for sustainable development in the Maldives, Impact
Assess. Proj. Apprais. 34 (2) (2016) 129–142, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1176404.
[45] M. Blicharska, K. Isaksson, T. Richardson, C.-J. Wu, Context dependency and stakeholder involvement in EIA: the decisive role of practitioners, J. Environ.
Plann. Manag. 54 (3) (2011) 337–354, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.506077.
[46] J. Zhang, L. Kørnøv, P. Christensen, Critical factors for EIA implementation: literature review and research options, J. Environ. Manag. 114 (2013) 148–157,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.030.
[47] S.Z. Kabir, S. Momtaz, Fifteen years of environmental impact assessment system in Bangladesh: current practice, challenges and future directions, J. Environ.
Assess. Pol. Manag. 15 (2013), 1350018, https://doi.org/10.1142/S146433321350018X, 04.
[48] M. Khan, M.N. Chaudhary, S.R. Ahmad, S. Saif, A. Mehmood, Challenges to EIA consultants whilst dealing with stakeholders in Punjab, Pakistan, Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 73 (2018) 201–209, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1684096.
[49] M. Khan, M.N. Chaudhry, S.R. Ahmad, S. Saif, The role of and challenges facing non-governmental organizations in the environmental impact assessment
process in Punjab, Pakistan, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38 (1) (2020) 57–70, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1684096.
[50] A.J. Kolhoff, H.A. Runhaar, P.P. Driessen, The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries:
towards a better understanding, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 27 (4) (2009) 271–282, https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X479459.
[51] M. Marara, N. Okello, Z. Kuhanwa, W. Douven, L. Beevers, J. Leentvaar, The importance of context in delivering effective EIA: case studies from East Africa,
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31 (3) (2011) 286–296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.10.002.
[52] E.P. Azrai, D.V. Sigit, M. Puji, The correlation between environmenal awareness and students participation in go green school activity at ADIWIYATA school,
J. Pendidik. Biol. 10 (2) (2017) 7–11. https://journal.unj.ac.id/unj/index.php/biosfer/article/view/5071/3747.
[53] T. Sorat, N.-R. Rawangkarn, W. Rawang, K. Kantamaturapoj, Stakeholder participation in Lopburi Old Town conservation master plan, J. Cult. Herit. Manag.
Sustain Dev. 12 (3) (2022) 225–236, https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2020-0150.
[54] A.-S.H. Olsen, A.M. Hansen, Perceptions of public participation in impact assessment: a study of offshore oil exploration in Greenland, Impact Assess. Proj.
Apprais. 32 (1) (2014) 72–80, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.872842.
[55] W.B. Miller, Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency, in: J. Schneider, N. Tilley (Eds.), Gangs, Routledge, USA, 2004, pp. 15–29.
[56] G. Hofstede, Empirical models of cultural differences, in: N.B.P.J.D. Drenth (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology, Swets & Zeitlinger.,
Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 4–20.
[57] R. Schmitt-Beck, M. Neumann, Do people like to discuss politics? A study of citizens’ political talk culture, Eur. Political Sci. Rev. (2023) 1–20, https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1755773922000625.
[58] A. Teherani, T. Martimianakis, T. Stenfors-Hayes, A. Wadhwa, L. Varpio, Choosing a qualitative research approach, J. Grad. Med. Educ. 7 (4) (2015) 669–670,
https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-15-00414.1.
[59] A.G.D. Holmes, Researcher positionality–A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research–A new researcher guide, Shanlax int. j. educ. 8 (4)
(2020) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232.
[60] S. Campbell, M. Greenwood, S. Prior, T. Shearer, K. Walkem, S. Young, D. Bywaters, K. Walker, Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples,
J. Res. Nurs. 25 (8) (2020) 652–661, https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206.
[61] P. Ho, B.M.S. Nor-Hisham, H. Zhao, Limits of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Malaysia: dam politics, rent-seeking, and conflict, Sustainability 12
(24) (2020), 10467, https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410467.
[62] D. Purnama, Reform of the EIA process in Indonesia: improving the role of public involvement, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23 (4) (2003) 415–439, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00046-5.

12
K. Kantamaturapoj et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e21786

[63] L. Sun, D. Zhu, E.H. Chan, Public participation impact on environment NIMBY conflict and environmental conflict management: comparative analysis in
Shanghai and Hong Kong, Land Use Pol. 58 (2016) 208–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.025.
[64] A. Wells-Dang, K.N. Soe, L. Inthakoun, P. Tola, P. Socheat, T.T. Van, A. Chabada, W. Youttananukorn, A political economy of environmental impact assessment
in the Mekong Region, Water Altern. (WaA) 9 (1) (2016) 33–55. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/all-abs/303-a9-1-2/file.
[65] A. Rathi, Evaluation of project-level environmental impact assessment and SWOT analysis of EIA process in India, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 67 (2017) 31–39,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.08.004.
[66] A. Bassi, R. Howard, D. Geneletti, S. Ferrari, UK and Italian EIA systems: a comparative study on management practice and performance in the construction
industry, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 34 (2012) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.002.
[67] T. Ungsuchaval, NGOs and Civil Society in Thailand: Metagovernance and the Politics of NGO Funding, Routledge, New York, 2022.
[68] J. Wu, I.-S. Chang, Q. Yilihamu, Y. Zhou, Study on the practice of public participation in environmental impact assessment by environmental non-governmental
organizations in China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74 (2017) 186–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.178.
[69] U. Jha-Thakur, F. Khosravi, Beyond 25 years of EIA in India: retrospection and way forward, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 87 (2021), 106533, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106533.
[70] C.S. Chi, J. Xu, L. Xue, Public participation in environmental impact assessment for public projects: a case of non-participation, J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 57 (9)
(2014) 1422–1440, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.810550.
[71] J. Glassman, Lineages of the authoritarian state in Thailand: military dictatorship, lazy capitalism and the Cold war past as post-cold war prologue, J. Contemp.
Asia 50 (4) (2020) 571–592, https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2019.1688378.
[72] P. Kongkirati, From illiberal democracy to military authoritarianism: intra-elite struggle and mass-based conflict in deeply polarized Thailand, Ann. Am. Acad.
Polit. Soc. Sci. 681 (1) (2019) 24–40, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218806912.
[73] S. Saetang, A survey in a Thai classroom on learning activities and learning problems, Int. J. Cross-Disciplin. Subjects in Educ. (IJCDSE) 5 (3) (2014) 1753–1758.
http://infonomics-society.org/wp-content/uploads/ijcdse/published-papers/volume-5-2014/A-Survey-in-a-Thai-Classroom-on-Learning-Activities-and-
Learning-Problems.pdf.
[74] A. Marzuki, A review on public participation in environmental impact assessment in Malaysia, Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manag. 4 (3) (2009) 126–136, 12,
https://journals.iium.edu.my/kaed/index.php/japcm/article/download/386/283/822.

13