How law structures public participation in environmental decision making: A comparative law approach

Abstract

Despite some skepticism regarding its effectiveness, public participation has become a central facet of environmental decision making, including governments' various decisions to address climate change. However, the existing literature tends to address the general benefits of environmental public participation rather than examine details of how such participation actually occurs and how it differs among nations—even among nations all purportedly pursuing similar public participation goals. This article begins to fill that knowledge gap by examining law's key role in structuring how the public in different countries may actually participate in environmental decision making, including in unfolding national agendas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. Both the United States and European Union member states have decades of experience in writing—and rewriting—public participation into their environmental laws. This article actively explores and compares how the laws of the United States, the European Union, and the Netherlands (as an exemplar of an EU member state) structure public participation in environmental decision making in order to assess how far along the scale of public participation categories each government has progressed. It concludes that, for the moment, United States environmental law more often allows for public collaboration and empowers the public to make certain kinds of environmental decisions—although a new law in the Netherlands may soon encourage more creative and collaborative forms of public participation there, as well.

The role of citizens in sustainability and climate change governance: Taking stock and looking ahead

“…Importantly, the contributions to this special issue employed various analytical foci and units of analysis, including individual persons (Mees, 2022), different legal systems and institutional settings (Akerboom & Kundis Craig, 2022), specific practices of divisions of responsibility (Snel et al, 2022), the perspectives of civil servants (Uittenbroek et al, 2022) and diverse types of engagement, participation and co‐creation (Glaas et al, 2022; Hofstad et al, 2022; Kiss et al, 2022). The findings yielded by employing these diverse foci are highly complementary, underlining the value of involving a wide range of scholarly disciplines, fields and contexts in the study of citizen engagement, including public administration, environmental psychology, environmental sociology, legal studies and sustainability science, in addition to environmental policy and governance.…”

“…Citizen engagement entails a range of processes and mechanisms initiated sometimes by citizens and sometimes by public authorities. Each of the seven papers in this special issue unpacks different elements of what citizen engagement can mean and entail: citizen‐led initiatives (Mees, 2022); citizen participation in government‐initiated adaptation projects (Glaas et al, 2022); assuming responsibilities in climate adaptation that were hitherto a purview of governmental actors (Uittenbroek et al, 2022); becoming active agents of change in co‐creation processes (Hofstad et al, 2022); assuming responsibility for the governance of certain hazards (Snel et al, 2022); contributing to environmental decision‐making processes (Akerboom & Kundis Craig, 2022); contesting government‐led initiatives, or being a source of critical reflection on dominant mitigation and adaptation approaches (Kiss et al, 2022).…”

“…The second theme of our special issue involves the systematic analysis and evaluation of different types of interactions between citizens and various institutions and the associated societal, political and legal factors that condition opportunities for collaborative governance . Examples are enquiries into how law structures public participation (Akerboom & Kundis Craig, 2022); and how institutional settings and existing societal practices can enable or constrain certain interactions and engagement (Glaas et al, 2022; Hofstad et al, 2022; Kiss et al, 2022; Uittenbroek et al, 2022).…”

“…Examples are enquiries into how law structures public participation (Akerboom & Kundis Craig, 2022); and how institutional settings and existing societal practices can enable or constrain certain interactions and engagement (Glaas et al, 2022;Hofstad et al, 2022;Kiss et al, 2022;Uittenbroek et al, 2022).…”

“…Applying the four dimensions to flood risk governance in the Netherlands, Germany and the USA shows that despite their substantial differences in how flood risk governance is institutionalised, in these countries there is a profound discrepancy between perceived responsibility and the other three dimensions. On this basis, the paper argues that it is important for discussions on these tensions in climate policy and governance to be more explicit, transparent and open, to allow attribution of responsibility and adequately reconsider citizens' role in this context Akerboom and Kundis Craig (2022). delve into the question of how law and administrative procedures co-shape the space provided to citizens to participate in and influence environmental decision-making.…”