Public Participation and EIA Effectiveness: Empirical Case Studies in Hong Kong By: Hung Shiu Fung A thesis submitted in accordance to the requirement of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Prof. Thomas Fischer, my supervisor, for accepting my PhD application and provide his guidance throughout my five years of research. I would like to thank Dr Urmila Jha Thakur, Dr Oliver Sykes, and Dr Samuel Heyes for their help in progressing my works. I would also like to acknowledge the support from the University of Liverpool staff, who provided me training and assistance. I am grateful to all the interviewees for providing me with the information on the subject and their experiences. They helped me better understand the issues and conduct a more comprehensive analysis in the research. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for supporting my decision to do a PhD. DECLARATION This is a self-funded research project. While the author worked as an environmental consultant in Hong Kong and involved in several EIA projects, the author does not have any direct involvement in any of the case studies used in this study. ABSTRACT While public participation is now considered a crucial component in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practice, many contexts on the role and function of public participation in EIA practices have yet to be explored. There is a need for advancing the theories on the EIA in the light of nowadays challenges. This PhD thesis adopted an inductive approach to seek answers to the research questions of "Does public participation make EIA more effective?" and “How does public participation make EIA more effective?”. The research questions emphasise the substantive effectiveness of EIA, arguing that EIA could only be claimed as effective if it could achieve the substantive objectives behind its design, which include its procedural functionality, normative and legitimacy functions and transformative functions. Empirical case studies were conducted in Hong Kong to examine the public participation in Hong Kong's EIA practices during the preparation of the EIA report, the review of the EIA report, and the post-EIA approval stage. Three distinct EIAs, i.e. Tung Chung New Town Extension, Development of the Integrated Waste Management Facilities Phase 1, and South Island Line (East) were reviewed and analysed. The case studies reveal the public participation outcomes in achieving the substantive objectives of the EIA, with the influence of the unique social-political context in Hong Kong. The case studies found that public participation could play significant roles in the procedural functionality, especially in information circulation and policing; however, the normative and legitimacy functions are mixed, and the transformative functions are limited. The empirical findings suggested that contextual factors have much influence on public participation outcomes. The existing Impact Assessment models could not fully incorporate the implications of contextual factors in practices. Meanwhile, some similar findings were observed in regions with other contexts. Further studies to comprehend the understanding of the influence of context in IA practices are recommended. Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... II DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ III ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... IV 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1. The nature of EIA .............................................................................................. 1 1.1.2. The Development of EIA ................................................................................... 3 1.1.3. Public participation in EIA ................................................................................. 5 1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 7 1.3. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................... 8 1.4. RATIONALE AND SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................... 9 1.5. STRUCTURE OF THIS THESIS ............................................................................................ 10 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF IA EFFECTIVENESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......12 2.1. THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 12 2.1.1. Philosophic Positions ...................................................................................... 13 2.1.2. Roles in Sustainable Development ................................................................. 15 2.1.3. Rationality and Decision-making .................................................................... 18 2.1.4. Political Engagement and Governance .......................................................... 20 2.2. TYPES AND FRAMEWORKS OF IA EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................ 23 2.2.1. Procedural Effectiveness ................................................................................. 25 2.2.2. Transactive Effectiveness ............................................................................... 28 2.2.3. Normative Effectiveness ................................................................................. 29 2.2.4. Pluralism ......................................................................................................... 31 2.2.5. Knowledge and Learning ................................................................................ 32 2.2.6. Legitimacy....................................................................................................... 34 2.2.7. Substantive Effectiveness ............................................................................... 34 2.3. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE EIA ................................................................ 40 2.3.1. Positions of Public Participation in IA Practice ............................................... 40 i 2.3.2. Functions of Public Participation .................................................................... 41 2.3.3. Public Participation and EIA Effectiveness ..................................................... 44 2.4. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 45 3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................47 3.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 47 3.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................. 48 3.2.1. Does public participation make EIA more effective? ...................................... 49 3.2.2. “How” does public participation make EIA more effective? .......................... 49 3.3. DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE OF STUDY ................................................................................. 51 3.3.1. “Public Participation” ..................................................................................... 51 3.3.2. “Hong Kong’s EIA practice” ............................................................................ 52 3.4. RESEARCH APPROACH .................................................................................................. 52 3.4.1. Inquiries .......................................................................................................... 52 3.4.2. Approach ........................................................................................................ 53 3.5. METHODOLOGIES FOR EMPIRICAL CASE STUDIES ............................................................... 55 3.5.1. Defining “Case”............................................................................................... 55 3.5.2. Case Selection ................................................................................................. 56 3.5.3. Collection of Data ........................................................................................... 61 3.6. INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................ 67 3.6.1. Interviews for the Telegraph Bay Community Liaison Group ......................... 68 3.6.2. Interviews for the Comments about the Engagement of the Key Actors and Views on the EIA System ................................................................................................. 69 3.6.3. Interview Methods .......................................................................................... 70 3.6.4. Ethics and Data Handling ............................................................................... 71 3.7. VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE ........................................................................................... 72 3.8. EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................................................................