Content uploaded by Philip Manyi Omenge
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philip Manyi Omenge on Sep 12, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND ITS SUBSTANTIVE CONTRIBUTION
TO ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT:
INSIGHTS FROM EIA PRACTITIONERS AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS IN KENYA’S RENEWABLE
ENERGY SUB-SECTOR
PHILIP M. OMENGE1, GEORGE W. ESHIAMWATA2,
STANLEY M. MAKINDI3 & GILBERT O. OBWOYERE1
1Egerton University, Kenya
2The Kenya National Commission for UNESCO, Kenya
3Machakos University, Kenya
ABSTRACT
Comprehensive and transparent public participation during Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
processes for renewable energy projects is vital in identifying, addressing and mitigating potential
environmental risks associated with such renewable energy projects. Public participation during EIA is
a vital platform where all stakeholders of a given renewable energy project contribute to addressing the
environmental concerns of renewable energy projects, thereby contributing positively to informed
environmental decisions that mitigate negative environmental impacts. This paper presents a
comparative analysis of public participation practice during an EIA process in Kenya’s renewable
energy sub-sector vis-à-vis the international best practice operating principles. Further, the paper
presents insights on the substantive contribution of public participation in environmental risk
management based on questionnaire survey responses from EIA Practitioners and other stakeholders in
Kenya’s renewable energy sub-sector. Results show that public participation practice during EIA
in Kenya loosely adheres to the international best practice operating principles. An analysis of
stakeholder responses shows that public participation during EIA processes in the renewable energy
sub-sector seldom supports decisions that result in environmental protection. Factors that contribute to
Kenya’s poor adherence to international best practice operating principles are discussed. Suggestions
and recommendations on how to achieve a substantive contribution of public participation during EIA
in Kenya’s renewable energy projects in order to contribute to environmental risk management
are presented.
Keywords: public participation, Environmental Impact Assessment, renewable energy, Kenya.
1 INTRODUCTION
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is one of the processes that culminate to an
environmental decision [1]–[3]. Most of EIA systems worldwide have embedded within them
the requirement of public participation [4]–[11]. Whilst many definitions of public
participation abound [4], [12], a scholarly discourse on the subject accentuate the rudiments
of public participation as; consultative process, public involvement, inclusiveness,
information sharing, transparency and influencing outcome of decisions [12]–[14]. Public
participation in EIA process according to André et al. [15] “is the involvement of individuals
and groups that are positively, or negatively affected by, or that are interested in, a proposed
project, program, plan or policy, that is subject to a decision-making process”. Public
participation requirement during EIA process is underpinned in an array of international legal
instruments such as the Aarhus Convention, United Nation Conference on Environment and
Development, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary
Energy and Sustainability VIII 133
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
doi:10.2495/ESUS190121
Context, North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, Principle 17 of the
1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 [1], [2], [9], [16]. In
Kenya, public participation during EIA process is a constitutional requirement [17], [18]. The
Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999 (Amended) 2015 which gives
effects to article 69 of the Kenya Constitution 2010, makes public participation during EIA
mandatory [3], [17], [19]–[21]. Public participation during EIA process is vital because it
informs decision making, reduces conflicts, enhances transparency and accountability, builds
trust, capture local and traditional knowledge, provide adequate opportunities to stakeholders
to raise their concerns, educate stakeholders, increase awareness, build trust and legitimises
public decisions [22]–[24]. Whereas public participation in EIA process is viewed as a means
of nurturing a new ethos of environmental responsibility [25] for sustainable development
[26], scholarly discourse continues on how it should be conducted [14]. Notwithstanding its
importance [22], [23] its design and implementation remain contentious [14], [23], [24]. The
objectives of this study were thus twofold, first to compare public participation practice
during EIA process in Kenya vis-à-vis the international best practice operating principles.
Secondly to find out the perceptions of EIA practitioners and other EIA stakeholders on the
substantive contribution of public participation (during EIA process) to environmental
decisions and environmental risk management in Kenya’s renewable energy sub-sector.
2 METHODOLOGY
In line with the objectives, the research methodology was twofold. First, a comparative
analysis of public participation practices during EIA process for renewable energy projects
in Kenya vis-à-vis the international best practice operating principles of public participation.
Secondly, a questionnaire survey among EIA Practitioners and other EIA stakeholders in
Kenya’s renewable energy sector. The international best practice operating principles of
public participation adopted are according to André, et al. [15] while the Kenya public
participation practice was as in Mwenda et al. [8], Mwenda and Kibutu [17], Kibutu and
Mwenda [20]. Questionnaire respondents were sampled from licenced EIA practitioners in
Kenya in the years 2018 while that for other stakeholders was sampled from the National
Environment Management Authority (NEMA) Environmental Officers, the Ministry of
Energy and civil society. The sampling method used for EIA practitioners was simple random
sampling while that of other EIA stakeholders was purposeful sampling [27]. Example of
questions in the questionnaire include, how effective is public participation during EIA in
environmental decision making in renewable energy sub-sector? Does involvement of
stakeholders during EIA contribute to informed environmental decision making in renewable
energy sub-sector? Are public consultation sessions during EIA effective in contributing to
informed environmental decision making in the renewable energy sector? How effective is
public participation during EIAs in the renewable energy sub-sector in influencing sound
decisions that contribute to environmental protection? In your EIA practice how effective do
you think is the EIA tool in substantively contributing to informed environmental decisions
as a result of implementation of a proposed renewable energy project? How effective are the
stages of EIA process including that of public participation in contributing to informed
environmental decisions? The responses were on a five-point Likert Scale (1–5) as follows:
1) very ineffective, 2) ineffective, 3) slightly effective, 4) effective, and 5) very effective. 200
responses from EIA practitioners, 14 from Ministry of Energy, 15 from Civil Society and 13
from NEMA were analysed.
134 Energy and Sustainability VIII
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
3 RESULTS
3.1 Comparison of public participation practice during EIA process in Kenya with the
international best practice operating principles
Table 1: Comparison of EIA International best practice operating principles of public
participation with the EIA public participation practice in Kenya.
International best practice operating
p
rinci
p
les of
p
ublic
p
artici
p
ation durin
g
EIA
Public participation practice during EIA process
in Ken
y
a’s renewable ener
gy
p
ro
j
ects
1) Initiated early and sustained:
i) Public to be involved before major
decisions are made
ii) Public to be involved regularly in the
EIA process
i) Public is involved at scoping, report
preparation and report review stages
ii) Public is involved by making contributing in
three public meetings, during public hearing
and by sending written and oral submissions
on the EIA Stud
y
Re
p
ort
2) Well planned and focused on negotiable
issues:
i) All impact assessment stakeholders
should know the aims, rules,
organization, procedure and expected
outcomes of the public participation
process undertaken
ii) Emphasise understanding and respect
for the values and interests of
participants
iii) Focus on negotiable issues relevant to
decision making
i) Focus on methods of engaging the affected
stakeholders
ii) Focuses on explaining the project and its
effects
3) Supportive to participants:
i) Adequate diffusion of information on
the proposal and on the public
participation process
ii) Equitable access to funding or financial
assistance
iii) Capacity-building, facilitation and
assistance to groups who don’t have the
capacity to participate
i) Information on a proposed renewable energy
project is only available at the website of the
environmental agency and at the national
and County office of the environmental
agency where the proposed project is to be
located
ii) Diffusion of information on public
participation process is limited to what is
provided in EIA Regulations
iii) There is no provision for funding support to
enable economically disadvantaged
stakeholders satisfactorily participate in the
EIA
p
rocess
4) Tiered and optimised:
i) Public participation should occur at the
most appropriate level of decision-
making
ii) The public should be invited to
participate regularly, with emphasis on
appropriate time for involvement
iii) Optimization in time and space to ensure
more willing participation
i) Public participate in public meetings before
EIA report is compiled, in public hearing
and send comments once the EIA report has
been compiled
ii) Public invited by notices, posters and radio
announcement
Energy and Sustainability VIII 135
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
Table 1: Continued.
International best practice operating
p
rinci
p
les of
p
ublic
p
artici
p
ation durin
g
EIA
Public participation practice during EIA process
in Ken
y
a’s renewable ener
gy
p
ro
j
ects
5) Open and transparent:
i) Access to all relevant information by all
stakeholders
ii) Provision of information and facilitation
to ensure
p
artici
p
ation
i) Information on public participation is
available at NEMA, website, print and
electronic media
ii) Information is in English language only
6) Context oriented:
i) Be adapted to the social organization of
the impacted communities, including the
cultural, social, economic and political
dimensions
The social organization of the impacted people is
mostly ignored
7) Credible and rigorous:
i) Adhere to established ethics,
professional behaviour and moral
obligations
ii) Facilitation by a neutral facilitato
r
Facilitation during public meeting is by a Lead
Expert while during public hearing is by NEMA
official
3.2 Perceptions of EIA Practitioners and other EIA stakeholders on the effectiveness
of public participation’ substantive contribution to environmental decisions and
environmental risk management in Kenya’s renewable energy sub-sector
Table 2: Statistics of the respondents on the five-point Likert scale.
Category of
respondents
Five-
p
oin
t
Likert Scale Total
responses
(n)
Very
effective
(1)
Effective
(2)
Slightly
effective
(3)
Ineffective
(4)
Very
ineffective
(5)
EIA
Practitione
r
12 29 29 95 35 200
Ministry of
Ener
gy
1 2 6 4 1 14
Civil Societ
y
0 1 6 7 1 15
N
EMA 1 2 6 4 0 13
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Public participation practice during EIA in Kenya and its adherence to international
best practice operating principles
We sort to determine how public participation practice during EIA process in Kenya’s
renewable energy sub-sector compares to the international best practice operating principles.
Public participation during EIA process in Kenya is in three main stages namely at the
scoping, storage, EIA report preparation stage and EIA report review stage. The first two
stages are mainly sharing of proposed project information with the public while the third
stage is mainly consultative in nature. Documented research has shown that information
sharing form of public participation is passive public participation, it is viewed as
non-participation, manipulative depicted by therapy as it is subsequent to decisions that have
already been taken without inputs from the stakeholders [28]–[30]. Research has shown that
136 Energy and Sustainability VIII
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
public hearing is an ineffective form of public participation “it does not result in genuine
participation, does not satisfy the public, seldom improve decisions as it does not include
broad spectrum of the public but instead contributes to antagonising the public” [31]. The
comparative analysis identified the following shortcomings of Kenya’s public participation
during EIA; public participation is not initiated early nor sustained throughout the EIA
process because stakeholders such as community members of the proposed project site are
not involved in early project stages of design, nor in the determination of project location
further, stakeholders do not directly participate in the project approval stage. The practice is
not well planned and does not focus on negotiable issues because it is organisationally
deficient of a clear outline of what its aim is, rules and procedure to be followed and the
expected outcome. It does not identify issues that stakeholders will negotiate on in order to
aid decision making as stakeholders are viewed as a recipient of project information as
opposed to equals capable of influencing project decision. Information diffusion on public
participation and capacity building are both too limiting and prohibiting by design, location
and language because capacity building for better public participation during EIA process is
not actualised. Language used in notices, posters and radio announcement is commonly
English which locks out many stakeholders. Information access is prohibitive as one will
require access to internet and the requisite technical capacity to retrieve required information
from relevant databases. The practice is not context oriented as cultural, social, economic and
political dimensions are mostly ignored nor is it credible and rigorous as facilitators are
interested parties and hence not neutral. Similar findings have been document in previous
studies including Okello et al. [21] who concluded that public participation in Kenya’s EIA
process “is poor, particularly during the scoping, report review and follow-up stages” [8],
who states that public participation within EIA process in Kenya is relatively low [32], who
states that public participation in Kenya’s EIA process is inadequate [33], who states that
project “developers do not usually favour public participation, because they do not see the
positive side of this process as a result, they are likely to hide information, or not clearly state
data that may be controversial”. Public participation in environmental decision making is
both shaped by and, in many cases, constrained by the ways in which environmental issues,
problems, and solutions are defined or framed through the strategic communication practices
of the participants [34]. Exhaustive, inclusive and satisfactory public participation integrates
local knowledge [2], broadens potential solutions [14], [35], [36], improves process outcomes
[37] and avoids costly and time-consuming conflicts [38] thus guarantying access to justices
in matters environment [14]. In line with the principles of informative, proactive and early
involvement, the public should be involved as soon as value judgement becomes salient [13]
in order to consider psychological and sociological understandings of risk [39]. These two
principles underscore the importance of early public participation in the discourse of
underlying assumptions and agenda setting as opposed to narrow predefined problems [40].
Effective public participation should be broad capturing representation of all affected public
[13] for inclusivity, equitability, openness and transparency [17]. In order for public
participation process to be considered truly imputable, the output of the participation should
have a genuine impact on policy [13] otherwise the participation could be perceived as merely
being used to legitimise already made decisions [28] as opposed to contributing to
influencing sound environmental decision making [37]. Interactive participation is viewed as
the only public participation method that enables stakeholders take control over decisions
thus gaining a stake in mainstreaming structures and resources [29]. Interactive participation
utilises systematic structured learning process from a multidisciplinary approach that enables
stakeholders take control over decisions include resource usage. It enables stakeholders’
Energy and Sustainability VIII 137
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
participation in joint analysis, development of action plans and formation of and or
strengthening of local institutions.
4.2 Public participation during EIA process in Kenya and substantive contribution to
environmental decisions and environmental risk management
The substantive contribution of public participation during EIA process in environmental
decision making and hence environmental risk management focuses on a number of issues
including stakeholder participation [41]. It is on this basis we explored the perceptions of
stakeholders who participate in EIA public participation process in Kenya’s renewable
energy sub-sector to establish how they perceive the effectiveness of their participation in
substantively contributing to environmental decisions and hence environmental risk
management. Results show a small percentage of between 6 and 8 (Figs 1–4) of respondents
from each category perceive public participation during EIA process as being very effective
in substantively contributing to environmental decisions for environmental risk management
in the renewable energy sub-sector. A majority of the respondents from EIA practitioners
(48%) (Fig. 1) and civil society (46%) (Fig. 3) and a significant percentage from NEMA
(31%) (Fig. 4) and Ministry of Energy (29%) (Fig. 2) perceive public participation during
EIA process as ineffective in substantively contributing to environmental decisions for
environmental risk management in the renewable energy sub-sector. Research has shown that
substantive contribution of public participation during EIA process in environmental decision
making is influenced by and depended on local information and knowledge, incorporating
experimental and value based knowledge and testing the robustness of information from
other sources [24], [36], [42]. It could thus be argued that the observed perception of
ineffectiveness of public participation’s substantive contribution to environmental decisions
could be attributed to inability of exhaustively harnessing local knowledge from local
community stakeholders during public participation and incorporating the knowledge in
environmental decisions. Research has also shown that unjust EIA procedures characterised
by inequitable opportunity and freedom of affected communities to participate in the EIA
process contribute to poor public participation of the affected stakeholders [43]. The
outcomes of such an EIA procedure cannot support informed environmental decision but
instead contribute to harming the environment [43]. Public participation is part of EIA
process, poor public participation or lack of it amounts to unjust EIA procedures. Such unjust
EIA procedures negate the substantive rationale of EIA which is to inform decision-making
in order to mitigate negative environmental impacts [44] which will in turn contribute to
environmental protection.
Whereas progress has been made in constitutionally and legislatively underpinning public
participation in Kenya’s EIA process, there is scanty information on actual execution.
Constitutional and legislative loopholes are evident in Kenya’s legal framework on public
participations during EIA process. The constitution of Kenya falls short of making
public participation mandatory in managing, conserving and protecting the environment but
instead require the state to encourage public participation in the management, protection and
conservation of the environment as captured in article 69(1)(d) [45]. To ‘encourage’ means
to “give support, courage or hope” [46], waters down what could otherwise have been a
mandatory constitutional requirement. The Environmental Management and Coordination
Act, (EMCA) 1999 (Amended) 2015 and the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit)
Regulation, 2003 provides for public participation during EIA process in Kenya [17]. These
legislations fall short of defining the threshold required for public participation during EIA
process to be considered imputable, credible and acceptable. Section 59 of EMCA provides
138 Energy and Sustainability VIII
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
for advertising an already prepared EIA study report in a newspaper, Kenya Gazette and radio
and in the authority’s website [47] as a form of public participation, this is passive
participation. The EIA Regulation, 2003 which should spell out the nitty-gritties of public
participation during EIA process to ensure that public participation is rigorous, exhaustive
and all inclusive, instead reduces the process to “three public meetings” at strategic locations
of the proposed project site [48]. The regulations only attempt to define how the public will
be informed of the location and timings of the public meetings but fails to state how the
process should be conducted to ensure credibility.
Figure 1: Perceptions of respondents of EIA practitioners on the effectiveness of public
participation’s substantive contribution to environmental decisions in Kenya’s
renewable energy sub-sector.
Figure 2: Perceptions of respondents from the ministry of Energy on the effectiveness of
public participation’s substantive contribution to environmental decisions in
Kenya’s renewable energy sub-sector.
6%
14%
14%
48%
18%
EIA Practitioners
Very effective Effecetive Slightly effective
Ineffective Very ineffective
7%
14%
43%
29%
7%
Ministry of Energy
Very effective Effecetive Slightly effective
Ineffective Very ineffective
Energy and Sustainability VIII 139
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
Figure 3: Perceptions of respondents from the civil society on the effectiveness of public
participation’s substantive contribution to environmental decisions in Kenya’s
renewable energy sub-sector.
Figure 4: Perceptions of respondents from NEMA on the effectiveness of public
participation’s substantive contribution to environmental decisions in Kenya’s
renewable energy sub-sector.
5 CONCLUSION
Whilst the most appropriate method of public involvement depends on the specifics of any
particular situation and that more knowledge-based decisions require lower levels of
involvement than more value-based decisions, the forms of public participation used in the
EIA process in Kenya are not satisfactorily interactive to a level where stakeholders take
control over decisions thus gaining a stake in mainstreaming structures and resources. Public
participation during EIA process in Kenya’s renewable energy sub-sector therefore lacks the
0% 7%
40%
46%
7%
Civil Society
Very effective Effecetive Slightly effective
Ineffective Very ineffective
8% 15%
46%
31%
0%
NEMA
Very effective Effecetive Slightly effective
Ineffective Very ineffective
140 Energy and Sustainability VIII
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
merits of the international best practice operating principles because it is not initiated early
and is not sustained throughout the EIA process; it is not well planned and does not focus on
negotiable issues; information diffusion and capacity building is too limiting and prohibiting
by design, location and language; cultural, social, economic and political dimensions are
mostly ignored and facilitators are interested parties most likely not neutral. The outcome of
such a public participation for an EIA process seldom supports informed environmental
decisions and hence cannot contribute to environmental risk management. The same finding
is mirrored in the outcome of stakeholder perceptions (EIA practitioners, civil society,
Ministry of Energy and NEMA respondents) where there is a general consensus that public
participation during EIA process is ineffective in substantively contributing to informed
decision making. This study has thus established that public participation during EIA process
in Kenya’s renewable energy sub-sector poorly adheres to the international best practice
principles of public participation. The outcome of stakeholder perceptions on the substantive
contribution of public participation in environmental decision making is that it rarely
supports well informed decision-making that result in environmental protection in the
renewable energy sub-sector in Kenya. The perception could be attributed to the poor
adherence of the public participation practice to international best practice principles as seen
in the shortcoming of the practice in Kenya. The outcomes thus show that for public
participation to substantively inform decision making towards environmental protection, in
order to minimise environmental risks, public participation during EIA in Kenya’s renewable
energy sub-sector should strictly adhere to the established international best practice
operating principles.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
To achieve substantive contribution of public participation during EIA in Kenya’s renewable
energy sub-sector, the current forms of public participation that are largely passive in nature
should be substituted with interactive participation. The interactive stakeholder participation
should begin from project conceptualization stage and sustained though the entire project
cycle. To achieve this, it will be important for a review and broadening of the current EIA
legislation in Kenya to provide for a standalone piece of legislation that is specific to public
participation during environmental impact assessment process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to EIA practitioners, government agencies and civil society for responding to
the questionnaire, Dr Jatin Nathwani, and the Global Change Initiative – Affordable Energy
4 Humanity (AE4H) which he spearheads at the Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy,
University of Waterloo, Canada for the valuable advice and support.
REFERENCES
[1] Richardson, B.J. & Razzaque, J., Public participation in environmental decision-
making. Environmental Law for Sustainability, 6, pp. 165–194, 2006.
[2] Ocampo-Melgar, A., Sagaris, L., & Gironás, J., Experiences of voluntary early
participation in environmental impact assessments in Chilean mining. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 74, pp. 43–53, 2019.
[3] Okello, N., Beevers, L., Douven, W. & Leentvaar, J., The doing and un-doing of public
participation during environmental impact assessments in Kenya. Impact Assessment
and Project Appraisal, 27(3), pp. 217–226, 2009.
Energy and Sustainability VIII 141
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
[4] Marzuki, A., A review on public participation in environmental impact assessment in
Malaysia. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 4(12), pp.
126–36, 2009.
[5] Ruffeis, D., Loiskandl, W., Awulachew, S.B. & Boelee, E., Evaluation of the
environmental policy and impact assessment process in Ethiopia. Impact Assessment
and Project Appraisal, 28(1), pp. 29–40, 2010.
[6] Marara, M., Okello, N., Kuhanwa, Z., Douven, W., Beevers, L. & Leentvaar, J., The
importance of context in delivering effective EIA: Case studies from East Africa.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), pp. 286–296, 2011.
[7] Nadeem, O. & Fischer, T.B., An evaluation framework for effective public
participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(1), pp.
36–47, 2011.
[8] Mwenda, A.N., Bregt, A.K., Ligtenberg, A. & Kibutu, T.N., Trends in consultation
and public participation within environmental impact assessment in Kenya. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(2), pp. 130–135, 2012.
[9] Morgan, R.K., Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), pp. 5–14, 2012.
[10] Rebelo, C. & Guerreiro, J., Comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Kenya,
Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Angola, and the European Union. Journal of
Environmental Protection, 8(5), pp. 603–636, 2017.
[11] Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P., Kolhoff, A. & Runhaar, H.A., Public participation in
environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 1(43), pp. 104–111, 2013.
[12] Slocum, R. & Thomas-Slayter, B., Participation, Empowerment and Sustainable
Development. Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change. Intermediate
Technology Publications: London, pp. 3–8, 1995
[13] Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J., Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.
Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), pp. 3–29, 2000.
[14] Hartley, N. & Wood, C., Public participation in environmental impact assessment:
Implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
25(4), pp. 319–340, 2005.
[15] André, P., Enserink, B., Connor, D. & Croal, P., Public participation international best
practice principles. Special Publication Series, 4, 2006
[16] Kolhoff, A.J., Driessen, P.P. & Runhaar, H.A., Overcoming low EIA performance: A
diagnostic tool for the deliberate development of EIA system capacities in low and
middle income countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, pp. 98–108,
2018.
[17] Mwenda, A. & Kibutu, T.N., Implications of the new constitution on environmental
management in Kenya. Law, Environment & Development Journal, 8, p. 76, 2012.
[18] Kibugi, R., Development and the balancing of interests in Kenya. The Balancing of
Interests in Environmental Law in Africa, p. 169, 2011.
[19] Kameri-Mbote, P., Strategic planning and implementation of public involvement in
environmental decision-making as they relate to environmental impact assessment in
Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya., International Environmental Law Research Center Working
Paper, 2000-3, 2000.
[20] Kibutu, T.N. & Mwenda, A.N., Provision for environmental impact assessment (EIA)
in Kenya’s legislation: A review of the Environmental Management and Coordination
Act (EMCA) and Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations
(EIAAR). Eastern Africa Journal of Humanities and Sciences, 10(2), pp. 1–3, 2010.
142 Energy and Sustainability VIII
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
[21] Okello, N., Douven, W., Leentvaar, J. & Beevers, L., Breaking Kenyan barriers to
public involvement in environmental impact assessment. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 19, pp. 1–5, 2000.
[22] Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E., Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st
century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), pp. 419–436, 2004.
[23] Stewart, J.M. & Sinclair, A.J., Meaningful public participation in environmental
assessment: Perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents, and government.
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(2), pp. 161–83,
2007.
[24] O’Faircheallaigh, C., Public participation and environmental impact assessment:
Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 30(1), pp. 19–27, 2010.
[25] Engel, J.R., The faith of democratic ecological citizenship. The Hastings Center
Report, 28(6), pp. 31–34, 1998.
[26] Chi, C.S., Xu, J. & Xue, L., Public participation in environmental impact assessment
for public projects: A case of non-participation. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 57(9), pp. 1422–1440, 2014.
[27] Kothari, C.R., Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age
International, 2004.
[28] Cornwall, A., Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community
Development Journal, 43(3), pp. 269–283, 2008.
[29] Pretty, J.N., Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development,
23(8), pp. 1247–1263, 1995.
[30] Arnstein, S.R., A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35(4), pp. 216–224, 1969.
[31] Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E., Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st
century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), pp. 419–436, 2004.
[32] Kakonge, J., Environmental impact assessment: Why it fails in Kenya. Pambazuka
News, 2015.
[33] Enríquez-de-Salamanca, Á., Stakeholders’ manipulation of environmental impact
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, pp. 10–18, 2018.
[34] Depoe, S.P., Delicath, J.W. & Elsenbeer, M.F. eds., Communication and Public
Participation in Environmental Decision Making, Albany: SUNY Press, 2004.
[35] Vanclay, F., International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment
and Project Appraisal, 21(1), pp. 5–12, 2003.
[36] Morrison-Saunders, A. & Early, G., What is necessary to ensure natural justice in
environmental impact assessment decision-making? Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 26(1), pp. 29–42, 2008.
[37] Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A. & Fitzpatrick, P., Conceptualizing learning for sustainability
through environmental assessment: Critical reflections on 15 years of research.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), pp. 415–428, 2008.
[38] Diduck, A. & Mitchell, B., Learning, public involvement and environmental
assessment: A Canadian case study. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 5(3), pp. 339–364, 2003.
[39] Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. & Johnson, B., Public participation in
decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), pp. 189–214, 1993.
[40] Moffet, J., Environmental priority setting based on comparative risk and public input.
Canadian Public Administration, 39(3), pp. 362–385, 1996.
Energy and Sustainability VIII 143
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
[41] Chanchitpricha, C., Bond, A. & Cashmore, M., Effectiveness criteria for measuring
impact assessment tools. SEA Implementation and Practice: Making an Impact, 43,
pp. 1–13, 2011.
[42] Abaza, H., Bisset, R. & Sadler, B., Environmental impact assessment and strategic
environmental assessment: towards an integrated approach. UNEP/Earthprint, 2004.
[43] Simpson, N.P. & Basta, C., Sufficiently capable for effective participation in
environmental impact assessment? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 70, pp.
57–70, 2018.
[44] Loomis. J.J. & Dziedzic, M., Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: a state of the art.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, pp. 29–37, 2018.
[45] Constitution of Kenya, Government printer, Nairobi, 2010.
[46] Hornby, A.S., Cowie, A,P., Gimson, A.C. & Hornby, A.S., Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974.
[47] The Environmental Management and Co-ordination (Amendment) Act, 2015, Kenya
Gazette Supplement No. 74, Acts No. 5, 2015.
[48] Kenya, Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, Legal Notice No.
101, Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 56, Legislative Supplement No. 31, 2003.
144 Energy and Sustainability VIII
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 237, © 2019 WIT Press
