Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Sufficiently capable for effective participation in environmental impactassessment?

Nicholas Philip Simpsona,b,⁎, Claudia Bastac

aGlobal Risk Governance Programme, Department of Public Law, Kramer Law Building, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africab Environmental & Geographical Science Building, University of Cape Town, South Lane, Upper Campus, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, South AfricacNetherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, 2594AV The Hague, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Capability sufficiencyFunctioningsPublic participationEnvironmental impact assessment

A B S T R A C T

Where environmental procedures do not adequately include affected parties in decision-making, particularlythose from vulnerable and marginalized sectors of society, environmental justice cannot be realized. Further, thepractice of EIA will likely perpetuate the negative and disproportionate distribution of environmentally asso-ciated harms on vulnerable persons. Thus, this paper explores the potential merits of the capabilities approachfor establishing sufficiency grounds for public participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Thepaper identifies shared principles of justice in decision-making between the practice of EIA and the capabilitiesapproach by highlighting key ethical and theoretical concepts of the latter as a means to fortify this weakness inthe participation practice of EIA. Capability probes explore individual stakeholder's opportunity, ability andconstraints to participation. The findings of four South African (EIA) case studies are discussed, highlighting theinstrumental relationship between participatory actions, potentials and entitlements as they are mediated byempowering or disempowering procedural mechanisms. Cases exhibiting convincing stakeholder empowermentdemonstrate the value of sufficient support for participatory achievement. Instances of disempowerment in thecases underscore the dangers of insufficient and inequitable participation. Reflecting on the findings, the workapplies the recent notions of capability ‘sufficiency’ (Nielsen and Axelsen, 2016) to outline what can be de-limited, and later contextually specified, for support provisions in EIA building towards more meaningful, andperhaps more just, public participation processes.

1. Introduction

It is well established that environmental decision-making requiresthe integration of social, economic and ecological aspects; not just anarrowly defined economic or biophysical conceptualization (Morrison-Saunders and Early, 2008), which is why EIA is also mandated to applya participatory approach, the precautionary principle, and considercumulative and intergenerational aspects (Lamorgese and Geneletti,2013). EIA literature highlights the role that public participation shouldplay in the decision-making process (Sinclair et al., 2008), togetherwith the need for improved consideration of social aspects (Vanclay,2002, 2014) in order to live up to these mandates. The rationale forpublic participation in EIA includes the normative notions of influencein decision making, enhancing democratic capacity, social learning andempowering marginalized individuals (Glucker et al., 2013). These fournormative rationales engender expectations that assume a quality ofparticipation that goes beyond a procedural, or checklist approach, toindicate participation which might benefit the decision making and

participant in substantive ways. There are, however, a number of im-mediately identifiable challenges that stand in the way. Firstly, thepractice of EIA faces the general challenge of defining, conducting andevaluating ‘meaningful’ or ‘effective’ public participation; secondly, as acorollary of this first challenge, in order for affected stakeholders toparticipate effectively, the practice needs to identify, recognize andprovide reasonable support measures to those clearly disadvantagedand impaired to participate.

In order to address these two challenges and presenting how thecapabilities approach contributes to their remediation, the followingsection will briefly introduce the core concepts of the capabilities ap-proach. In order to frame the compatibility of the capabilities approachwith general EIA practice, the article then outlines the shared practiceand normative principles of the capabilities approach and of the publicparticipation required by EIA procedures. Although our discussion islimited to EIA due to reflection on empirical work, we see no reasonwhy the capabilities approach would not be useful to the broader suiteof impact assessment tools as long as due consideration is made of the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.03.004Received 21 November 2017; Received in revised form 20 March 2018; Accepted 20 March 2018

⁎ Corresponding author at: Global Risk Governance Programme, Department of Public Law, Kramer Law Building, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa.E-mail addresses: nick.simpson@uct.ac.za (N.P. Simpson), Claudia.basta@pbl.nl (C. Basta).

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

0195-9255/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

T

purpose of the specific role of participation for each instrument.The article presents four South African EIA case studies that high-

light the capability challenges of participation within stakeholder po-pulations that present high degrees of socially differentiation. Casestudy observations are presented highlighting a selection of capabilitiesand functionings of stakeholders that are required and activated in EIApublic participation. The discussion draws on the case observations todelineate a capabilities framework for EIA public participation based onthe notion of capability ‘sufficiency’. Such sufficiency, we argue, is pre-conditional for meeting justice requirements within and through EIAparticipatory practices and consists of the ability to participate in po-litical activities that affect one’s future environment in a manner that isfree from unfair constraint. Our application of the notion of ‘capabilitysufficiency’ in EIA participatory procedures is therefore presented as apragmatic conceptual foundation for what ‘meaningful’ participationcan build on in EIA public participation. A capabilities approach to EIAparticipation, we conclude, enables the assessment and deployment ofthe support provisions that especially disadvantaged stakeholders needin order to participate in environmental decision making, by so doingmeeting the requirement of effective inclusion, thus fairness, that EIAprocedures often risk to neglect.

2. Theoretical framework and literature review

2.1. The capabilities approach and its value for EIA: preliminary notions

The capabilities approach is a wide-ranging normative frameworkfor the appraisal of human development, individual well-being andsocial arrangements. The capabilities approach has been applied towelfare economics, development studies and political philosophy aswell as education, disability studies, public health and gender studies(Robeyns, 2006). The capabilities approach has focused on a number ofareas which have varying degrees of relevance to participatory en-vironmental decision making, such as inclusive political institutions(Sen, 1999), civic engagement in a functioning democracy (Drydyk,2005), citizen participation and environmental risk (Foriono, 1990),participatory governance of sustainable transitions (Rauschmayer et al.,2013), gendered participation (McEwan, 2005), rationality and publicdecision making (Sen, 2002), quality of life (Sen, 1979; Nussbaum andSen, 1993) and the right to information and local governance (Anand,2011).

The term ‘capability’, captures a “person's ability to do valuable actsor reach valuable states of being” (Sen, 1990, 12). It concerns the op-portunities or freedoms “to achieve what an individual reflectivelyconsiders valuable” (Sen, 1990, 19). Translating this notion to publicparticipation, the act of participating in EIA can be considered both avalued end in itself as well as instrumental, as a means of forming,influencing or achieving ends that are of relevance to a stakeholder'sstate of being. In the various declinations of the capabilities approach, aperson's ‘functionings’ are seen as her ‘beings and doings’; for example,her literacy level or her habit to follow a healthy and adequate diet(Robeyns, 2006). It follows that whilst one's functionings relate withone's individual features and agency, her ‘capabilities’ are the genuineopportunities and freedoms that she has to realize such ‘functionings’.In this sense, capabilities are not only abilities or means (Sen, 2000), aspeople and societies differ, for example, in their capacity to convertmeans such as income and commodities into valuable achievements(Sen, 1999). Rather, a capability is the freedom to choose among life-styles that are realistically achievable, if so desired. The ‘measure’ ofsuch freedom is thus the actual functioning that a person realizes; thatis, her ‘achieved functionings’ (Sen, 1992). Sen (1992) has forcefullyargued that evaluations which are sensitive to well-being should notonly focus on the particular functionings she actually achieves, but alsoon those that she can achieve. Such evaluation should therefore includeone's freedom to decide what path to take: differently put, the cap-abilities approach emphasizes genuine choice. If this freedom is absent,

or withheld from a group of people, the capabilities approach qualifiesthem as ‘unfreedoms’ which, in turn, can have further negative impactson other capabilities and freedoms (Sen, 1999). What is realisticallyachievable for an individual stakeholder through public participation iscontested (Jay et al., 2007) and probably more limited than the practiceacknowledges. Further, the degree to which EIA itself has influence onfinal decision making is also considered to be limited (Cashmore,2004). However, there is, ostensibly, a provision in EIA, that throughpublic participation the potential accommodation of such concerns canbe incorporated into the decision making in order to safeguard en-vironmental justice.

Keeping these tenets of the capabilities approach in mind, an “un-just” EIA procedure can be characterized by inequitable opportunityand freedom of affected communities to participate. This could be dueto various types of constraints that undermine or even disable theiraspired participation ends. Such constraints can be internal to the in-dividual, such as their mobility or time to participate, or a combinationof external and structural obstacles relating to fundamental entitle-ments such as constitutional provisions for locus standi, or the abilityand opportunity for a woman to freely voice her opinion in a publicmeeting within a patriarchal society. Likewise, the outcomes of such anEIA procedure could harm the environmental conditions in whichpeople could live in, creating by so doing additional socio-ecologicalobstacles to their individual freedoms and their fundamental cap-abilities in general.

Five shared practice principles are selected here to highlight howboth the capabilities approach and EIA align with the substantive andinstrumental rationales for public participation, which can:

1. Be instrumental for better decision making.2. Be an end in itself as an outworking of a functioning democracy.3. Be a tool for accountability in environmental decision making.4. Validate or challenge general theories of science through local and

contextual application.5. Include other capacitating benefits such as social learning and em-

powerment.

There are a number of normative public participation principles thatare shared between the capabilities approach and EIA and which areencoded in the practices of in both the human development and in theenvironmental spheres. Lamorgese and Geneletti (2013) provide asystematic review of different approaches in the literature outlining anumber of equity perspectives in impact assessment, such as those re-lating to opportunity, distributional fairness and notions of justice in aflawed world. Likewise, recent advances have considered the distribu-tional intentions and realized outcomes of environmental planning(Basta, 2016). Imperatives for fair participation are well articulated inthe normative rationale for EIA public participation, which adopts thenotions of influencing the decision, enhancing democratic capacity,social learning and empowering and emancipating marginalized in-dividuals (Glucker et al., 2013). These four normative rationales in-dicate a prospect that participation could benefit the participant inmeaningful ways attaining to Sen's capability notion that participationcan be both instrumental towards an individual's goals as well as avalued end in itself (Sen, 1999). Recognising the value of participationfor stakeholders, Patel (2008) has observed that EIAs must be able totake into account the distributional consequences of environmentalimpacts. This is particularly important for those groups in society that“tend to systematically lose out in the distribution of environmentalgoods and bads” (Patel, 2008, 363).

2.2. Capability sufficiency as a foundation for meaningful publicparticipation

This article argues for the inclusion of capabilities in con-ceptualizing the minimally just conditions of meaningful public

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

58

participation. The article does not model a participation procedure,rather, through reporting on research focussed on stakeholder's cap-abilities in four EIA public participation case studies, it highlights theusefulness of viewing the quality of public participation through thelens of capabilities. The notion of participation sufficiency is proposedas a foundation for Meaningful Public Participation (MPP) throughdeepening the notion of meaningfulness on grounds of fairness, parti-cularly as inequality of stakeholder's capabilities are given greaterprominence – both procedurally as well as substantively. The articledoes not argue that we do away with the broad and established notionMPP, as conceptualized by Steward and Sinclair (2007) and others (forexample Sinclair et al., 2008). What it does highlight however, is va-luable insight into the fairness and appropriateness of the EIA publicparticipation procedure – beyond subjective snares which ‘meaningful’can be misinterpreted to stand for – to objective states of interpersonaldisparity, together with the associated differences in participation ef-fectiveness, which ‘meaningfulness’ criteria may neglect. In this regard,the article advances the discussion of what grounds are available andappropriate for establishing the specific elements which make upmeaningful public participation (Webler et al., 2001).

There are at least two ways in which capability sufficiency enhancesMPP. The definitional elaboration that ‘sufficiency’ provides, is a usefulfoundation for the effectiveness and fairness grounds of what partici-pation can be considered ‘meaningful’. Secondly, the capability ap-proach provides useful schema for conceptualizing human developmentframed disparities between stakeholders at the level of ‘agreeably un-just arrangements’ which is helpful in identifying requisite support in-terventions for more equitable participation. MPP does consider dif-ference, inequality or inequity in participation at face value. However,this can be assisted through the rich and nuanced approach to humandevelopment afforded by the CA. This includes considering the abilities,opportunities and commodities of stakeholders. It also includes con-sidering the reasons people have for values they hold, particularly re-garding the means and ends of participation and their desired futureenvironments. We elaborate both the definitional and conceptual pointshere.

Firstly, the terms ‘meaningful and ‘sufficient’ have overlappingconnotations when applied to public participation. They both imply anormative expectation for a degree of fairness and effectiveness inpublic participation, yet they are not congruent. One way to interrogatethe difference in these terms is to question whether it is possible to havemeaningful participation without participation sufficiency? This con-tention is best illustrated in the negative sense. To have meaninglessparticipation is quite different from insufficient participation. The termmeaningful implies seriousness, importance and a recognizable qualityof participation purpose. Yet the expression meaningful, in the positivesense, can also be quite vague. Sufficiency on the other hand, lacks thedescriptive quality of meaningfulness for high performing participation,but attains to a more concrete minimal foundation for what can beconsidered, at a basic level as fair; or at least not agreeably unfair (Sen,2009). Insufficiency connotes inadequacy of public participation, whichis arguably a more fundamental concern over participation fairness andefficacy than are elevated degrees of quality in meaningfulness. It ispossible to have sufficient participation, on grounds of capabilitieswhich attain to the fairness and effectiveness criteria of public parti-cipation, which may or may not attain to meaningful participation. Thisis not to say that meaningfulness should be subordinate to sufficiency asa concept for public participation, rather, sufficiency should lay thefoundation for meaningful public participation and without which, dueto the inequality imperatives and disparity in EIA stakeholders, mean-ingful participation cannot be attained. Capability sufficiency supportsand enables meaningful participation. Where meaningful participationimplies positive participation conditions, sufficiency outlines thegrounds of minimum requirements.

Steward and Sinclair (2007) outline that meaningful public parti-cipation includes a list of items such as, inter alia, integrity and

accountability, fair notification, inclusiveness, capacity building and apositive communication environment. They discuss and reflect uponhow often these conditions are not satisfactorily met in practice. Thereis indication that Steward and Sinclair (2007) do pay attention to sta-keholder competencies in the consideration of capacity building andsocial learning, however, the discussion of meaningful participationfalls short of the nuanced and elaborated view of interpersonal differ-ences which capabilities affords and which is outlined below.Sufficiency on the other-hand safeguards against descriptors of parti-cipation as attaining to evaluative descriptors of ‘serious, important, orhaving recognizable quality or purpose’ (meaningful), without a foun-dation of adequacy and competence to meet pecuniary obligations. Inessence, ‘meaningful’ lacks import when without fairly distributedadequacy. This aligns with Sen's (2006, 2009) notion that, building onthe philosophies of Rawls (2005), Scanlon (2006) and other justicethinkers, in light of the gross disparities faced in societies today, thefocus of justice in democratic institutions – in this case equitable andeffective participation – should not only focus on establishing idealsociety norms (as outlined in MPP), but more importantly, the focusshould be on the removal of agreeably unjust and inequitable ar-rangements through participatory and deliberative forms. The notion ofmeaningful public participation is a noble goal for quality participation.Yet, before the ideal can be attained, fundamentals of inequity andinequality in participation need to be identified, and either mitigatedfor, or removed. It is on grounds of capability sufficiency that more fairparticipation can be attained.

2.3. Conceptualizing stakeholder's capability sufficiency in publicparticipation

The capability approach provides useful schema for conceptualizinghuman development framed disparities between stakeholders at thelevel of ‘agreeably unjust arrangements’ of interpersonal inequalitywhich is helpful in identifying requisite support interventions for moreequitable participation. Nussbaum (2000, 75) has developed the cap-abilities approach to include the identification of a minimum level ofcapabilities ‘below which’ no human should live. It is argued that herlist outlines what cannot be reasonably disregarded as important to a‘good’ or flourishing life. In effect, hers is the tentative identification ofa minimum level of capabilities that a society can regard as the basis forjust social coexistence. In order to operationalize this notion for humandevelopment purposes, Nussbaum (2003) offers a list of ten centralcapabilities that are based on what she considers potentially general-izable minimum foundations for living a truly human and flourishinglife. Her list of capabilities consists of the broad categories of: 1) life, 2)bodily health, 3) bodily integrity, 4) senses, imagination and thought,5) emotions, 6) practical reason, 7) affiliation, 8) other species, 9) playand 10) control over one's environment, principally political and ma-terial control. Each of these ten capabilities relates to fundamentalhuman rights and are proposed as complementary with each other (see,e.g., Nussbaum, 1992, 2013). A ‘capability threshold’ is thus a standardfor justice that, building on Nussbaum's list, should be secured for allcitizens belonging to a decent political order (Roberts, 2013). A cap-ability on Nussbaum's (2003, 41) list that is particularly relevant to EIApublic participation is “the control of political and material activitiesthat affect one's life”, which is conceptualized within a meta-frame of“control of one's environment”. Although not articulated to specificallyapply to the decision making practice of EIA, the actions that in-dividuals take for enabling their own political participation, togetherwith the policy and regulatory provisions for their participation, areinstrumental to the end of increasing their freedom of choice withintheir present and future environment. The term “control” in Nussbaum'sintent is thus a conceptualization of one's individual freedom to influ-ence her own living environment that goes beyond merely being in-formed about a proposal or project. It suggests a degree of activeagency, involvement, and influence. This indicates a level of

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

59

engagement with decision making that, as best-practice EIA requires,roots into and denotes a reflection on the future environment that aperson considers valuable.

There remains however an observed participation deficit in en-vironmental decision making, particularly in the state of post-apartheidSouth African citizenry (Patel, 2008; Oldfield, 2008). Building onNussbaum's work, Nielsen and Axelsen (2016, 3) have established theterm “capabilitarian sufficiency” to describe the state of an individualfor whom there is no capability deficit. The exercise of certain cap-abilities could lead to the curtailment of other capabilities. For ex-ample, an unreasonably expanded capability of free speech, undercertain conditions, could result in hate speech, if not curtailed by anassociated limitation on free speech that affords dignity to a fellow ci-tizen. To tackle this problem, Holland proposes the complementaryconcept of ‘capability ceilings’ that “impose a limit on the set of basicopportunities available to people” in order to safeguard capabilities foreach person (Holland, 2008, 401). This could imply that specific limitsto the influence and control of public meetings or focus groups bycertain privileged parties need to be managed in order to allocate ap-propriate space to all stakeholders in the overall account of publicconcerns and issues raised. The framework outlined below builds uponboth notions of ‘capability threshold’ and ‘capability ceilings’ in orderto sketch preliminary conditions for capabilitarian sufficiency in EIApublic participation.

Participation is a dynamic process. For conceptual clarity, Fig. 1presents the ‘first instance’ of participation, indicating the capabilitiesthat a stakeholder brings to the process on notification or registration asan interested and affected party (I&AP). It is from this initial situationthat positive gains or negative impacts on capabilities can be comparedwith and change potentially attributed to the process. Fig. 1 illustrates amatrix that displays the potential relationship between participation‘opportunity’ and ‘ability’ aspects of a stakeholder’s capability set.

Fig. 1 presents vectors for the delineation of a minimum thresholdnecessary for participating in EIA when aiming to realize capabilitariansufficiency imperatives. The vectors are conceptualized within a vectorframework for the possibility of capability expansion. Dashed arrows inFig. 1 indicate vectors that are below capability thresholds and areindicated between zero and minus one. The zero point indicates thehypothetical minimum ‘opportunity’ and minimum ‘ability’ thresholdsfor an individual’s capabilities. This threshold is not necessarily a fixedpoint but can be informed by contextual and best practice EIA publicparticipation guidelines and a skilful facilitator. When related to certainbiological and physical well-being aspects a prescribed threshold levelis easier to identify, for example support provisions for differently abledpersons whom lack mobility or require sign-language assistance. Onother grounds, for example those generated by structural or cultural

partiality, it is more difficult to specify. We therefore intentionally donot specify what the capabilities thresholds should be but provide anoutline and criteria for their later determination according to stake-holder capabilities. It may not neatly fit just one line as implied in thediagram but, within limits of reasonableness, could rather be athreshold range. Time, transport, affordability and other skills and ca-pacities necessary for participation can be conceptualized along theselines. This “zero point” condition reflects what Nielsen and Axelsen(2016, 2) would term “capabilitarian sufficiency” where the individualis free from “unfair duress and significant pressure against succeedingin central areas of life”. Both opportunity and ability can be elaboratedfor the practitioner's determinations of capability sufficiency throughconsidering how the two probes intersect with the stakeholder's:

a) Needs to ensure biological and physical well-being.For example: nourishment, water, health, clean air, shelter, re-production, sexual fulfilment and physical security.

b) Autonomy in forming and reforming valuable ends.For example: rational reflection, imagination, critical thinking,normative evaluation, functional and technical skills, understandingthe implications of choices and actions for one's life, working,having the emotional capacities to feel an appropriate range ofemotions, and feeling an emotional attachment with other humanbeings.

c) Pursuit of valuable ends within a community.For example: political freedoms such as the freedom to vote, thefreedom of assembly and association, the freedom from dis-crimination and oppression, and other freedoms such as access tosome form of market in which one can trade on fair terms withothers, the capability of enjoying sufficiently high social status, notbeing dominated by others (adapted from Nielsen and Axelsen,2016, 5).

The three meta-categories arranged by Nielsen and Axelsen (2016)covers a broad conceptualization of capabilities. Under specific decisionmaking conditions, stakeholder's ‘needs’, their ‘autonomy’ or their‘pursuit of valuable ends’ may be of greater or lesser concern to thepositive or negative impacts of a proposed development. Changes inwater quality or air quality, for example, put at risk stakeholder's bio-logical and physical well-being. Such concerns can be expected to betop-of-mind for stakeholders whom choose to get involved in publicparticipation processes and whom are concerned that these aspects mayface significant change, particularly if they live in close proximity to theproposed development. Public participation procedures in environ-mental assessment link second generation rights, that ensure biologicaland physical well-being, with first generation rights (which relate tobiological and physical well-being) through civil and political rights toparticipation (Murombo, 2008). This is well articulated in the Aarhusconventions principles (quoted in Hartley and Wood, 2005) which, interalia, emphasize access to information, procedural justice and the rightto participate in decision making that affects one's life.

The second and third categories arranged by Nielsen and Axelsen(2016) of ‘autonomy’ or the ‘pursuit of valuable ends’, go beyond arights-based approach to human flourishing, yet are also of centralconcern to public participation as they reinforce the substantive poli-tical rights implied in the practice. The examples provided for ‘au-tonomy’, such as ‘rational reflection’, ‘imagination’, ‘critical thinking’and ‘normative evaluation’ are all important for a stakeholder's in-dividual and autonomous decisions and actions in EIA public partici-pation. The collaborative and discursive aspects of public participation,further, require the valuable ends individual's form to be pursuedwithin a community. The structuring of participation processes can bewell served through conceptualizing stakeholder capabilities in thisway. A stakeholder's opportunity, ability and obstacles to participationare linked to an interpersonal comparison of their material and non-material human development conditions outlined in these terms. The

Fig. 1. Conceptualizing capability expansion using opportunity and abilitythreshold vectors.

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

60

agency a stakeholder has in and through participation cannot be dis-associated with the inequalities that are immediately brought to thefore when planning is sensitive to capability difference in this way.Capability sufficiency allows the practitioner to locate stakeholder ac-tions and reasons within the context of their well-being. This is im-portant for both design of support provisions as well as understandingthe plurality of values the public bring to EIA decision making. Due tospace limitations, this article unfortunately does not elaborate the di-versity and ranking of values of stakeholders, nor their comparativestates of well-being, as it maintains its focus on the procedural aspectsof participation in the cases. Delineation of procedural support criteriafor capability thresholds may end up being more concretized byfocussing on the forming and reforming of stakeholder's valuable endsthrough participation and the pursuit of such ends within groups.However, the inclusion of stakeholder's needs will remain important asthey directly influence why a stakeholder participates and their valuesof their environment.

In Fig. 1, the upper right quadrant X-axis and Y-axis ranges between0 and+ 1 (no shading), is the sufficiency target for conditions neces-sary for participation. A reasonable argument for capability supportshould be to ‘move’ a stakeholder from a position of insufficient tosufficient condition, from the ‘negative’ quadrants into ‘positive’quadrant. The utility indicated on the stakeholder's face in the top rightquadrant does not necessarily indicate happiness, but suggests that thestakeholder's minimum capability threshold requirements, grounded ontheir fundamental entitlements and the practice expectation for equi-table participation have been met.

The Y-axis of Fig. 1 considers the threshold range of individual “op-portunity” considerations for capabilities. Guided by Holland (2008), themaximum capability expansion [+1] for ‘opportunity’ is indicated as thecapability limit for ‘opportunity’; beyond which unfair access and ‘oppor-tunity’ arrangements may occur which may have an adverse effect on othercapabilities, other participants and on efficiency demands of the EIA pro-cess. This is the participation opportunity ‘ceiling’.

The X-axis of Fig. 1 considers the range of capability ‘ability’ relatedconsiderations of participation. The matrix indicates a minimumthreshold for ability but does not indicate a ceiling, as the high-per-forming potentials for human ability are limitless and not relevant forthe justice considerations of ‘meaningful’ or ‘sufficient’ participation.The matrix indicates a simplified schema that a differently abled personis faced with more than one dimension of challenge to participation.The hypothetical stakeholder in the bottom left of the matrix faces bothlack of opportunity types as well as deficiency of ability types of cap-abilities. The matrix implies that ample opportunity without mitigationfor disability may not necessarily provide the requisite foundations tofacilitate meaningful participation. Delineation of thresholds and ceil-ings for participation therefore can be guided by stakeholder's ‘needs’,their ‘autonomy’ or their ‘pursuit of valuable ends’. The examplesprovided under these three meta-categories are provided here in orderto tether the abstract nature of ceilings and thresholds to more tangiblehuman capabilities however they are not intended to be prescriptiveand, as the CA demands, are open to contextual testing and challenge.

Equal participation is a noble goal for the practice. It is howevergenerally unattainable (see, e.g., Sen, 1979; Wendelspiess, 2014), par-ticularly in less developed countries. Further, public participation inEIA is not principally an agent of social engineering for equality. To seta goal of perfectly equal participation overstates the purpose of thedecision making tool of EIA. In contrast, to set a goal of participationthat is governed by capability sufficiency provides for a minimally justfoundation for what can be considered reasonably fair participationwithin unequal, diverse and differentiated stakeholder populations. Thedistributive concern of participation capability sufficiency ensures thataffected persons or groups of people do not face agreeably unjust par-ticipatory situations. On these terms, meaningful participation can beroughly equated to ‘the ability to participate in political activities thataffect one's future environment in a manner that is free from prejudicial

duress and substantial pressure against succeeding in EIA public par-ticipation’. It is through establishing terms for a minimally fair decisionmaking process that the participation practice can endeavour to moveon to more meaningful and equitable forms. Participation outcomes oreffectiveness criteria without consideration of stakeholder capabilitieswill inevitably miss this critical distinction.

2.4. EIA public participation in South Africa and expectations for effectiveparticipation

According to the national guideline (DEA, 2017) established in order toassist in better implementation of the participation obligations set out in theSouth African National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the SouthAfrican Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA, 2017) sets out the legalbackground, the importance of, and procedural guidance for public parti-cipation. Under the NEMA and the EIA regulations, public participationprovides for the notification of interested and affected parties and a varietyof mandated opportunities for their involvement in standard public parti-cipation mechanisms. These include devices used in the four case studiesexplored here, commenting on reports through written submissions andattending public and focus group meetings. The guideline (DEA, 2017, 5)highlights that public participation provides I&APs with the opportunity to‘voice their support, concerns and questions regarding the project, appli-cation or decision’ and enables the applicant to, inter alia, incorporate the‘needs, preferences and values of affected parties into its application’.

In alignment with the broader practice of public participation inEIA, in South African context, the NEMA encodes the provision ofsupport for stakeholders together with the purpose of realizing equi-table and effective participation (RSA Act No. 107 of, 1998, Section2(4)). The NEMA (RSA Act No. 107 of, 1998) attempts to redress thesevere participation challenges of a highly differentiated society stillfacing the legacies of apartheid.

… all people must have the opportunity to develop the under-standing, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable andeffective participation … [in EIA] (RSA Act No. 107 of, 1998, Sec-tion 2(4) f).

This clause in the NEMA concerns stakeholder abilities, their well-being and their opportunities for participation in light of historical in-justices. In light of severe disparity and significant historical dis-advantage within South African society, there is an emphasis onequality and fairness in participation. In this regard, these clauses re-flect post-Apartheid reconstructive constitutionalism which aims toredress historical inequalities through public institutions and cater forpersistent inequalities through the practice of EIA and the platform ofpublic participation. The NEMA regulations recognize that certaingroups in society may need ancillary support in order to realize equi-table and effective participation. The South African public participationguideline acknowledges that:

Marginalized individuals and communities should be provided withimproved access to integrated environmental management systemsand processes. One of the measures of successful public participationis the ability of people to influence decisions and outcomes. In EIAprocesses, for example, the degrees of influence or power of in-dividual stakeholders depends on having time to attend meetings,the ability to understand and review lengthy technical documents,access to the internet, and knowledge of environmental rights (DEA&DP, 2007, 53).

There is therefore an expectation that specific responsibility should betaken for mitigating inequitable situations faced by stakeholders whocannot effectively participate, specifically due to particular social arrange-ments and assist in the “ability of people to influence decisions and out-comes” (DEA&DP, 2007, 53). Taken together with the NEMA clauses listedabove, the guideline outlines what effective and successful participationshould look like suggesting a measure of the ability of people ‘to influence

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

61

decisions and outcomes’ and stakeholder ‘power’. From the view of stake-holder capabilities, there is a normative expectation for participatory‘beings’ and ‘doings’ which align with a stakeholder's realization of proce-dural and outcome entitlements. The guideline also acknowledges andidentifies a number of particular types of disadvantage for both individualsand groups of people which stand in the way of realizing participationcapabilities. Section 2(4) d in the NEMA identifies the disadvantage of racialdiscrimination. The NEMA also includes aspects that relate to structuraldisadvantage. Marginalized groups such as ‘women and youth’ are identi-fied in Section 2(4) q. The potential hegemonic disadvantage that can resultfrom conflict between different types of knowledge is also highlighted inSection 2(4) g. All of the above relate to a person's internal capabilities forparticipation.

The public participation process is defined in terms of NEMA (Act 107of 1998) as a process by which potential interested and affected parties aregiven opportunity to comment on or raise issues relevant to an application.According to the national guideline (DEA, 2017), at a minimum, the publicparticipation process undertaken must provide for the opportunity for allrole players including potential and registered interested and affected par-ties, to obtain ‘clear, accurate and understandable information about theenvironmental impacts of the proposed activity or implications of a deci-sion’ and to voice their support, concerns and questions regarding theproject, application or decision (DEA, 2017, 5). Among other specified re-quirements, the process is expected to enable the person conducting publicparticipation to incorporate the needs, preferences and values of potentialor registered interested and affected parties into its proposed development(DEA, 2017). The public generally have 30 days to consider and commentupon draft and finalised environmental reports. Although an arguably shortperiod of time, considering the development facilitation imperatives of theSouth African context, this has been deemed a ‘reasonable’ time frame(DEA, 2017, 7). For the four cases selected by this research, the publicparticipation structures were deemed adequate by the consent authoritiesregarding stakeholder notification, the use of at least one public meeting,types and levels of engagement and comment periods. All cases also in-cluded the use of smaller, sectoral and sometimes strategic focus groups invarying degrees.

The NEMA and the participation guideline (DEA, 2017) also include as-pects that relate to procedural disadvantage which concern a person's ex-ternal capabilities for participation. The capabilities approach is concernedwith what is achieved and realized in people's lives. It is concerned withmeans and ends of functionings as the relate to freedoms, in this case theconstitutive and instrumental means and ends of public participation forenvironmentally associated concerns. Oldfield (2008, 493) has observed thatalthough advances in regulatory and constitutional provisions for participa-tion create opportunities for participation in what are ostensibly equal pro-cesses, “allocating much weight to them as mechanisms for democratizationignores the grossly unequal possibilities for participating, the formal methodsof participation, and the often personalized […] agendas that drive theseprocesses in practice”. Patel (2008) concurs that despite a commitment toincrease the prominence of human rights in environmental and planningdecision making, “evidence exists that demonstrates that processes of mar-ginalization, poverty, environmental degradation and a lack of sustainableoutcomes remain; and what is more, are entrenched by the very processesaiming to address them” in South Africa (Patel, 2008, 360). EIA participationprocedures have therefore been observed to fall short of providing the in-strumentality expectation for vulnerable stakeholders with alarming con-sequences for the well-being and environmental condition.

3. Methods

3.1. Application: case studies and stakeholder selection

This research considers the participation experiences of stake-holders in four EIA case studies in South Africa. The experiences ofparticipation of carefully selected stakeholders were evaluated withemphasis on the expectation for equality and effectiveness of

participation. They provide a deeper and contextual understanding ofthe stakeholder's participation experience in light of decision makingthat would impact on their environment.

Over 100 environmental assessments were considered in varyingdegrees of detail before settling on eleven cases that were pursued morethoroughly. During this stage, the methodology weighed up the benefitsof different types of case study research for a capabilities approach toEIA public participation. Following the guidance of Charmaz (2008),the criteria for theoretical sampling were established after tentativecategories were identified and refined. The rich level of detail neededfor case study research and for understanding participant “capabilities”and “functionings” requires a limited number of cases. Eisenhardt andGraebner's (2007) advise that having between two and five case studiescan be beneficial for theory building as word limits force the discussionand theoretical reflection to follow the main trends across the casesrather than elaborating the contextual specificities which may not be asgeneralizable. Findings drawn from the case studies used may not beapplicable to the broader generalisation of public participation in EIAdue to the contextual factors involved (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).Theoretical sampling for multiple cases aimed to identify case studies,and then stakeholders within those cases that contained adequatelydifferentiated populations that would provide a valid sample.

The selection of respondents regarding community residence,gender and ethnicity reflect a considered representation of the localaffected community. This provides a greater representation in thesurvey population to women and previously disadvantaged ethnicgroups than is usually found in the stakeholder database. The researchinitially considered the merits of selecting three to four cases, all withsimilar scale, type of development and type of assessment. In contrast, itwas decided that criteria upon which to base the selection of casesshould be a principally grounded search for processes that reflect abroad experience of types of EIA public participation. The cases weredrawn from a variety of types of EIA practiced in South Africa andinclude a proposed urban Park development (abbreviated here as“PARK”), a proposed offshore liquefied natural gas import facility(GAS), a proposed wind energy facility, (WIND) and a proposed phos-phate mine (MINE). Criteria used to select the cases represent differenttypes of EIA, scales, locations and spatial extent, environmental con-sultancy, developers, assessment consultancies, industries and projecttypes and lastly, a diversity of stakeholders both within each case study,as well as across the cases. They are spatially located in the twosouthern Cape provinces of South Africa, namely the Western andEastern Cape provinces.

The selection of different types of project is potentially problematicas some interview responses that require preference formed responsesmay be affected more by the nature of the project than the participationor the EIA itself. It is not possible to adequately control for the influencethis will have on the findings. One way the research has tried to handlethis limitation is to identify cases from a broad spectrum of develop-ment types that reflect both generally desirable and undesirable pro-jects. There are segments within the stakeholder groups who may notagree with what might be considered “generally” desirable. A furtheracknowledged limitation to the research is that it was conducted as asnap-shot in time and space. Follow-up research needs to considerlongitudinal, thorough and in-depth single case study research wheremore reflective time and discussion can be given to the qualitative as-pects of change in stakeholder's broader capabilities and functioningsbeyond their public participation imperatives focussed on here.Notwithstanding these limitations, the empirical focus is on the publicparticipation processes within the cases and it is tentatively proposedthat, within reasonable limits, and in accord with general practice ex-pectations, it is possible to conduct an adequate participation processfor both desirable and less desirable projects. Three of the four casesinclude two potentially desirable (PARK, WIND) and, depending on theperspective of a particular stakeholder group; three of the four arepotentially undesirable (GAS, WIND and MINE).

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

62

The average age of respondent stakeholder in this research was 55 yearsold with a range of 47 years between the oldest (73 years old) and theyoungest (26 years old) stakeholder. Of the 129 respondents, 39 identifiedas female and 90 as male. Three ethnicities are represented in the responsesincluding 13 ‘coloured’, 29 ‘Black African’ and 87 Caucasian or ‘White’persons. 59% of respondents speak English as their first language. 20% ofrespondents speak Afrikaans, 12% isiZulu and 9% isiXhosa as their firstlanguage. Of the 129 respondents selected for the research, 28 (22%) in-dicate that they are non-local and 101 (78%) as local residents. The ma-jority of respondents (81) indicate that they represented themselves in theprocesses. However, 19 respondents represent a local business interest, 11represent civil society groups and five represent environmental non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). A target sample population of be-tween 10 and 20% of each total case's population of active stakeholders wasidentified. To give an indication of this range, the case with the largest totalnumber of ‘active’ stakeholders is the GAS case with 343 ‘active’ stake-holders. From this case, the 61 selected respondents equate to 18% of the‘active’ GAS stakeholders. The case the smallest number of ‘active’ stake-holders is the PARK case with 73 ‘active’ stakeholders. From this case, the17 selected respondents equate to 23 percent of the ‘active’ PARK stake-holders. The respondent’s residence, gender and ethnicity guided the re-spondent selection to represent South African national demographic char-acteristics in the sample populations more appropriately. Proportionalestimates increase the selection of local residents, women and black AfricanRI&APs in the sample populations compared with those in the registeredstakeholder databases. This provides a more appropriate representation ofpreviously disadvantaged groups in the surveys.

3.2. Operationalization

The four methods used to triangulate stakeholder's capabilities inEIA public participation case studies include firstly, an analysis of theEIA and public participation reports; secondly a survey exploring var-iance in social perspectives of their public participation experience;thirdly, a survey exploring what stakeholders considered the priority‘functional capabilities’ for effective EIA public participation and lastly,an evaluative survey using Likert scales of stakeholder's public parti-cipation experiences. Due to space limitations, this article is not able toreport on the first three methods but reports on the findings of thefourth method evaluating stakeholder's public participation experiencesand their effectiveness therein.

The operationalization of CA concepts is developed here in order toidentify and potentially overcome aspects of capability related barriers toparticipation. Barriers to participation in the South African context havebeen noted to include a broad range of procedural and substantive issuessuch as, inter alia, authorisation efficiency (Sowman et al., 1995), an elitistapproach to EIA (Patel, 2008), reduced length of comment periods(Murombo, 2008), poorly understood locus standi (Murombo, 2008), lack ofcapacity support (Scott and Oelofse, 2007) and language barriers(Murombo, 2008). The macro social, political and economic barriers, to-gether with the individual action constraints to participation, can be con-sidered from a CA perspective to reflect a failure of provisions for effectiveand equitable participation by stakeholders at an individual stakeholderlevel. This research presumes that fulfilment of the Aarhus principles in bestpractice public participation would align with the realization of individualfreedoms to meaningfully participate. Negatively put, capability deprivationresulting from obstacles deleteriously impact upon stakeholders realizingequitable and effective participation. Importantly, ineffective participationcan militate against a stakeholder's ability to safeguard their environment orrealize their capabilities.

This paper reports on the findings of a survey using Likert scales thatfocused on stakeholder's experiences in public participation processes(Table 1).

The survey focused on selected themes that were informed by EIAand CA public participation cases, practice and theory. They were pri-marily crafted to explore and triangulate stakeholder capabilities and

functionings within a public participation process. The main focus wason individual stakeholder's agency and freedoms in and through par-ticipation (participation means and ends) rather than groups, althoughcollective actions of reason giving, collaboration, bargaining, dialogue,participation competence, fairness, empowerment and value sharingwere explored. Responses were analysed to the extent that they illu-minate respondent's individual functionings and capabilities. The focusof the discussion in this article is on four of the survey questions. Theyinclude the capability statements ‘Ls6’, ‘Ls33’, ‘Ls34’, and the func-tioning statement ‘Ls22’:

Participation capability indicating Likert statements:

Ls6: I am able to participate in environmental decision makingthat affects my life if I want to.Ls33: I was empowered by the process to influence what I considervaluable regarding my future environment.Ls34: I was disempowered by the process from influencing what Iconsider valuable regarding my future environment.

Participation functioning indicating Likert statement:

Ls22: My participation allowed me to influence what I considervaluable regarding my future environment.

Capability statement Ls61 indicates the consideration of realizablestakeholder ability and opportunity for participation. Ls332 indicatesempowerment from the process to expand and enhance meaningfulparticipation in EIA. Ls343 indicates the constraint of disempoweringaspects of the EIA process on an individual in ways that curtail parti-cipation agency. Ls224 indicates the realized opportunity provided by

Table 1Survey using evaluative Likert scales.a

Code Survey Response frame: All the time; Fairly Often; Occasionally; Rarely;Never; [5–1] and [Unsure 0].

Ls6 I am able to participate in environmental decision making that affects my lifeif I want to

Ls17 The process provided opportunities where I could collaborate with otherstakeholders

Ls22 My participation allowed me to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment

Ls25 My participation was not allowed in the formal decision making processLs26 I felt bullied into accepting a development that was already going aheadLs27 I was manipulated into thinking that my opinions count towards decision makingLs28 Meetings are just to rubber-stamp public (my) approvalLs29 There was no assurance that my views would be listened toLs30 The public participation did not allow for negotiation with the developerLs31 The public participation was a top-down process but allowed for negotiation

with the developerLs32 I shared planning and decision making responsibilities with the developerLs33 I was empowered by the process to influence what I consider valuable

regarding my future environmentLs34 I was disempowered by the process from influencing what I consider valuable

regarding my future environment

a Items listed in Table 1 have been reduced to the Likert questions selectedfor discussion in this article. The original coding has been retained [for ex-ample, Ls6] in order to allow for the reading of this article to be done incomplement of the original data set and associated research which includes abroader list of 34 questions using this Likert scale.

1 Ls6 I am able to participate in environmental decision making that affects my life if Iwant to.

2 Ls33: I was empowered by the process to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment.

3 Ls34: I was disempowered by the process from influencing what I consider valuableregarding my future environment.

4 Ls22: My participation allowed me to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment.

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

63

the process for participation in the form of a functioning that achievesthe instrumental end of influencing ‘what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment’. The relationships between the responses tothese selected statements highlight variables influencing participationrelated functionings and capabilities. In doing so, the analysis focuseson disparities and inequalities in participation experience, which leadsto questions around what participation characteristics or thresholds canbe identified, through the lens of capabilities, as sufficient. Interpreta-tion of the responses of the four aforementioned survey questions wasdone in light of the broader survey and methods. Statements about thegeneral public participation atmosphere were phrased according tocertain aspects of best practice EIA public participation (Palerm, 2010).They include reference to dialogue, collaboration and discussion inStatements Ls17, Ls29, Ls30 and Ls31. Procedural fairness is consideredin Statement Ls24.

Although not a central focus of this research an understanding ofaspects of citizen influence and power in the decision making wereincluded using statements based on Arnstein's (1969) ladder. A sig-nificant constraint that can act as a barrier to meaningful participationis the control of power in participation. The analysis, therefore, includesparticipation experiences that consider Arnstein's (1969) ladder of ci-tizen power in participation. Arnstein's concept of tokenism allows for aframework of power with which stakeholder actions can be considered.Statements Ls26, Ls27, Ls28, Ls29, Ls30, Ls31 and Ls32 indicate dif-ferent responses regarding aspects of citizen agency and power in thepublic participation. These statements indicate aspects of tokenism,manipulation or even non-participation. They were constructed usingcriteria from the work ofArnstein (1969) and Choguill (1996) whoconsider the different types of public participation procedure that affectcitizen power in decision making processes.

In response to the early attempts to operationalize the CA in sa-tisfaction and happiness research, Robeyns (2006, p. 351) argues thatCA research should not primarily focus on people's mental states, but on‘the effective opportunities that people have to lead the lives they havereason to value’. The statements are phrased with this focus on realisticachievement through participating. General aspects that are in-vestigated in the survey relate to the principles of the Aarhus Con-vention, individual capabilities, individual functionings and aspects of

citizen power in participation. Through investigating these aspects, theLikert statements were crafted to also include capability indicator typeswhat evaluate aspects of capability ‘opportunity’, ‘ability’ and ‘con-straint’. The response range designed for the survey follows the stan-dard 5–1 span where, ‘All the time’ = [5]; ‘Fairly Often’ = [4]; ‘Oc-casionally’ = [3]; ‘Rarely’ = [2]; and ‘Never’ = [1]. An option wasprovided for all responses to be labelled ‘Unsure’ and coded as [0].

Stakeholder's responses were captured in face-to-face interviews,recorded and coded. The Microsoft Excel Statistics Package was used toprovide the descriptive statistics, labelling the responses to each of the34 Likert survey questions. The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to theresponse data using the null hypothesis to check if the sample comesfrom a normally distributed population. Spearman's rank correlationcoefficient (SRCC) was employed to explore correlations between re-sponses within a case study and used to establish the linear associationbetween the two variables (Zaiontz, 2015). This was verified with theMann-Whitney Test for Two Independent Samples (MWT) when ex-amining a set of differences in the pairs and with the Wilcoxon SignedRank Test (WSRT) for a single sample when testing within a case va-lidating the p-values of the SRCC (Zaiontz, 2015). Correlation coeffi-cients were explored between selected pairs of variables. Observationsenquired how closely the variables are associated and how closely they“move” together (McCluskey and Lalkhen, 2007). Due to the smallsample sizes of each case, correlations and regression analyses ofquantitative methods are to be considered with caution. The researchfindings are experimental and exploratory. The existence of a stronglinear relationship does not necessarily imply causation. As with the CAwork of Garmendia and Stagl (2010), this limitation is characteristic ofresearch involving participatory processes as they normally involve asmall number of participants.

4. Results and observations

This section will provide a brief overview of the results and ob-servations of the participation experience in the cases. It will thendiscuss the relationship between capabilities and functionings as theyillustrate capability sufficiency for participation. Fig. 2 below presentsan amoeba chart that indicates the average responses for each case

Fig. 2. Mean responses to nine Likert statements indicating ‘participation experience’ (The full data set of responses, of the four case studies (129 participants) to all34 Likert questions is provided here: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/yc8rtk7vjd.2).

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

64

study to the Likert statements indicating constraints to the participationexperience and contrasts each case distribution with the aggregatedistribution for all the EIAs.

EIA procedures should provide meaningful opportunities for parti-cipation (Steward and Sinclair, 2007). The type and level of involve-ment demonstrated in the Likert responses discussed in this sectionindicate that the processes constrained citizen influence, power andability to influence the outcomes of the environmental assessments.There is a significant evaluative difference between the individual'sopportunity and ability to participate and the exogenous characteristicsof the participation process. The responses of ‘Never’ and ‘Rarely’ toLs25 [My participation was not allowed in the formal decision makingprocess] indicate that, in general, stakeholders were not physicallyexcluded from participating in the processes. This corroborates thegenerally positive responses to Ls6 regarding ‘opportunity’. Yet thenature and effectiveness of the participation experiences are broughtinto question. The four case and aggregate responses to Ls26, Ls27,Ls28, Ls29, Ls30, Ls31 and Ls32 highlight participation experienceswhich have characteristics indicating varying degrees of citizen powerin participation. The responses indicate aspects of ‘informing’ and ‘di-plomacy’ and Arnstein-type aspects of ‘manipulation’, ‘therapy’, ‘con-sultation’, and ‘placation’.

The relationship between the ability to participate and the utility ofparticipating in the process is a key consideration and relates to thelong-standing research objective of public participation effectiveness inEIA (Palerm, 2010). Fig. 3 presents a comparison of the modal re-sponses to the capability ‘ability’ related statement (Ls65) and a func-tioning related statement (Ls226) and contrasts each case mode with theaggregate mode for all the EIAs (left chart). In essence, it is contrastingthe responses of stakeholder's self-assessed capability to participate(Ls6) in EIA with their reflection upon the instrumental effect of in-fluencing their future environmental outcomes through participation(Ls22). Fig. 3 also presents a comparison of the modal responses to thecapability support statement Ls337 and the functioning statement Ls228

and contrasts each case mode with the aggregate mode for all the EIAs

(right chart). The contrast of responses to Ls33 and Ls22 display therelationship between responses indicating influence on decision makingoutcomes through participation and procedural empowerment.

Across the cases, the response distribution to Ls6 indicates a generalconsensus that respondents ‘Occasionally’ or ‘Fairly Often’ were able toparticipate in environmental decision making that affects their life, ifthey wanted to. The realization of the stakeholder's environmentalobjectives in participating and acting on this capability that is indicatedin the responses to Ls22 does not however align with the opportunityand entitlement to participate. The functioning as experienced (Ls229)therefore, is self-assessed to fall short of the expectation indicated in thereflected upon and self-assessed participation capability (Ls610) in themodal responses to these two statements.

A weak correlation of 0.28 (SRCC11) exists in the relationship be-tween all the modal responses to Ls6 and Ls22 indicating a weak re-lationship between the capability and the functioning. However, thePARK and WIND cases indicate stronger relationships with the PARKcorrelation at −0.44 and the WIND case 0.49. These two cases presentcontrasting reasons for the observable correlation relationships be-tween Ls6 and Ls22. PARK stakeholders believed that their functioningclosely matched their capabilities. Conversely, the moderate correlationin the WIND case indicates that those stakeholder's meagre participa-tion experience matched the low expectation of their capability.

The relationship between disempowerment (Ls3412) and the utilityof participating in the process (Ls2213) is important to understandingparticipatory inequalities. In order to corroborate responses to the“empowerment” statement (Ls3314), statement Ls34, was phrased ne-gatively to try and capture stakeholder responses that show instanceswhere the process might actively disempower or negate the potentialsof the stakeholders assumed participation opportunities. Fig. 4 belowpresents a comparison of the modal responses to the capability

Fig. 3. Comparing modal responses to statements indicating capability and functioning statements.

5 Ls6: I am able to participate in environmental decision making that affects my life if Iwant to

6 Ls22: My participation allowed me to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment.

7 Ls33: I was empowered by the process to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment.

8 Ls22: My participation allowed me to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment.

9 Ls22: My participation allowed me to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment.

10 Ls6: I am able to participate in environmental decision making that affects my life ifI want to.

11 See appendix for correlation relationships for Fig. 3: Comparing modal responses tostatements indicating capability and functioning statements

12 Ls34: I was disempowered by the process from influencing what I consider valuableregarding my future environment.

13 Ls22: My participation allowed me to influence what I consider valuable regardingmy future environment.

14 Ls33: I was empowered by the process to influence what I consider valuable re-garding my future environment.

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

65

statement Ls34 and the functioning statement Ls22 and contrasts eachcase mode with the aggregate mode for all the EIAs (left chart). It alsodisplays a comparison of the modal responses to the capability state-ment Ls33, capability statement Ls34 and the functioning statementLs22 and contrasts each case mode with the aggregate mode for all theEIAs (right amoeba chart).

Fig. 4 indicates that a weak correlation (−0.3015) is demonstratedin the relationship between all the EIA responses to Ls22 and Ls34.There is a moderately strong negative correlation (−0.52) between thePARK modal responses to Ls22 and Ls33. It indicates a closer associa-tion between the responses and implies that the stakeholders of thatcase did not experience disempowering aspects from the process. Incontrast, the MINE case presents a negative correlation (−0.33), in-dicating stakeholders were disempowered “Fairly Often” by the process(Ls34). When considered together with Ls33, not only were MINE sta-keholders not empowered by the process, but there is also a generalconsensus of disempowerment. This suggests that the procedure itselfwas a constraint to realizing participating in EIA for those MINE sta-keholders.

5. Discussion

The close association in the modes of all the cases between the re-sponses to these two statements indicates that the relationship betweenempowerment (Ls33) and achievement (Ls22) in the responses is worthconsidering. A correlation (SRCC) of 0.53 exists in the relationshipbetween all the EIA responses to Statement Ls33 and Statement Ls22.This indicates a moderate positive relationship. In light of the varietyand quantity of unaccounted for variables that can influence this re-lationship, this correlation is possibly more significant than it initiallysuggests. For the PARK, the WIND and the MINE cases, the responsemodes indicating empowerment do not exceed the modes for the casefunctionings. For the GAS case, this relationship is exhibited to bestronger than the other cases with a 0.46 correlation (SRCC) whichindicates “‘Rarely’ experienced empowerment. This observation sug-gests that in the GAS case the minimal support provisions from theprocess, aligned with the nominal influence on the decision making thatstakeholders believed they attained to. Although the statistical re-lationship is not strong for the PARK case (−0.11 SRCC), the PARK casecontrasts the other cases with its high performing display of

empowerment from the process indicated by a mode of ‘Fairly Often’ forLs33, which aligns with the modal functionings of ‘Always’ for Ls22.

The relationship between functionings and capabilities needs to beunderstood both contextually and dynamically. The responses in thePARK case are based on expanded capabilities and satisfied function-ings. In contrast, the strength of the relationship in the WIND case isbased on negative stakeholder experiences that triggered them todowngrade their capability self-assessment. Their experience of thatEIA influenced the modal placement of Ls616 to be only ‘Occasionally’realized. This contrasts the PARK and MINE cases significantly pre-senting the WIND case with the most uniform responses (lowest var-iance) and least positive response distribution to Ls6. These observa-tions suggest that the self-evaluation of the capability implied by Ls6 is,to a certain extent adaptive. This denotes a constriction or reduction inthe capability indicated by Ls6 in comparison with other cases. Incontrast, concerning the PARK case, this observation suggests that thecapability indicated by Ls6 is positively adapted and indicative of anincrease in the capability based on the realization of the high-per-forming participation functionings.

It is of particular importance to consider to what extent certaincapabilities are stable or adaptive, and what level of measurability andobjectivity can be attributed to their evaluation. Further, evaluativequestions need to explore to what extent certain capabilities are bothdynamic within a flexible range of dynamic equilibrium distinct fromtransitioning into a new regime (stable) state of expansion or contrac-tion. Under what conditions are participation capabilities stable, ex-panded or constricted? It is somewhat illuminating to consider thereasons why the WIND stakeholders would downgrade their capabilityin the pattern observed here. The MINE and GAS cases experienced likefunctionings, with many frustrated and dissatisfied stakeholders, butwhom did not downgrade their capability in accordance with the WINDstakeholders. Contrastingly, the PARK case respondents place a sig-nificantly more positive response range to their ability and opportunityto participate (Ls6) than the other cases. It appears that in the PARKand WIND cases, the experience of the EIA participation processes, haveinfluenced, or calibrated, the response ranges concerning their generalparticipation capability in accord with their respective positive or ne-gative functionings. A contributing factor for this difference in theWIND case is an eventual resignation and recognition on the part of thestakeholders considering the limits of influence they can have on the

Fig. 4. Comparing participation indications of empowerment, disempowerment and achievement.

15 See appendix for correlation relationships for Fig. 4: Comparing participation in-dications of empowerment, disempowerment and achievement

16 Ls6: I am able to participate in environmental decision making that affects my life ifI want to.

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

66

design and outcomes of the project within the practice of public par-ticipation. These findings corroborate ongoing discussion in the litera-ture regarding what is realistically achievable for an individual stake-holder through public participation (Jay et al. 2007), and the degree towhich EIA itself has influence on final decision making (Cashmore2004). The lack of instrumentality implied in the WIND responses in-dicates that the NEMA mandated “ability of people to influence deci-sions and outcomes” were curtailed (DEA&DP, 2007, 53).

In their characterization of aspiration and capability adaptation forwomen in Khayelitsha, Cape Town, Conradie and Robeyns (2013)identify Elster's (1983, 15) “sour grapes” phenomenon and relate theirobservations to how Sen characterizes adaptive capabilities. Elster(1983) suggests that, not being able to achieve a preference or realizean aspiration, can cause resignation and ultimate rejection of that de-sire. This curtailment is grounded on a reaction to the painful pro-gression of “cognitive dissonance that a person who cannot fulfil herunreachable desires or aspirations feels” (Conradie and Robeyns, 2013,563). Reflecting the ‘sour grapes’ phenomenon the WIND case reflects alimitation of aspirations and eventual negative adaptation of the cap-ability to instrumentally influence what they consider valuable re-garding their future environment through EIA public participation. Itprovides a deeper understanding of the reasons for participation en-tropy and stakeholder drop-out frequently observed in the SouthAfrican and wider EIA practice (Chen et al., 2008). There is a chancethat the WIND stakeholders came to the process with inappropriatelyhigh expectations and the adaptation observed in their responses is nota curtailing of capabilities but more a process of learning of what isrealistically achievable for that type of proposal through participatingin EIA.

The high degree of effectiveness indicated by the PARK case re-sponses, where the functionings outscore the expectation set in thecapability responses, is certainly an outlier regarding stakeholderachievement and satisfaction. It illustrates the potential for publicparticipation to go beyond mere procedural provisions to a level ofinvolvement where the utility and agency gained by stakeholders issignificantly high. It also illustrates that despite the capability chal-lenges produced by participation barriers (Scott and Oelofse, 2007;Murombo, 2008), such as low education, high crime rate, unemploy-ment and the low income of the PARK stakeholder base, simple butconsistent assistance in the form of weekly community meetings fa-cilitated by a skilled practitioner, in the local isiXhosa language, canhelp them overcome these challenges and contributed to a project witha high level of local community participation, acceptance and buy-in.They live in an impoverished informal settlement with severe depri-vations and human development challenges with few opportunities toinfluence formal political or participatory decision making structures.Prior to the environmental assessment, it may have been consideredoverambitious of the PARK citizens, living in the informal settlement ofKhayelitsha (Cape Town), to assume that they realized the ability to“influence what [they] consider valuable regarding [their] future en-vironment”.

The PARK case occasionally referred to difficulties around adequateinformation provision as it relates to stakeholders' understandings ofthe project and their potential involvement in the EMP and other mi-tigation strategies. Some GAS and WIND stakeholders base their ob-jecting arguments on inadequate scientific knowledge and inadequateprovision of information. Groups of GAS, WIND and MINE stakeholdersnoted their reservations regarding the independence and adequacy ofthe scientific studies; however, these technical and project type com-plaints are not specifically linked to negatively affecting their partici-pation experience. A number of GAS, WIND and MINE stakeholders arerecorded in the reports indicating their lack of trust in the in-dependence of the environmental practitioner (EAP) and the developerreflecting Patel's (2008) concerns of an elitist practice in South Africa.They indicated that they would prefer to not continue with discussionsregarding alternative designs, and rather, would prefer to take the

decision on appeal if the proposal was authorised. This reflects an ab-sence of trust in the process by these stakeholders and a suspicion thatpolitical and economic influences are likely to override the influence oflocal stakeholder concerns echoing Sowman et al. (1995) concerns ofauthorisation efficiency. Several MINE stakeholders framed their ob-jections to the development out of concern that despite engaging withthe public participation process they do not feel confident that theirconcerns would be incorporated into the decision making. They werespecifically concerned that their raised issues would be subordinated tothe economic and strategic resource development agenda of the de-velopment. Many MINE stakeholders found it difficult to understandthe parallel process of the EIA and the MPRDA (mining applicationprocess). It remained unclear in the reports which minister was re-sponsible for final authorization and which minister was responsible forappeal procedures. This confusion of procedural process, not un-common in the practice (Murombo, 2008) was conflated with thesubstantive issues in the reports. Certain GAS and WIND stakeholdersbased their objecting arguments on a sound understanding of theirconstitutional rights and the lack of relevant regulations governing si-milar offshore developments.

Despite representing a range of formal education achievements, nostakeholders recorded asking for, or citing, regulatory expectations forcapacity support, education and empowerment for participation. TheWIND and MINE reports superficially mention, identify and discuss thechallenge associated with the short length of comment periods high-lighting Murombo's (2008) concerns of the reduced length of commentperiods. Despite being mentioned by many reports it is unclear if thisbarrier is acknowledged in the reports as a relevant challenge to theeffectiveness or equity considerations of the process. Some stakeholdersbase their reasons for inclusion of their input into the project designbased on the need for a more collaborative and comprehensive per-spective. Many PARK local community stakeholders volunteered ideasfor how the project could better facilitate the community's vision foreconomic opportunities and job creation. Some of their ideas were in-corporated into the project design. In contrast, the GAS and MINE casesexhibit instances where constructive technical contributions from RI&APs were not welcomed by the EAP nor were they included in the de-sign considerations reiterating Patel's (2008) concerns of an elitistpractice in South Africa.

These findings have demonstrated that obstacles to participationcan be internal to the individual, such as their mobility or time toparticipate, or a combination of external and structural obstacles re-lating to fundamental entitlements such as constitutional provisions forlocus standi, or the ability and opportunity for a woman to freely voiceher opinion in a public meeting within a patriarchal society. Likewise,the outcomes an EIA procedure could harm the environmental condi-tions in which people live in, creating by so doing additional socio-ecological obstacles to their individual freedoms and their fundamentalcapabilities in general. The GAS, WIND, and MINE cases exemplify thisinertia where local populations were not meaningfully or reasonablyincluded in the decision making due to the extent of the challenge oftheir educational, time and language support requirements. Fig. 5 il-lustrates how the EIA process can provide constructive capability sup-port to enhance the capabilities of a particular stakeholder (4a) or cancurtail their participation capabilities (4b).

The positive increase in capability ‘opportunity’ and ‘ability’ aspectsindicated in the top right quadrant of Figure 5a delimits foundations for‘meaningful’ participation functionings for the stakeholder. Solid linearrows in Fig. 5a indicate functioning vectors that, through the publicparticipation process, move above minimum capability thresholds intothe positive top right quadrant of capability sufficiency. It impliescapability expansion through interventions for sufficient capabilitysupport. Sufficient capability expansion is a goal for meaningful parti-cipation, but capability protection is imperative. Fig. 5b illustrates acase where the EIA participation process has diminished or retardedparticipation capability ‘opportunities’. The solid line arrow in Fig. 5b

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

67

indicates a functioning vector that drops below the capability thresh-olds. It portrays diminished opportunity, accounting for a curtailmentof capability. This indicates more than an insufficiency of supportprovisions. It suggests capability reduction and curtailment of entitle-ment. This is conceptualized and represented in Fig. 5b on the Y-axis asdiminished aspects of ‘opportunity’; between zero and− 1. Whenviewing participation as an end in itself, this is a curtailment of a valuedfunctioning. Considering the instrumental end of public participation inEIA, beyond public participation process itself, EIA decisions that arebeyond the reach and influence of certain stakeholders, in turn, couldhave detrimental impacts on the stakeholder's choice and ability to livethe kind of life they consider valuable, and as a consequence, theirfuture environment and wellbeing. This was observed in modal re-sponses of both the previously described WIND and MINE cases (Fig. 3).

There are numerous obstacles to meaningful participation in EIAwhich triangulate participation ability and opportunity aspects (forsome examples, Sowman et al. 1995; Patel, 2008; Murombo, 2008;2010; Scott and Oelofse, 2007). The mitigation of constraints is parti-cularly important and useful as an empirical probe for capabilities as itdemands articulation of aspects of disadvantage, which may or may nothave been explicitly or adequately conceptualized through ability andopportunity foci. Participation inequalities derivative of disadvantagecan result from an intersecting combination of inter alia secular, his-toric, systemic and procedural conditions as well as ethnicity, health,gender, literacy, education, language, time, income, transport, diet,political activity, cultural and religious norms, active citizenry, pre-vious public participation experience, regulatory provisions, proponentwillingness to engage the public and stakeholder age, to list a few ob-served to be relevant to the cases explored here. It is these types ofobstacles, framed with stakeholder's notions of biological and physicalwell-being, autonomy in forming and reforming valuable ends, andpursuit of valuable ends within a community, which need to be con-textually identified and cover come for capability sufficiency to bespecified.

6. Conclusion

Structuring public participation on sufficiency grounds providesenvironmental practitioners with a more robust framework for securingthe effective participation of potentially marginalized stakeholderswhom may be affected by a proposed project, policy or programme.This article explored the potential insights of the capabilities approachfor environmental impact assessment (EIA), with emphasis on shared

principles of justice in participatory decision making. An evaluativeframework for public participation that better considers the capabilitiesof stakeholders has been presented. Recent notions of capability‘thresholds’, capability ‘ceilings’ and capability ‘sufficiency’ are used toqualify what can be delimited as support provisions in EIA publicparticipation processes. Sufficient participation can be roughly equatedto ‘the ability to participate in political activities that affect one's futureenvironment’ in a manner that is free from prejudicial duress andsubstantial pressure against succeeding in EIA public participation.Although the cases presented a general consensus of participationability throughout the stakeholder populations, the effectiveness oftheir participation was strongly mediated by procedurally associatedempowerment or disempowerment actions. Cases displaying effectiveparticipation (PARK), demonstrated operative functionings and appro-priate empowerment or support provisions. In contrast, those caseswhich did not indicate an adequate degree of support (WIND, GAS)indicated a lack in participation effectiveness in the assessment of thestakeholders interviewed. In the worst-case scenario (MINE), stake-holders were actively disempowered from participating in the EIA bythe very procedural mechanisms intended to facilitate their participa-tion.

In light of the support provisions necessary for effective participa-tion, practitioners would do well to acknowledge and specify partici-pation capability deficits for stakeholders in public decision making,particularly those from vulnerable or marginalized sectors of society. Itis anticipated that the greatest value of this theoretical framework willbe found in complementary use of EIA public participation guidelines(such as DEA, 2017) and evaluation frameworks such as those whichfocus on, inter alia, citizen power considerations (Arnstein, 1969;Choguill, 1996), best practice criteria (Henserink et al., 2009; Palerm,2010), fairness, competence and communication (Renn et al., 1995;Webler, 1995; Webler et al., 2001), or the purposes of participation(O'Faircheallaigh, 2010). Abstracting constraints in the way presentedhere provides a conceptual frame for justifying action and policies thattarget stakeholder assistance to sufficiently mitigate the associatedobstacle challenges within a conception of capabilities justice. Althoughcapability expansion is the goal of meaningful participation, the cap-abilities approach alerts EIA community that capability protection isimperative. The framework proposed here illustrates the inter-connectedness of a stakeholder's participation capability aspects ofability, opportunity and constraints and the multidimensionality ofthese capability probes indicates the importance of thorough con-sideration of sufficient provisions for effective participation.

a) Capability expansion b) Capability constriction

Fig. 5. Conceptualizing change through participation.

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

68

Appendix

Correlation Relationships for Ls6, Ls22, Ls33 and Ls34 in Figs. 3 and 4.Fig. 3 Comparing modal responses to statements indicating capability and functioning statements.

Case relationship All Ls6 & Ls22 PARK Ls6 & Ls22 GAS Ls6 & Ls22 WIND Ls6 & Ls22 MINE Ls6 & Ls22

SRCC 0.28 −0.44 0.07 0.49 0.00WSRT effect r 0.88 (77%) 0.90 (81%) 0.88 (77%) 0.91 (83%) 0.88 (77%)WSRT p-value (Sig) 8.55E-07 (YES) 0.00 (YES) 4.8E-12 (YES) 3.81E-05 (YES) 6.59E-07 (YES)Case relationship All Ls33 & Ls22 PARK Ls33 & Ls22 GAS Ls33 & Ls22 WIND Ls33 & Ls22 MINE Ls33 & Ls22SRCC 0.53 −0.11 0.46 −0.16 0.19WSRT effect r 0.88 (77%) 0.89 (79%) 0.89 (79%) 0.90 (81%) 0.96 (92%)WSRT p-value (Sig) 2.74E-11 (YES) 0.00 (YES) 1.08E-08 (YES) 0.00 (YES) 1.27E-07 (YES)

Fig. 4 Comparing participation indications of empowerment, disempowerment and achievement.

Case Relationship All Ls34 & Ls22 PARK Ls34 & Ls22 GAS Ls34 & Ls22 WIND Ls34 & Ls22 MINE Ls34 & Ls22

SRCC −0.30 −0.52 0.10 0.17 -0.33WSRT effect r 0.88 (77%) 0.97 (94%) 0.89 (79%) 0.89 (79%) 0.91 (83%)WSRT p-value (Sig) 0.00 (YES) 0.00 (YES) 6.14E-10 (YES) 0.00 (YES) 3.58E-07 (YES)Case Relationship All Ls33 & Ls34 PARK Ls33 & Ls34 GAS Ls33 & Ls34 WIND Ls33 & Ls34 MINE Ls33 & Ls34SRCC -0.62 -0.09 −0.30 −0.26 0.00WSRT effect r 0.88 (77%) 0.89 (79%) 0.89 (79%) 0.90 (81%) 0.96 (92%)WSRT p-value (Sig) 0.13 (NO) 0.00 (YES) 1.08E-08 (YES) 0.00 (YES) 1.27E-07 (YES)

References

Anand, P., 2011. Right to information and local governance: an exploration. J. Hum. Dev.Capabilities 12 (1), 135–151.

Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Planners 35 (4),216–224.

Basta, C., 2016. From justice in planning toward planning for justice: a capability ap-proach. Plan. Theory 15 (2), 190–212.

Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D., Bond, A., 2004. The interminable issueof effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the ad-vancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.22 (4), 295–310.

Charmaz, K., 2008. In: Hesse-Biber, S., Leavy, P. (Eds.), Grounded Theory as an EmergentMethod. Guilford Press, New York.

Chen, X., Dong, D.M., Shen, W.B., Zhang, J.C., 2008. Integrated support index of publicparticipation and its application in environmental impact assessment. J. Northeast.Normal Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2, 121–124.

Choguill, M.B.G., 1996. A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped coun-tries. Habitat Int. 20 (3), 431–444.

Conradie, I., Robeyns, I., 2013. Aspirations and human development interventions. J.Hum. Dev. Capabilities 14 (4), 559–580.

DEA, 2017. Public participation guideline in terms of NEMA EIA Regulations. In:Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 7.

DEA&DP (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning), 2007.NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series: Guideline onPublic Participation. Department of Environmental Affairs and DevelopmentPlanning (DEA&DP), Cape Town.

Drydyk, J., 2005. When is development more democratic? J. Hum. Dev. 6 (2), 247–267.Eisenhardt, K., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (1),

25–32.Elster, J., 1983. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.Foriono, D.J., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional

mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 15 (2), 226–243.Garmendia, E., Stagl, S., 2010. Public participation for sustainability and social learning:

concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 69 (8),1712–1722.

Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P.J., Kolhoff, A., Runhaar, H.A.C., 2013. Public participation inenvironmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.43, 104–111.

Henriksen, H.J., Refsgaard, J.C., Højberg, A.L., Ferrand, N., Gijsbers, P., Scholten, H.,2009. Harmonised principles for public participation in quality assurance of in-tegrated water resources modelling. Water Resour. Manag. 23 (12), 2539–2554.

Hartley, N., Wood, C., 2005. Public participation in environmental impact assessmen-t—implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25 (4),319–340.

Holland, B., 2008. Ecology and the limits of justice: establishing capability ceilings inNussbaum's capabilities approach. J. Hum. Dev. 9 (3), 401–425.

Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., Wood, C., 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospectand prospect. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27 (4), 287–300.

Lamorgese, L., Geneletti, D., 2013. Sustainability principles in strategic environmentalassessment: a framework for analysis and examples from Italian urban planning.Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 42, 116–126.

McEwan, C., 2005. New spaces of citizenship? Rethinking gendered participation andempowerment in South Africa. Polit. Geogr. 24 (8), 969–991.

McCluskey, A., Lalkhen, A.G., 2007. Statistics II: central tendency and spread of data.Compend. Contin. Educ. Anaesth. Crit. Care & Pain 7 (4), 127–130.

Morrison-Saunders, A., Early, G., 2008. What is necessary to ensure natural justice inenvironmental impact assessment decision-making? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 26(1), 29–42.

Murombo, T., 2008. Beyond public participation: the disjuncture between South Africa'senvironmental impact assessment (EIA) law and sustainable development.Potchefstroom Electron. Law J. 11 (3), 1–31.

Nielsen, L., Axelsen, D.V., 2016. Capabilitarian sufficiency: capabilities and social justice.J. Hum. Dev. Capabilities 18 (1), 46–59.

Nussbaum, M., 1992. Human functioning and social justice: in defense of Aristotelianessentialism. Polit. Theory 20 (2), 202–246.

Nussbaum, M., 2000. Women's capabilities and social justice. J. Hum. Dev. 1 (2),219–247.

Nussbaum, M., 2003. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice.Fem. Econ. 9 (2–3), 33–59.

Nussbaum, M., 2013. Political Emotions: Why Love Matters. The Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press, London.

Nussbaum, M., Sen, A., 1993. The Quality of Life. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Oldfield, S., 2008. Participatory mechanisms and community politics: building consensus

and conflict. In: van Donk, M., Swilling, M., Pieterse, E., Parnell, S. (Eds.),Consolidating Developmental Local Government: Lessons from the South AfricanExperience. UCT Press, Cape Town.

O'Faircheallaigh, C., 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment:purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ. Impact Assess.Rev. 30 (1), 19–27.

Palerm, J.R., 2010. An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participationin environmental impact assessment. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 43 (5), 581–600.

Patel, Z., 2008. Tools and trade-offs in environmental decision making. In: van Donk, M.,Swilling, M., Pieterse, E., Parnell, S. (Eds.), Consolidating Developmental LocalGovernment: Lessons from the South African Experience. UCT Press, Cape Town.

Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., Schäpke, N., 2013. Towards a governance of sustainabilitytransitions: giving place to individuals (Working Paper). In: Helmholtz Centre forEnvironmental Research UFZ Discussion Papers, (No. 17/2013).

Rawls, J., 2005. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P.M. (Eds.), 1995. Fairness and competence in citizen

participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Vol. 10 SpringerScience & Business Media.

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

69

Roberts, P., 2013. Nussbaum's political liberalism: justice and the capability threshold.Int. J. Soc. Econ. 40 (7), 613–623.

Robeyns, I., 2006. The capability approach in practice. J. Polit. Philos. 14 (3), 31–376.RSA (Republic of South Africa). Act No. 107 of 1998, 1998. National Environmental

Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) as Amended, 2014. GovernmentGazette: Government Notice No. 1030. Department of Environmental Affairs, CapeTown.

Scanlon, T.M., 2006. Justice, Responsibility, and the Demands of Equality. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, pp. 70–87.

Scott, D., Oelofse, C., 2007. Social and environmental justice in South African cities: in-cluding ‘invisible stakeholders’ in environmental assessment procedures. J. Environ.Plan. Manag. 48 (3), 445–467.

Sen, A., 1979. Equality of what? In: The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. StanfordUniversity.

Sen, A., 1990. Development as Capability Expansion. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Sen, A., 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Sen, A., 2000. Social exclusion: concept, application, and security. In: Social Development

Papers No. 1, (Publication Stock No. 120299).Sen, A., 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Sen, A., 2006. What do we want from a theory of justice? J. Philos. 103 (5), 215–238.Sen, A., 2009. The Idea of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A.P., Fitzpatrick, P., 2008. Conceptualizing learning for sustain-

ability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research.Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28, 415–428.

Sowman, M., Fuggle, R., Preston, G., 1995. A review of the evolution of environmentalevaluation procedures in South Africa. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 15 (1), 45–67.

Stewart, J.M.P., Sinclair, A.J., 2007. Meaningful public participation in environmentalassessment: perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents, and government. J.Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 9 (02), 161–183.

Vanclay, F., 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 22,183–211.

Vanclay, F., 2014. Integration and focus from the perspective of social impact assessment:a response to Morrison-Saunders et al. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 32 (1), 11–13.

Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R.O.B., 2001. What is a good public participation process?Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manag. 27 (3), 435–450.

Webler, Thomas, Kastenholz, Hans, Renn, Ortwin, 1995. Public participation in impactassessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental impact assessment review

15 (5), 443–463.Wendelspiess, C.J.F., 2014. Measuring inequality of opportunity with latent variables. J.

Hum. Dev. Capabilities 16 (1), 106–121.Zaiontz, C., 2015. Real Statistics Using Excel. Available [Online]: http://www.real-

statistics.com/ (Accessed: September-November).

Nicholas Philip Simpson’s research interests focus on re-silience, capabilities, and social justice associated with thedemocratic functioning of sustainable decision-making. Hereceived his PhD from the University of Cape Town in thisfield in 2016, for a dissertation entitled ‘A capabilities ap-proach to environmental assessment: enhancing the in-tegration of human development and well-being in parti-cipatory environmental decision making’. He is a memberof the International Association of ParticipationPractitioners (IAP2 South African Chapter), the HumanDevelopment and Capability Association and the SouthAfrican chapter of the International Association of ImpactAssessors (IAIAsa).

Claudia Basta works with the Netherlands EnvironmentalAssessment Agency, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, 2594AV, TheHague, The Netherlands. She formally held an AssistantProfessorship of Land Use Planning at WageningenUniversity, where she was appointed as tenure-track facultymember in 2011. She completed her PhD studies inSustainable Urban Areas at Delft University of Technologyand her post-doctoral studies at the 3TU·Centre ofExcellence for Ethics and Technology of the same uni-versity. She is the editor of Ethics, Design and Planning ofthe Built Environment (with Moroni S., 2013, Springer).

N.P. Simpson, C. Basta Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70 (2018) 57–70

70