We are all experts! Does stakeholder engagement in health impact scoping lead to consensus? A Dutch case study

Stakeholder engagement in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides opportunities for inclusive environmental decision-making contributing to the attainment of agreement about the potential environmental and health impacts of a plan. A case evaluation of stakeholder engagement was carried out to assess its effect in terms of consensus-building. The case consisted in two health impact scoping workshops engaging 20 stakeholders: policy-makers, experts and residents. A Participatory Action Research approach was adopted. Methods included observation, semi-st... Mehr ...

Verfasser: den Broeder, Lea
Chung, Kai Yin
Geelen, Loes
Scholtes, Monique
Schuit, Albertina Jantine
Wagemakers, Annemarie
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2016
Reihe/Periodikum: den Broeder , L , Chung , K Y , Geelen , L , Scholtes , M , Schuit , A J & Wagemakers , A 2016 , ' We are all experts! Does stakeholder engagement in health impact scoping lead to consensus? A Dutch case study ' , Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , vol. 34 , no. 4 , pp. 294-305 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1176413
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27025219
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://research.hva.nl/en/publications/1c5cca19-edc5-4400-bdee-194709c9d595

Stakeholder engagement in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides opportunities for inclusive environmental decision-making contributing to the attainment of agreement about the potential environmental and health impacts of a plan. A case evaluation of stakeholder engagement was carried out to assess its effect in terms of consensus-building. The case consisted in two health impact scoping workshops engaging 20 stakeholders: policy-makers, experts and residents. A Participatory Action Research approach was adopted. Methods included observation, semi-structured questionnaires and interviews. Analysis methods consisted of several coding rounds, in-depth reading and discussion of Atlas.ti output reports, as well as studying questionnaire results. Participants reported a broadening of perspectives on health in relation to the environment and attainment of shared perspectives. Still, meaningful differences remained, indicating that joint learning experiences, trust and mutual respect created a ‘sense of consensus’ rather than a joint view on the issues at stake. To avoid disappointment and conflict in later project development, explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of disagreements should be included as a ground rule in future stakeholder engagement processes.