Public participation and community involvement in environmental and social impact assessment in developing countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Involving community in decision making process is an integral part of environmental and social impact assessment(EIA and SIA) in developed countries. While EIA and SIA have now been firmly established in planning process in developing countries, community participation in project inception, implementation and monitoring remains a contentious issue. Recently, we have seen the adoption of Vroom-Yetton normative decision model in developing guidelines for managers that allow them to determine the level of public involvement in natural resource decision making. This paper examines the adaptability of Vroom-Yetton model in EIA and SIA processes in Bangladesh. Based on thorough examinations of major EIA guidelines and a number of recent EIAs and SIAs, and discussions with EIA practitioners in Bangladesh, this paper, firstly, explores the status of community participation in EIA and SIA in Bangladesh, and, secondly, it examines if Vroom-Yetton model can make any meaningful contribution to deciding the extent to which local communities may be incorporated in environmental assessment process. This article argues that there is no substitute for wide community consultation and participation in a densely populated country like Bangladesh where any development interventions are likely to have significant impacts on people and the natural environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".