Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS - CHAPTER 4

Công tham gia 4,1 GIỚI THIỆU Công hiệu quả sự tham gia của chương trình trong một báo cáo tác động môi trường (EIS) giúp nâng cao xác suất của một chính xác về mặt kỹ thuật, khả thi về mặt kinh tế, và xã hội và chính trị chấp nhận được EIS. Công tham gia vào một EIS là rất mong muốn vì hai lý do: 1. Nó làm cho một đối tác công cộng để xử lý. Tin đồn được đặt để nghỉ ngơi và công cộng có các sự kiện thực tế về dự án đề xuất. Chắc chắn, giảm căng thẳng và thù địch. | 4 Public Participation 4.1 INTRODUCTION An effective public participation program in an environmental impact statement EIS enhances the probability of a technically accurate economically feasible and socially and politically acceptable EIS. Public involvement in an EIS is very desirable for two reasons 1. It makes the public a partner to the process. Rumors are laid to rest and the public has the actual facts about the proposed project. Inevitably this decreases public tensions and hostility to the project. 2. The public often has good suggestions for items to be incorporated or stressed in the EIS. The result is a better product. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEPA mandates public involvement in assessing the environmental consequences of major federal actions. Consequently public review and input on environmental reviews has become an integral part of the evaluation process. Benefits of public involvement include The resolution of conflicts among different groups during project planning. The incorporation of a more comprehensive data base owing to public input. More thorough identification and analysis of issues. More comprehensive computation of costs and benefits to societal groups. There has been an evolution of programs for public involvement over the years. In the early days of NEPA activity the EIS process was dominated by technical issues. Technological solutions were sought for urgent pollution problems but difficulties stemmed from the general lack of expertise in predicting the effects of these solutions. As better methods were developed for evaluating the direct effects of alternatives attention was shifted toward secondary impacts. Methods for predicting and evaluating these changes now have become far more sophisticated. Throughout these early years public participation programs existed but they were not always key parts of the planning process. Indeed many early EISs were prepared after planning decisions had been made. Another factor