The goal of integrating a broad set of stakeholders and local knowledges in environmental decisionmaking can come into conflict with the aim of effectively regulating environmental change through the establishment of standardised methods. In this paper I explore public perceptions of environmental change as active sense-making with respect to a particular aspect of the environment—sounds and noise. I use a case study of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the planned extension of an airport in Sweden. I focus on how local citizens reacted to the issue of airport noise as discussed in the EIA, as well as on local perceptions of noise. Analysis of local peoples' perceptions of environmental change raises questions concerning the meaning of environmental protection versus individual rights, the population affected by a development, and the issue of financial compensation versus commitment to dialogue. These questions must be raised in order to assess whether EIA fulfils its goal of increasing dialogue and building more participatory structures within the planning process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aarhus, 1998Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed in Aarhus June 1998, entry into force October 2001, available at United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Environment and Settlements Division, Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
2.
Aircraft Noise Report, 1995, Governmental Report 30 June, The National Defence Force, The Civil Aviation Authority, The National Environment Protection Board, available at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, SE-10648 Stockholm
3.
BraidottiRCharkiewiczEHäuslerSWieringaS, 1994Women, the Environment and Sustainable Development: Towards a Theoretical SynthesisZed Books, London)
4.
BridgeGMcManusP, 2000, “Sticks and stones: environmental narratives and discursive regulation in the forestry and mining sectors”Antipode3210–47
5.
Bruhn-TyskSEklundM, 2002, “Environmental impact assessment—a tool for sustainable development? A case study of biofuelled energy plants in Sweden”Environmental Impact Assessment Review22(2) 129–144
6.
BurgessJHarrisonC MFiliusP, 1998, “Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship”Environment and Planning A301445–1460
ClassenC, 1993Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and Across CulturesRoutledge, New York)
9.
DickensP, 1996Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation and the Division of LabourRoutledge, London)
10.
DouglasM, 1991Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and TabooRoutledge, London); first published in 1966
11.
DouglasMWildavskyA, 1982Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental DangersUniversity of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
12.
DresnerSGilbertN, 1999, “Decision-making processes for projects requiring environmental impact assessment: case studies in six European countries”Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management1(1) 105–130
13.
DurkheimE, 1995The Elementary Forms of Religious LifeFree Press, New York); first published in 1912 as Les Formes Élémentaires de la Vie Religieuse
14.
EIA, 1997, “The application from Örebro Airport Company”, The National Franchise Board for Environmental Protection, Journal number 171-190-97, Act number 221, available from Environmental Office, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden
15.
EIA Directive, 1985, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Official JournalL 175, 5 July
16.
EU Directive, 2002, Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002, on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports Official JournalL85/40, 28 March
17.
FischerF, 1993, “Policy discourse and the politics of Washington think tanks”, in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Eds FischerFForesterJ (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 21–42
18.
FisherJ A, 1998, “What the hills are alive with: in defense of the sounds of nature”The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism56(2) 167–179
19.
Grove-WhiteR, 1996, “Environmental knowledge and public policy needs: on humanising the research agenda”, in Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology Eds LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB (Sage, London) pp 269–286
20.
HarrisonC MBurgessJClarkJ, 1998, “Discounted knowledges: farmers' and residents' understandings of nature conservation goals and policies”Journal of Environmental Management54305–320
21.
HealeyP, 1993, “Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning”, in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Eds FischerFForesterJ (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 233–253
22.
HealeyP, 1997Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented SocietiesMacmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
23.
HyggeS, 1994, “Hälsoeffekter av samhällsbuller—sammanfattning och uppdatering 1993–1994” [Health effects of community noise—summary and update 1993–1994], report number 4383, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, SE-10648, Stockholm
24.
InghamJPurvisMClarkeD B, 1999, “Hearing places, making spaces: sonorous geographies, ephemeral rhythms, and the Blackburn warehouse parties”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space17283–305
25.
IngoldT, 2000The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and SkillRoutledge, London)
26.
IrwinA, 1995Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable DevelopmentRoutledge, London)
27.
IrwinASimmonsPWalkerG, 1999, “Faulty environments and risk reasoning: the local understanding of industrial hazards”Environment and Planning A311311–1326
28.
JonssonGPalmI, 2000Boken om MKB för detaljplan [The book on EIA for detailed plans] (Boverket, Karlskrona)
29.
JossS A, 1998The Role of Participation in Institutionalised Technology Assessment: A Case Study of Consensus ConferencesUniversity of London, London)
30.
MacnaghtenPUrryJ, 1998Contested NaturesSage, New Delhi)
31.
Noise Investigation, 1999a, Örebro-Bofors Airport, journal number 99.13, 8 September, available from Environmental Office, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden
32.
Noise Investigation, 1999b, Local Board for Environmental Protection, Statement concerning investigation—soundproofing estates at Örebro-Bofors Airport according to the limits in the decision by the Franchise Board 1998-04-09, journal number 99.13, 8 October, available from Environmental Office, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden
33.
Noise Investigation, 1999c, Örebro-Bofors Airport Company, statement concerning noise measures on estates at Örebro-Bofors Airport, journal number 99.13, 30 November, available from Environmental Office, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden
34.
Noise Investigation, 2000a, Local Board for Environmental Protection, Decision concerning noise measures on estates at Örebro-Bofors Airport, journal number 99.13, §2, 26 January, available from Environmental Office, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden
35.
Noise Investigation, 2000b, Örebro-Bofors Airport company, appeal against the decision of the Environmental Board, journal number 99.13, §2, 26 January, concerning noise measures on estates at Örebro-Bofors Airport, journal number 99.13, 17 February, available from Environmental Office, SE-701 35 Örebro, Sweden
PorteousJ D, 1990Landscapes of the Mind: Worlds of Sense and MetaphorUniversity of Toronto Press, Toronto)
38.
RelphE, 1976Place and PlacelessnessPion, London)
39.
RennOWeblerTWidemanP (Eds), 1995Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental DiscourseKluwer, Dordrecht)
40.
RodawayP, 1994Sensuous Geographies: Body, Sense and PlaceRoutledge, London)
41.
RoutledgeP, 1997, “The imagineering of resistance: Pollok Free State and the practice of postmodern politics”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series22359–376
42.
RylanderRBjörkmanM, 1997, “Annoyance by aircraft noise around small airports”Journal of Sound and Vibration205533–537
43.
SFS (Swedish Code of Statutes), 1998, “Miljöbalken” [The environmental code], report number 808, Swedish Code of Statutes, available from Sveriges Riksdag, SE-100 12 Stockholm, Sweden
44.
SmithS J, 2000, “Performing the (sound)world”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18615–637
45.
StirlingA, 1999, “On science and precaution in the management of technological risk”, in Volume I: A Synthesis Report of Case Studies ESTO Project Report prepared for the European Commission-JRC Institute Prospective Technological Studies, Directorate General Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Edificio Expo, C/Inca Garcilaso, s/n E-41092 Sevilla, Spain
46.
WesterlundS, 1999, “MK B Hur MK B växte fram och utvecklades i USA. En elektroniskäterutgivning av studien Miljöeffektbeskrivningar. Dell: Reglerna och tillämpningen i USA” [How EIA was initiated and developed in the USA. An electronic republication of the report Environmental Impact Assessment. Part 1: Rules and applications in the USA], report number 4 for the Natural Resource and Environmental Committee 1981; available at http://www.imir.com, Institute of Environmental Law, Uppsala, Sweden
47.
WynneB, 1996, “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert—lay knowledge divide”, in Risk, Environment and Modernity Eds LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB (Sage, London) pp 44–83
