Communication problems and alternatives in the process of collecting resident opinions for environmental impact assessment through text mining: A case study of the Dangjin landfill in Korea

Do even projects that have already collected residents' opinions as a part of their environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes face opposition from residents later? Previous studies have noted that the public participation process of EIA is regarded as a mere formality, and that its effectiveness in reflecting residents' opinions remains unclear. Nevertheless, research on the public participation process is lacking. It should be supplemented with sufficient communication and address the potential of achieving this through policy application. This study aimed to identify the problems with, and alternatives to, the current process of collecting resident opinions during EIA by analyzing the case of the Dangjin landfill project in Korea, which was opposed by residents despite their having participated in the assessment. According to the analysis results, the contents of the conversations were divided into two categories: establishment of reduction measures and environmental impact surveys. Most resident opinions were related to the establishment of reduction measures (71.70%), followed by those related to the local (65.20%), metropolitan (63.32%), and central governments (62.96%). However, the change between the preliminary small-scale review (52.29%) and third-round decision review (58.06%) was not significant. In terms of high-frequency words, the first preliminary review and third-round decision by the Ministry of Environment were similar, but both greatly differed from the second-round resident opinions. These results indicate that although residents had many questions regarding measures for reducing environmental pollution, the preliminary small-scale review and third-round decision phases only involved discussions on conducting environmental impact surveys. The contents of the conversations pertained to the residents requesting long-term, wide-ranging, and realistic health-related alternatives; however, the responses were highly technical, and the discussions only concerned performing procedural environmental impact surveys. Additionally, the use of different content and language perspectives hindered communication. It was also difficult to confirm whether the residents' opinions were reflected. These results suggest the need for the use of more relatable and comprehensible language by experts during the public participation process, and that a mutually understandable language perspective through multilateral participation should be the foundation for policy application.

Automated summary

This study examines the problems and alternatives to the current process of collecting resident opinions during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), using the case of the Dangjin landfill project in Korea. Despite residents' participation in the assessment, they opposed the project and viewed the public participation process as a mere formality. The study suggests the need for more meaningful communication and the use of relatable language during the public participation process to better reflect residents' opinions.