1. Introduction
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a mechanism used to guarantee that decision-makers examine the environmental implications of a project before determining whether or not to proceed. An EIA aims to integrate environmental considerations and support into a decision-making system, avoiding or reducing negative impacts and thus also protecting natural resources and ecological processes to promote sustainable development [
1]. Nowadays, impact assessments have emerged as a primary practice in developing countries, such as the Philippines, Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Lao PDR [
2,
3,
4]. Since the EIA system was established in 1969, academicians and researchers have continuously scrutinized its efficacy in terms of both theoretical frameworks and practical applications [
5,
6]. Thailand has implemented EIAs for more than 40 years for projects that could cause major environmental impacts. In Thailand, a health impact assessment forming a part of an environmental impact assessment, called an “EHIA”, has been mandatory since 2009 [
7] and is needed for projects expected to have significant impacts on society, health, or the environment. An EHIA necessitates comprehensive health information and evidence connected to quality of life values. This information is crucial for assessing the interconnections and potential effects of any development on the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of vulnerable groups.
In Thailand, EHIA processes are conducted at various stages and levels, ranging from project proposals to operational phases, and extending across local, national, or even international scopes. These assessments are essential for diverse undertakings, including mining projects, trade agreements within commodity supply chains, and expansions in industrial estates. Currently, 35 types of activities/projects require EIAs, whereas 11 require EHIAs; however, despite continued efforts to improve these structures, social disputes continue to grow. This suggests that the fundamental issues have not been fully addressed, and that systems are constrained by limits that reduce their effectiveness. As a result, they are unable to play their intended role as effective tools for preventing and mitigating environmental and health consequences.
The question of the performance and quality of EIAs/EHIAs has arisen, and research conducted to find advantages and disadvantages or weaknesses in each context for the countries is increasing. Similarly, in Thailand, the performance of EIAs/EHIAs in practice is still ambiguous.
Thailand has seen many cases [
8,
9,
10,
11] in which complaints about the inadequate performance of EIAs and EHIAs were noted. In addition, the lack of clear definitions of EIA laws in Thailand, especially lists of the types and scales of projects, have created problems in the interpretation and performance of EIAs and EHIAs [
8].
However, previous quality evaluation tools have been assessed only in environmental assessment reports and have used academics, practitioners, consultant firms, and EIA and EHIA professionals as the evaluators, while the public or community, who are the direct stakeholders of EIA and EHIA processes, were neglected. Therefore, this research evaluates the performance of implementing EIAs and EHIAs, covering all stages of EIA and EHIA processes, including the impact assessment, decision-making, and monitoring, through developed evaluation checklists; changes the evaluators to be the key stakeholders in an area, such as residents and local authorities, including civil organizations, health organizations, and environmental organizations; and identifies the factors related to performance.
3. Research Approach and Methodology
This study constitutes quantitative research that aims to evaluate the performance of EIAs/EHIAs implemented in Eastern Thailand. There are three steps, in which the research first explores tools for evaluating the performance of EIAs or EHIAs in Thailand and builds drafts of evaluation checklists, then in the second step develops a plausible final evaluation checklist by testing the content’s validity and reliability, which is then finally implemented in a third step. The performance evaluation focuses on three dimensions: the procedural dimension, substantive dimension, and transactive dimension, which cover all stages of EIA/EHIA practices in Thailand. The 13 criteria of evaluation checklists were developed and evaluated by residents around the projects studied, as presented in
Table 1.
3.1. Study Areas and Selection of Projects
Provinces like Chonburi, Rayong, and Chachoengsao were target markets for the nation’s early development under Thailand’s Eastern Seaboard Development Program because of their geographic strength. Nonetheless, as
Figure 1 shows, the province of Chonburi carried out the greatest number of EIA projects between 2007 and 2016 [
16,
17]. These projects mostly focused on the industrial sector, encompassing transportation, energy, and renewable energy sector projects. Several of these programs were still in the monitoring stage during the study period and were consequently excluded; thus, case study projects were chosen from the Chonburi province for a better and diversified representation of various sectors in terms of EIA/EHIA implementation. All EHIA projects (comprising 100% of EHIA initiatives) that had undergone operation and monitoring were selected, followed by the selection of EIA projects with which to explore performance across different sectors.
Moreso than the performance of EIAs and EHIAs, we were interested in evaluating the difference between EIAs and EHIAs because EHIAs need more information, especially health information, which required more public meetings; therefore, an EHIA project was first selected, and in order to compare EHIAs and EIAs, an EIA project in the same sector was chosen. Additionally, data from other sectors were collected, for considering performance across different sectors.
From 2007 to 2023, there were two EHIA projects that had already been operated and monitored in Chonburi; they were case studies that covered the transportation and industry sectors. Then, in order to explore other sectors, EIAs were added to the study, which were EIAs in the energy and renewable energy sector. Four EIAs were selected because we were interested in studying the differences in the performance of EIAs and EHIAs; therefore, the number of EIAs was not too different. Therefore, all EHIAs (100% of EHIAs) that had already been operated, monitored, and selected, as well as the EIAs, were selected for examining the variance in performance over different sectors.
Ultimately, this analysis selected four EIA projects: one for the industry sector (EIACB3), one for the transportation sector (EIACB1), one for the estate sector (EIACB4), and one for the energy and renewable energy sector (EIACB2). One EHIA project was chosen for the industry sector (EHIACB2) and one project for the transportation sector (EHIACB1).
3.2. Data Collection
In order to assess performance using a criteria checklist that was designed to focus on three dimensions—procedural performance, substantive performance, and transactive performance—primary data were gathered through interviews and field surveys with villagers, local fishing groups, non-government organizations, the local authorities responsible for EIAs and EHIAs, and municipality as well as medical personnel in sub-district health-promoting units. In order to consider the EIS database and monitoring reports, secondary data were gathered via the ONEP website [
32].
3.2.1. Primary Data
The sample for this study was identified from the comprehensive list of communal households provided in the EIA and EHIA reports. It encompassed a total of at least 162 individuals residing in households across the province of Chonburi. To select participants, the researchers employed a random sampling method, targeting households where at least one member had attended public meetings pertaining to EIAs and EHIAs, because they have information about or experience of the stages of producing and gathering data for EIA and EHIA reports. If no individuals within a household had participated in public meetings concerning EIA and EHIA processes, we then continued to select new individuals from other families randomly in the same places, until individuals with relevant meeting experiences were identified.
Considering relevant meeting experiences, we identified a total of 162 individuals as key informants living in the vicinity of EIA and EHIA projects, who assessed the performance based on their interactions with the case, monitoring report, and EIS. In order to generate quantitative data on project performance using a rating scale, a questionnaire was employed in surveys completed by the sample. The evaluation assessed the EIAs’ and EHIAs’ quality, efficacy, and follow-ups using the checklist that we created from the relevant research regarding the criteria.
3.2.2. Secondary Data
The information on EIA and EHIA projects details baseline information about the environmental, social, and economic conditions in the project area, the impact assessment results, measures for mitigating impacts as well as impact management, and environmental management plans. The monitoring reports were sent to the related responsible organization agencies regularly, two times a year, to monitor and evaluate trends in situations that affected the environment after the project was developed or implemented, and were also used to improve or increase efficiency in complying with environmental measures. Both EIA reports and monitoring reports were collected as electronic files through the ONEP website [
25].
3.3. Data Analysis Methods
The data used for the analysis of the performance only calculated the answers of respondents who had experienced the EIA/EHIA process and had joined a public meeting. The performance types to be assessed were procedural, substantive, and transactive. The performance was assessed via a rating score (needs improvement = 1, fair = 2, and excellent = 3) for assessing the substantive and procedural performance, while another dimension (transactive performance) used insufficient = 1 and sufficient = 2. Finally, a multivariate analysis of the dataset (categorizing the studies by attributes) was carried out and represented the three dimensions of performance by identifying the percentage of performance scores, interpreting them to be excellent, good, just satisfactory, poor/just unsatisfactory, and very poor/unsatisfactory. The overview of performance was presented as follows: 100% of the total score meant “Excellent”, 75% to under 100% of the total score meant “Good”, 50% to under 75% of the total score meant “Just satisfactory”, 25% to under 50% of the total score meant “Poor/just unsatisfactory", and 0% to under 25% of the total score meant “Very poor/unsatisfactory”.
For example, for the transactive performance, the evaluator needed to consider three transactive criteria. The possible max total score of transactive performance is six, equal to 100%. Therefore, if the evaluation result is five, the performance is equal to 83.33%, and is interpreted as a “Good” performance. The differences in EIA and EHIA performance were analyzed by employing Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS ver. 20) software.
5. Discussion
The findings indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the performances of different initiatives. This was in line with Chanchitpricha and Bond [
34], a study on the procedural performance of power plant projects in Thailand that found similar results regarding satisfaction. The renewable energy and power project had the largest percentage score for procedural performance and had a simple satisfactory performance. When one looks at procedural performance in other industries, like transportation, manufacturing, and real estate abroad, the results align with the majority of earlier research, which demonstrated satisfactory performance and above-average scores [
35,
36]. Impact assessment organizations have uneven management capabilities in EHIA and EIA practices because of the various features of various departments and regions, particularly in complex scenarios [
37].
For P1, Thailand has the guidelines and procedures covering all the project’s sectors that are implemented in line with provincial economic development policy, but the unclear and inadequate nature of the guidelines is an essential factor influencing environmental and health impact assessments. Although EHIAs have clearly defined procedures and guidelines, in practice, due to the different characteristics of different regions and departments, and especially complex situations, impact assessment organizations have inconsistent management and, in some cases, the quality of impact reports cannot be effective [
37,
38].
Institutional roles, collaborations, and infrastructure (P2) can become more transparent for all pertinent stakeholders and authorities when legislation is implemented. Thailand networking in EIA/EHIA systems, such as data sharing between organizations, is quite low [
37], the library of electronic files of EIA/EHIA reports is not 100% accessible and updated, and the level of information sharing between local authorities is low.
According to EIA/EHIA procedures, the project proponents or consultant firms have to publish or deliver reports to participating stakeholders for review (P4), in order to collect information about the appropriate way to communicate and receive information about projects; however, in practice, the main way that project proponents or consulting agencies make their reports publicly available is by providing only one hard copy of the report or summary report to the head of a village, while public observations within the public participation process should be submitted online only. Moreover, people can access the hard copy of the final report at the local authority, the permitting agency, and at the ONEP center, while it is also published online on the ONEP website; however, this is not suitable for all people, and it is especially detrimental to populations of rural areas where there is no infrastructure and technological limitations (i.e., access to the Internet). Thus, villagers may not know some information about a project and not have the opportunity to comment or verify the completeness and accuracy of the information in a report [
8,
37]; participation can hardly be effective if people cannot even access information on projects that they are expected to give opinions on.
The reliability of the information in EIA/EHIA reports is one of the criteria with a low performance score; most respondents cannot access the final version of a report before approval. Previous research [
39,
40] has shown that the public lack information and transparency and are uncomfortable about expressing their concerns, and that reports were made without the feedback loop being completed.
Every case that was examined had clear definitions, assigned responsibilities that were completed by the most qualified individuals, and the development of the knowledge and labor needed for EIAs and EHIAs in accordance with an EIS, the person in charge, and their position. This surpasses regulatory requirements due to the significant significance and uniqueness of the relevant authorities and individuals [
41]. Thailand has limitations in terms of professional and technical personnel, impact assessments of human resources, skills, and capacity, particularly local human resources, much like other developing nations [
4,
39,
42]; however, the amount of employees needed to cover all stages of EIA and EHIA processes, as well as the numerous subcommittees required during the monitoring phase, provide challenges for the local authorities in Thailand.
Regarding public participation, the average percentage score indicated that all initiatives were completed with just adequate performance; however, when looking at the cases examined, it is discovered that the EIACB1 transportation sector project had the lowest percentage of impact assessment reports’ total score for public reliability, as well as a low score for delivering reports for public review. These findings are consistent with the findings of Chompunth C. [
43], which suggest that no law gives the public the authority or role to make decisions and that the public does not have enough influence over decision-makers’ decisions or access to a sufficient degree of participation in decision-making. Furthermore, the public consultation was conducted using ambiguous guidelines, such as the requirement that information be posted publicly on announcement boards at the local and federal levels of administration (without specifying which channels should be suitable and appropriate for the community) and the requirement to disclose information for sufficient periods of time (without specifying the minimum time period) [
44]. Similar to the findings of Suwanteep et al. [
45], there are still contentious concerns regarding short public involvement periods and restricted access to EIA and EHIA project material in actual public engagement practices. Additionally, Thailand is working to improve public accessibility by publishing reports online to support the public in fulfilling their right to information access, even though stakeholders only have limited access to the Internet due to a lack of essential information [
41,
46]. Thus, in various situations, the audience should be compatible with the proper communication and methods of information delivery.
The information revealed during the project’s implementation stage, as shown in criterion P5, which is consistent with the documentary reviews and highlights the laws for post-EIA activities in EIA monitoring and auditing activity, also increased the reliability of EIA and EHIA practices in Thailand. The consulting firm submitted monitoring reports every six months and the facility was visited for surveillance and monitoring meetings within the factory to demonstrate their sincerity and provide the public and pertinent organizations with proof of the data’s dependability. Furthermore, Thailand boasts an online system that the general public can access and check at any time to monitor environmental quality, receive results in real time from government and private-sector partners, and maintain an environmental monitoring network [
34]. For example, EIACB4 is the case in the estate sector that established the Environmental Monitoring and Control Center (EMCC) to continuously monitor environmental quality and air quality both in the ambient air and air emitted in the area.
6. Conclusions
The overall performance of the instances examined shows that none of the cases fell into the extremely good or extremely poor categories; instead, all of the cases performed at a level that was just satisfactory. There was no statistically significant difference in EHIA and EIA performance. Transactive performance accounted for the largest percentage of the overall score (65.4% ± 18.93 in EHIAs and 69.4% ± 21.51 in EIAs), followed by procedural performance (49.8 ± 16.36 in EHIAs and 52.6 ± 17.13 in EIAs) and substantive performance (47.4 ± 17.63 in EHIAs and 51.2 ± 18.51 in EIAs), in that order. Public involvement received a poor score in two criteria, indicating that it is one of the critical issues that need more sufficient attention. The majority of EHIA and EIA cases can be accessed online through monitoring reports, which are constantly updated; however, EISs are more challenging to obtain in both hard copy and electronic formats.
This study’s primary innovation is its adaptation of a commonly-used assessment methodology from earlier research, casting stakeholders with firsthand, project-related experience in the role of the evaluator; however, because this study had to evaluate and encompass all phases of EIAs and EHIAs, the respondents selected therefore had the limitation of representing a variety of groups. The study’s findings indicate that the projects’ percentage of public participation and reliability scores were low. Consequently, to improve performance, it is recommended that an open access database be created and updated on a regular basis. This database would allow interested stakeholders to participate, voice their opinions, and double-check data at any point during the project, as well as to follow up on and monitor projects that were implemented to foster public trust, transparency, and dependability. Moreover, the agencies in charge of EHIAs and EHIAs carry out a cycle of systemic improvement, incorporating knowledge co-production, regular report quality reviews, and periodic monitoring.