SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 27

Participatory environmental impact assessment in Turkey and the case of Uşak province

Türkiye'de katılımcı çevresel etki değerlendirmesi ve Uşak ili örneği

Fatih DEMİR
Mustafa ÖKMEN
Pages
265–276
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this paper, brief information is given on the background of EIA, the level of harmonization of Turkish legislation is evaluated against acquis communitarie, and the current situation as regards civic participation in environmental impact assessment is analyzed in the example of Uşak province.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a mechanism which involves beforehand assessment of environmental impacts of investment projects with a pro-active approach and envisages civic participation at every stage of the process.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, participation, which is one of the basic principles that serves as a pillar for public administration within EU, is being put into practice.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this paper, brief information is given on the background of EIA, the level of harmonization of Turkish legislation is evaluated against acquis communitarie, and the current situation as regards civic participation in environmental impact assessment is analyzed in the example of Uşak province.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a mechanism which involves beforehand assessment of environmental impacts of investment projects with a pro-active approach and envisages civic participation at every stage of the process. In this regard, participation, which is one of the basic principles that serves as a pillar for public administration within EU, is being put into practice. In this paper, brief information is given on the background of EIA, the level of harmonization of Turkish legislation is evaluated against acquis communitarie, and the current situation as regards civic participation in environmental impact assessment is analyzed in the example of Uşak province.

Özet

Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi (ÇED), yatırım projelerinin çevreye etkisinin önceden, pro-aktif bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmesini içermekte ve sürecin her aşamasına halkın katılımını öngören bir mekanizmadır. Bu bağlamda AB’de kamu yönetiminin dayandığı temel ilkelerden biri olan katılımcılığın hayata geçirilmesi söz konusudur. Çalışmada çevresel etki değerlendirmesinin geçmişine kısaca göz atılmakta, ÇED ile ilgili olarak Türk mevzuatında AB müktesebatına uyum açısından gelinen nokta değerlendirilmekte ve Uşak ili örneğinde özellikle halkın çevresel etki değerlendirmesine katılımıyla ilgili durum ele alınmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİR, F., ÖKMEN, M. (2022). Participatory environmental impact assessment in Turkey and the case of Uşak province. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 27, 265–276. https://ajindex.com/articles/493395

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. AKDOĞAN, Argun (2008), Türk Kamu Yönetimi ve Avrupa Birliği: Karşılaştırmalı Eleştirel bir İnceleme, TODAIE Yayınları,
  2. Ankara.
  3. ATAKLI, Şermin (2003), “Türkiye Uygulamasında Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi (ÇED)”, içinde Marın, Mehmet ve Yıldırım, Uğur (der.), Çevre Sorunlarına Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar: Ekolojik, Ekonomik, Politik ve Yönetsel Perspektifler, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul: 515-532.
  4. BAILEY, David J. (2006), “Governance or the Crisis of Governmentality? Applying Critical State Theory at the European Level”, Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (1), 16-33.
  5. BEZİRCİ, Pervin Dedeler (2005), AB Sürecinde Çevre: AB’de Çevresel Kamuoyu Bilinci ve Çevre Eğitimi, Tasam Yayınları,
  6. İstanbul.
  7. BOZKURT, Yavuz (2010), Avrupa Birliği’ne Uyum Sürecinde Türkiye’nin Çevre Politikalarının Dönüşümü, Ekin Yayınları, Bursa. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2001), “European Governance: A White Paper”, COM (2001) 428 final, Brüksel. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2002), “Communication from the Commission: Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission”, COM(2992) 704 final, Brüksel. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2007) “Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s Progress Towards Accession”, SEC(2007)1436, 6.11.2007, Brüksel. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2008) “Turkey’s 2008
  8. Progress Report, Accompanying the Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2008-2009 {COM(2008) 674}” COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2009) ‘Turkey’s 2009
  9. Progress Report, Accompanying the Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2008-2009 {COM(2009) 533} DURU, Bülent (2007), “Avrupa Birliği Çevre Politikası”, Çağrı Erhan ve Deniz Senemoğlu (der.), Avrupa Birliği Politikaları içinde, İmaj Yayınevi,
  10. Ankara.
  11. EBERLEIN, Burkard ve Edgar Grande (2005), “Beyond delegation: transnational regulatory regimes and the EU regulatory state”, Journal of European Public Policy 12 (1) 89-112.
  12. GIORGI, Liana ve Ronald Pohoryles (2005), “Challenges to EU Political Integration and the Role of Democratization, Innovation”, The European Journal of Social Sciences, December, 18 (4), 407-418.
  13. GÜLER, Çağatay ve Zakir ÇOBANOĞLU (1994),
  14. Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi, Çevre Sağlığı Temel Kaynak Dizisi No:36, T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı,