Public opinion, expressed through written comments, developed very
differently throughout the planning phases of two road projects in
southern Sweden. Each project's Prefeasibility Study, Feasibility
Study, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were studied to analyze the
changes between five evaluation phases: background and inventory of base
data, replenishment with additional information, consequence analysis,
conflict analysis, and priorities. For one of the road projects, rich and
early descriptions of impact estimates, along with appraisals of the
effects on the landscape, paved the way for more effective dialogue.
Better disclosure of its reports' established facts and evaluations
might explain the more solid acceptance for that road project. The other
project did not clearly show the reasoning behind its priorities, which
may explain the many public and agency comments on the EIR; consequently,
people constructed and submitted their own viewpoints regarding impact.
This article discusses how transparent documentation and presentation of
priorities ultimately can contribute to the success of similar
projects.