555 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 A B S T R A C T The involvement of society in environmental management, when allowed, encourages the formulation, implementation, and monitoring of environmental policies. The public hearings that make up the environmental licensing process and that represent a space for direct popular participation have proven to be inefficient. This work aims to capture the impressions of public opinion regarding popular participation in decision-making, both about public practices of environmental management and about environmental licensing. The data were collected in the second half of 2020 through a questionnaire prepared through Google Forms and disseminated on social networks according to a virtual sampling technique called “snowball.” The sample was composed of 59 individuals, mostly from Rio Grande do Sul (88%). The respondents feel excluded from the licensing process and the actions to protect the environment where they live, showing interest in being more participatory, both by adding information about the region where they live and by assisting in enforcement within their neighborhoods. Most of the public consulted considers that the dissemination of information about public actions and the need to acquire knowledge about the functionalities of environmental licensing are essential to ensure a more effective participation of the population in the formulation of environmental protection policies. It is concluded that direct participative democracy is still deficient due to the low adhesion of the population, whose engagement depends on factors related to environmental education, the availability of information, and the simplification of forms of democratic participation that are closer to the citizen. Keywords: opinion poll; environmental perception; public management. R E S U M O O envolvimento da sociedade na gestão ambiental, quando permitido, favorece a formulação, execução e acompanhamento das políticas ambientais. As audiências públicas que compõem o licenciamento ambiental e que representam um espaço para a participação popular direta têm se mostrado ineficientes. Este trabalho objetiva captar as impressões da opinião pública quanto à participação popular nas tomadas de decisão, tanto no que se refere às práticas públicas de gestão ambiental quanto no que tange ao licenciamento ambiental. Os dados foram coletados no segundo semestre de 2020, por meio de um questionário elaborado no Google Forms e divulgado nas redes sociais, conforme técnica de amostragem virtual denominada snowball. A amostra foi composta de 59 indivíduos, a maioria do Rio Grande do Sul (88%). Os respondentes sentem-se excluídos do processo de licenciamento e das ações de proteção do meio ambiente onde vivem, demonstrando interesse em ser mais participativos, tanto agregando informações sobre a região que habitam quanto auxiliando na fiscalização em seus bairros. A maioria do público consultado considera que a divulgação de informações sobre as ações públicas bem como o conhecimento sobre as funcionalidades do licenciamento ambiental são imprescindíveis para garantir a participação mais efetiva da população na formulação de políticas de proteção ambiental. Conclui-se que a democracia participativa direta ainda se mostra deficiente perante a baixa adesão da população, cujo engajamento depende de fatores relativos à educação ambiental, à disponibilização da informação e à simplificação das formas de participação democrática que estejam mais próximas do cidadão. Palavras-chave: pesquisa de opinião; percepção ambiental; gestão pública. Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices Impressões da opinião pública sobre o licenciamento ambiental e a participação popular nas decisões relativas à elaboração e implementação de práticas públicas de gestão Helena de Figueiredo Hammes1 , Tirzah Moreira Siqueira2 , Daiane da Silva Marques1 , Martha Ferrugem Kaiser2 , Diovana da Silva Guterres2 1Secretaria de Município do Meio Ambiente de Rio Grande – Rio Grande (RS), Brazil. 2Universidade Federal de Pelotas – Pelotas (RS), Brazil. Correspondence address: Helena de Figueiredo Hammes – Rua Bento Martins, 1601, ap. 103 – Centro – CEP: 96010-430 – Pelotas (RS), Brazil. E-mail: hammesbio@gmail.com Conflicts of interest: the authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding: none. Received on: 09/21/2022. Accepted on: 10/27/2022. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94781460 Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences ISSN 2176-9478 Volume 56, Number 1, March 2021 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2950-5227 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6576-0217 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1697-2889 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7006-032X https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6494-8464 mailto:hammesbio@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94781460 http://www.rbciamb.com.br http://abes-dn.org.br/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Hammes, H. F. et al. 556 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 Introduction Over the past few decades, although some concepts relating to the environment were consolidated, society, by taking a new position on environmental issues, has demonstrated the existence of different ways of looking at the world, both on the part of the individual people and by society groups, the state, and governments (Milaré, 2015). There- fore, not only the public authorities but also the community, composed of individual citizens and organizations, has assumed, as its own, the duty to preserve the environment (Fornasier, 2015). In Brazil, the Constitution of 88, in its article 225, divided the re- sponsibility for protecting the environment between the Public Power and the community, greatly expanding the importance of organized civil society and, therefore, also reinforcing its title of “constitution citizen.” Environmental licensing, an instrument of the National Environ- mental Policy (PNMA), represents one of the most important actions of the public administration to regulate any projected intervention on the environment, considering the benefits proposed by the proj- ect when compared to its negative impacts (Milaré, 2015). However, although the constitutional text encourages the empowerment of civil society, the public hearing is the only instrument provided by Brazilian law to include popular participation within the environmental licens- ing process of activities that use natural resources (Queiroz and Miller, 2018), being conditioned only to highly complex processes that culmi- nate in the need for an Environmental Impact Study and its respective report (EIA-RIMA). Reaffirming the importance of public participation when it comes to business planning and actions, Weder (2021) argued that for sus- tainable development to be achieved, social participation and the public-company relationship must be present throughout the impact assessments. However, according to the author, dialogue in search of consensus is not enough, and it is necessary to demystify certain par- adigms and adhere to edifying problematizations aimed at environ- mental conservation. In this way, collective transformation is achieved, and the connection between the population and corporations becomes more sustainable, coherent, and upward. Knowledge dissemination, facilitated by the connections fostered by advances in information dispersal technology, has played a deci- sive role in increasing public participation in issues concerning inter- ventions in the environment and their effects, so that they are often instrumental in project approval outcomes (Cullen-Knox et al., 2017; Van-Putten et al., 2018). Thus, the involvement of society in environmental management, when allowed, has significantly contributed to advances in the formu- lation, execution, and monitoring of environmental policies and proj- ects (Giaretta et  al., 2012), and it is even considered a “social license to operate,” which is defined as a set of collective expectations beyond what is legally required (Cullen-Knox et  al., 2017; Van-Putten et  al., 2018). However, it is necessary for governments to ensure this space for participation within their management strategies. Therefore, although the participation of the population reflects one of the most important visions in the context of environmental public policies, since it represents the group directly affected by the success or failure of environmental licensing procedures, it is still placed in a position of spectator of the interaction between licensors and licensees, whose result, however, directly influences its life. This work aims to capture the expressions of public opinion re- garding popular participation in decision-making, both about environ- mental licensing processes of activities considered potentially polluting and about the development and implementation of public practices of environmental management, in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of popular presence in this context. In this way, we intend to intensify the debate about the extent of popular participation in de- cision-making on environmental issues, identifying opportunities to increase this participation. Theoretical background In Brazil, until the 1970s, governmental actions related to environ- mental protection were isolated and disconnected from public poli- cies for social and economic development (Assunção, 2018), obeying more the impulses of the moment or trends of a particular government than plans (Milaré, 2015). Thus, constituting a breath of renewal, Law 6,938/1981 was published, which instituted the National Environ- mental Policy (PNMA), considered a legal milestone that started the Brazilian trajectory in search of harmonizing economic development with environmental protection (Sánches, 2013). It also made clear the importance of the role of society by considering as one of its principles environmental education at all levels of education, including commu- nity education, aiming to enable it to actively participate in the defense of the environment (Brazil, 1981). In turn, the Constitution of 1988, in its article 225, establishes the right to an ecologically balanced environment as a right duty, since at the same time that the citizen is entitled to an ecologically healthy en- vironment, he also has the duty to preserve it. Environmental licensing is the main instrument of the PNMA, having a preventive character to protect the environment (Cirne et al., 2022). It is a complex administrative procedure through which the competent environmental agency licenses the location, installation, expansion, and operation of enterprises and activities that use envi- ronmental resources, considered effectively or potentially polluting or those that, in any form, may cause environmental degradation, con- sidering the legal and regulatory provisions and technical standards applicable to the case (Brazil, 1997). As a police power of the State, licensing evaluates, in a multidisci- plinary way, the impacts of an activity, encompassing numerous prin- Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices 557 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 ciples of environmental law, among them that of sustainability. Accord- ing to Alves and Canestrini (2020, p. 205), Sustainability, considered in its dimensions, with the care of the current generation and future generations, in various normative documents of environmental law, was considered by the inter- national community, a way out for the maintenance of an envi- ronment, whether natural or urban, in a balanced way. And this institutes solidarity, inserted in the larger concept of fraternity, as an ethical issue, so that everyone has the feeling of belonging, in- clusion and responsibility for preservation. The public hearing, which is part of environmental licensing, con- sists of a procedure for presenting the contents of the study and the environmental report to interested parties, not only to clarify questions but also to collect criticism and suggestions about the project and the areas to be affected (Sánches, 2013). It is the main channel for local community participation in the licensing process (Cirne et al., 2022). However, its mandatory nature is restricted only to projects of signifi- cant environmental impact that require the preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Study (EIA-RIMA). During the obtaining of environmental licenses, the public hear- ing functions as a contact tool between the individual affected by the licensed activity and the interest in the use of the respective natural resources (Queiroz and Miller, 2018). Thus, according to Fornasier (2015), regarding the understanding between the public, democracy should be understood as a set of decision-making that contemplates the qualifications of those involved. According to Novelli (2006), governments have been making ef- forts to develop new governance mechanisms that allow greater influ- ence of society in public affairs, including through direct participation in many cases, given that the new management model assumes that the more democratic is its administration, the more efficient is the State. Thus, the democratic principle, based on representativeness, gives way to the formation of structures in which citizens can participate, in a direct way, in the decision-making of public authorities, especially in those concerning conflicts related to environmental issues that inter- fere with the quality of life of the directly affected society (Andrade, 2019; Canestrini and Garcia, 2021). That said, popular participation during public hearings that make up the environmental licensing procedure and that represent a space for direct participation should be one of the necessary parts to guide the de- cision-making process, assisting in the characterization of impacts and the discussion of minimizing measures or appropriate corrections. In public hearings where citizens and civil entities take the floor, they behave as a set of experiences that enable learning and advance- ment in decision-making more welcoming to participatory democracy (Duarte et al., 2016). However, despite the exercise, public hearings do not have great effectiveness, since the population does not own any decision as far as they are concerned (Queiroz and Miller, 2018). During the study carried out by Duarte et al. (2016), the low num- ber of participants who manifested themselves in public hearings was remarkable. There were even cases in which they were not registered. Among the hypotheses that the authors raise for what happened are how the hearings are proposed and conducted, the insufficient qualifi- cation of society to participate in discussions, or even lower potential for affecting local communities, which reduces interest in the partici- pation (Duarte et al., 2016). Similarly, Cirne et  al. (2022) also observed a democratic deficit in the environmental licensing of hydroelectric power plants during public hearings and concluded that it is necessary to improve social participation in this process. Therefore, it can be seen that while the success of a licensing pro- cess is given by the involvement of the population with the instruments for analyzing environmental impacts, the current scenario does not fit into such a statement (Bratman and Dias, 2018). Considering that the population is not heard and has no effective participation in deci- sion-making processes, public hearings are seen only as formalizing the environmental licensing process (Zhouri, 2008; Verdum and Me- deiros, 2014; Domingos et al., 2016). Given the importance of popular participation, for Gilliland et al. (2017), public engagement should occur from the beginning of the planning of activities, and companies should be encouraged to take the first step toward this connection. According to Di Marco and Passador (2020), in addition to public hearings, there are multiple possibilities for the exercise of citizenship to strengthen the democratic process. However, in the light of environ- mental issues, participatory democracy is still deficient due to the low adherence of the population. Many studies have been made on the effectiveness of social par- ticipation procedures; however, it is necessary to reflect on how and to what extent the way of life, choices, and personal conduct of each individual can affect the whole (Alves and Resende, 2020). The actors go on to state that: It is no coincidence that this research is not so usual because, in general, society does not perceive the environment as an integrated system in which small actions interfere and impact the totality. For this reason, common sense believes only that large interventions can affect the environmental balance, not realizing how small individual conducts, when added together, are responsible for considerable im- pacts on the ecosystem (Alves and Resende, 2020, p. 67). Therefore, it is important to understand the motivating and demotivat- ing factors of this process, in order to create incentives for the involvement of the population in decision-making that will affect their quality of life. Hammes, H. F. et al. 558 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 Methodology Sant’anna et al. (2021) defined environmental perception as being an awareness of the environment by man, i.e., the act of perceiving the environment in which one is inserted, learning to protect and care for it. In turn, environmental awareness is understood as a multidis- ciplinary construct composed of attributes such as attitude, behavior, and cognitive aspects (Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Silva et al., 2016). According to Klering et al. (2012), surveys related to environmen- tal perception are tools that can be used strategically to raise awareness among participating individuals, in addition to collecting data. For this survey of environmental ideas and perceptions, we chose to implement cross-sectional qualitative research, whose objective was, through an opinion survey, to capture the impressions and points of view of the participants, providing a portrait of the opinions of a group at a given moment in time (Fink, 2002). It should be noted, however, that this research is not generalizable, but exploratory, in the sense of seeking knowledge about an issue that one wants to better understand, explor- ing, richly, what certain people think at a moment in time (Vieira, 2009). As a data collection instrument, virtual questionnaires were used aimed at the general population. The survey begins with questions that aim to get to know the in- terviewer, such as age, education, and state where they live (Table 1). Then, the question was asked about the level of concern the inter- viewee has about the environment, instigating them to think about the issue to prepare them for the rest of the questions (Table 2). To understand how the interviewee sees the environment around him/her, the interviewee was asked whether he/she notices or has no- ticed any situation related to environmental degradation around the place where he/she lives and/or works and should indicate, in the se- quence, which situation was observed. We also tried to determine what kind of reaction the population is having when they observe some issue that upsets them (Table 3). Table 1 – Questions to get to know the survey respondent, aimed at the population. Objective Question Position in the survey GETTING TO KNOW THE SURVEY RESPONDENT What is your age group? Question 1 What is your education? Question 2 In which state do you live? Question 3 Table 2 – Question about the level of concern for the environment, directed at the population Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey LEVEL OF CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT How concerned are you about the environment? • Very concerned • Worried • Slightly Concerned • Indifferent Question 4 Table 3 – Question about how the interviewee sees the environment around him/her, aimed at the population. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey PERCEPTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD Around the place where you live and/or work, do you notice or have you noticed any situation related to environmental degradation (noise emission, deforestation, water, soil and/ or air contamination, irregular waste disposal, etc.)? • Yes, but it does not bother me • Yes, and it bothers me • No • I do not know Question 5 Which situation related to environmental degradation have you observed? Open question Questions 6 and 7 What was your attitude concerning the aspect that made you uncomfortable? • You participated in a petition • You discussed the issue with a friend but did not take any action • You talked about it with a politician • You were present at a protest • You made contact with an environmental agency • You participated in a public hearing • Tried to pass the matter on to the press • Did nothing • Other: _____ Question 8 Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices 559 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 In Question 5, those who answered “Yes, but it does not bother me” were directed to Question 6 to inform which situation they ob- served. On the contrary, those who answered “Yes, but it bothers me” were directed to Question 7, to list the situations, and then to Ques- tion 8, informing what attitude they took. In turn, the respondents who marked the other alternatives went directly to Question 9. After that, the respondents were asked which segment they considered the main segment responsible for the dam- age to the environment (Table 4). Advancing with the questions, the interviewee was led to think about the compatibility of socioeconomic development with environ- mental preservation, evaluating the laws decreed by the government on this topic. Finally, it was asked whether environmental issues are import- ant and should be considered during the development of a city (Table 5). Up to this point, the questions presented in the survey addressed to the population aimed to force the interlocutor to reflect on the sub- ject to materialize their perception of the environment in which they are included, preparing them to move into the field of environmental licensing itself. To register spontaneous thoughts on the subject, the interlocutor was asked to inform which word, phrase, or image seemed to represent his feelings best when he first heard about environmental licensing (Table 6). Table 4 – Question about responsibility for environmental damage directed at the population. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION Which segment do you classify as the main segment responsible for the damage to the environment? • The government that does not inspect the correct execution of the legislation • The economic activities that only think about profit, leaving aside the socio- environmental factor of their activity • Society in general, which is negligent to environmental degradation and does not take a stand in defense of the quality of life from a healthy environment • Other: _____ Question 9 Table 5 – Question about making development compatible with environmental preservation. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Do you believe that socioeconomic development is compatible with environmental preservation? • Yes, as long as there is an environmental control of the polluting sources • No, however, I believe that there are situations in which the environmental impact generated by an activity is nothing more than the price to be paid by society in exchange for the economic development of a region • No, because the environmental impact is intrinsic to the entire development process • I am not in a position to give an opinion on this subject • Other: _____ Question 10 In your opinion, what should be the government’s environmental laws? • More stringent, because environmental degradation has advanced considerably • Less strict, because today there are technological solutions that reduce environmental impacts • As strict as they are now, but with updates according to the technology available for environmental protection • I do not know how to express an opinion on this subject • Other: _____ Question 11 Do you believe that environmental topics are important and should be considered during the development of a city? • I do not know, I never thought much about it • Yes, I think they are important and should be considered • No, I think it is silly to protect the environment in the city • Other: _____ Question 12 Table 6 – Question about what environmental licensing represents. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING When you hear about environmental licensing, what phrase, word, or image seems to best represent your feelings about it? Open question Question 13 Hammes, H. F. et al. 560 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 In the sequence, some questions were asked to capture the level of knowledge that the interlocutor has about the subject (Table 7). In Question 16, those who answered “No” were directed to Question 20. Those who answered “Yes” were directed to Question 17 so that it was possible to understand the level of community involvement during the licensing process. Next, they were asked about what bothered them the most during and/or after the implementation of the project, being allowed to mark more than one option. The survey also tried to under- stand whether the interlocutor has the perception that the environmental agency responsible for licensing and monitoring the activity in question was efficient in minimizing the negative effects of the project (Table 8). Table 7 – Questions about the level of knowledge regarding licensing, directed to population. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING In your opinion, what is the purpose of environmental licensing? • I do not know • It is a document that enterprises must have in order to operate, but I am not sure what it is for • It is a way of controlling where and how the enterprises can be installed, increasing bureaucracy and obstructing economic development • It is a way to control where and how the enterprises can be installed, being an important tool for protecting natural resources • Other: _________ Question 14 Have you ever had the chance to see an Environmental License? • Yes • No Question 15 Have you ever witnessed the installation of any development in your neighborhood that has been licensed? • Yes • No Question 16 Were you informed about what the enterprise in question was about? • Yes, the enterprise talked to the community • Yes, the environmental licensing technicians talked to the community • Both, the company and the environmental licensing technicians, talked to the community • No • Other: _______ Question 17 Table 8 – Question about the inconvenience caused by the installation of activities. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING What has most bothered you during and/or after the installation of the enterprise? • Noise • Vibration • Dust • Water pollution • Deforestation • Visual pollution/landscape modification • Vehicle traffic • Disposal of waste in an irregular manner • Changes in local customs • Reduction of green areas in the neighborhood • Odor • Lack of enforcement by the environmental agency • Other: ______ Question 18 Do you think that the agency responsible for the licensing and environmental supervision of the activity in question was efficient in minimizing the negative effects of the enterprise? • Yes, because if it were not for the licensing and environmental supervision of the activity, the negative effects of the installation and/or operation of the enterprise would have caused much more disturbance to the neighboring residents • Partly, because the negative impacts could be perceived with a certain intensity • No, because even though I saw things that were wrong and communicated them to the environmental agency, no action was taken • Other: ______ Question 19 Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices 561 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 The following two questions attempted to explore what part the population believes it can play in this binomial formed by the licensors and the licensees in pursuing environmental protection (Table 9). In the end, the interlocutor was invited to reflect on the efficiency of environmental licensing in protecting the environment. The last question left him free to explain any answer whose alternatives did not fully express his thoughts or to contribute with comments perti- nent to the research to help improve, more and more, environmental licensing (Table 10). Data collection Data were collected using an online form created in the Goo- gle Forms platform, which originated an access link published mainly through social networks (Facebook®, Instagram®, and Linkedin®), in accordance with the virtual sampling technique called “snowball.” This technique corresponds to a viral strategy based on the fact that the message is sent by a sender from the recipient’s social circle, giving the message a chance to be treated in a friendly way. Thus, each member of the social network establishes connections with other con- tacts in their network, in order to disseminate the invitations. There- fore, the formation of the sample takes place throughout the process and depends on the intensity of the interactions carried out, not being previously determined (Costa, 2018; Vieira, et al., 2018). The questionnaire was made available on July 3 and remained ac- cessible until September 30, 2020. Data analysis The data obtained from the questionnaires were tabulated in elec- tronic spreadsheets that allowed the organization and analysis of each question separately. The closed questions produced nominal data, and their answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics whose results were presented in the form of graphs and tables, which allowed their interpretation and discussion. The open questions resulted in qualitative data based on the im- pressions, opinions, and points of view of each respondent. These re- sults were interpreted based on content and semantic analysis (May- ring, 2010 apud Henkel, 2017). Finally, the results were discussed having as theoretical basis the consulted bibliography and as practical support the experience of the author who has worked as a Biologist and Environmental Inspector in the Environmental Licensing and Inspection Unit in partnership with the Municipal Secretariat of Environment of the Municipality of Rio Grande/RS/Brazil for over 12 years. Table 9 – Question about the most active role the population could play in environmental protection. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey POPULAR PARTICIPATION Would you like to have more proactive participation in the environmental protection of your neighborhood? • Yes, because I see negative actions happening and I do not know where to turn • Yes, because I have knowledge of the area in which I live that could help in better decision-making about the installation and operation of activities there • No, because I do not think there is anything wrong with my neighborhood • No, because I do not have time to get involved in these types of issues • Other: _________ Question 20 How do you think the population could participate in the environmental licensing process, helping to harmonize development and environmental protection? Open question Question 21 Table 10 – Reflection on the efficiency of environmental licensing. Objective Question Answer option Position in the survey POPULAR PARTICIPATION Considering what you know about environmental licensing, how efficient do you think this procedure protects the environment? • Efficient • Indifferent • Not very efficient • Not efficient at all • I do not know how to express an opinion about this subject Question 22 Now, feel free to explain any answer whose alternatives did not fully express your thoughts or contribute with pertinent comments to our research (based on your perception of what it is important to preserve and how) that will help improve environmental licensing even more. Open question Question 21 Hammes, H. F. et al. 562 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 Results and discussion The sample was composed of 59 individuals, coming mainly from the state of Rio Grande do Sul (88%), with the others coming from Rio Grande do Norte and São Paulo. As can be seen in Table 11, most of the respondents are between the ages of 21 and 40 years and have a college degree. After that, the respondents were asked about their level of concern with the environment (Question 4), instigating them to reflect on the theme, in order to prepare them for the rest of the questioning, as can be seen in Figure 1. Most respondents (56%) said that they were concerned about the environment. It is important to highlight that none of the respondents said that they are not concerned with environmental issues, nor did they say they were indifferent, which demonstrates that the population perceives that the degradation of the environment can affect their lives, illustrating an active environmental perception. To understand how the interlocutor sees the environment around them, they were asked if they perceive or have already noticed any sit- uation related to the degradation of the environment in the surround- ing areas of their place of work or where they live (Question 5), and they were asked to indicate, in sequence, which situation was observed (Questions 6 and 7). Only one interviewee answered that he did not notice anything, and three said they did not know if something like this had happened around them. On the contrary, 7% of the respondents said that they perceive it, but that the fact is not a problem. Among the situations observed were the noise emission, the irregular disposal of waste, and the installation of residential developments with the suppression of wetlands. However, 86% of respondents said that they do observe situations of environmental degradation that bother them. In Figure 2, we pres- ent the main situations mentioned. When it comes to licensed enterprises, the analysis of the licensing processes should result in the establishment of conditions and restric- tions that avoid and/or minimize the negative effects of both the instal- lation and the operation of the activities. However, the issues brought up by the population in response to the questionnaire represent a weakness in the licensing and, especially, inspection procedures. Corroborating this perception, the National Confederation of Industries (CNI) expressed that it considers environmental licens- ing as an important tool for environmental conservation. However, there is an understanding that the way it is currently performed does not guarantee the protection of environmental resources (CNI, 2019) given that administrative procedures have proven to be highly bu- reaucratic, without taking into account the practical effects of deci- sion-making on the environment (Barros et al., 2017; Machado and Agra-Filho, 2022). On the contrary, other sources of pollution must be controlled by means of environmental inspection, which are more difficult to be caught in the act in a way they are liable to accountability. In this case, community involvement is extremely important to help identify offenders, in order to restrain such actions (Zanini and Rocha, 2020). Table 11 – Population statistics. Question Question options Respondents Age group (Question 1) Up to 20 years old 2 21 to 40 years old 33 From 41 to 60 years old 13 Over 60 years old 11 Education (Question 2) Non-literate 0 Elementary 0 High school 6 Undergraduate 25 Graduate 11 Estate (Question 3) Rio Grande do Sul 52 Rio Grande do Norte 1 São Paulo 6 Figure 1 – Level of concern with the environment. Figure 2 – Situations of environmental degradation observed by the population that generate discomfort. Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices 563 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 Thus, in Question 8, they were asked what actions they took in regard to the aspects that caused them discomfort. As much as most respondents said that they were concerned about the environment and observed signs of degradation around them that bothered them; only 25 (42%) respon- dents took some sort of action, such as participating in demonstrations or public hearings, communicating with the environmental agency, or taking the matter to a politician. The other 27 (45%) respondents reported that they just talked to a friend about the situation but did not take further action. Finally, the remaining 7 (12%) said they took no action. Following the example of the actions carried out by the respon- dents in the statements above, we can see that the population can and should play a more active role in favor of protecting the environment in which they are situated. Great results in the environmental area can result from small actions, which should be valued and encouraged (Alves and Resende, 2020). The best way to motivate people to do this is to awaken the feeling of belonging to the environment, making them multiplying agents of good practices (Santos, 2020). Then, the respondents were asked which segment they consider to be the main segment responsible for the damage to the environment (Question 9, Figure 3). From the results in Figure 4, we observe that 28 (48%) respondents understand that society is responsible, as they believe it stays silent on environmental degradation and does not defend the quality of life we can get from a healthy environment. The other respondents were regularly divided to hold the gov- ernment (10%) responsible for the environmental damage, for not monitoring the compliance with the legislation, as well as economic activities (20%) that only think about making a profit, leaving aside the socio-environmental factor of its activities. Thus, it can be concluded that accountability must be shared be- tween these three segments, each with its own share of blame, and the government is referenced for not investing in educational campaigns Figure 3 – The main segment responsible for the damage to the environment. Figure 4 – Perception of the population about how Environmental Laws should be. that culminate in transforming the population into an army of envi- ronmental inspectors. According to Borile and Calgaro (2016), the ideal is that the de- cision-making process is agreed between the interested parties– en- trepreneurs, public authorities, and affected civil society– so that the environment is democratically used, sharing responsibilities. In the same line of argument, Maldaner et al. (2019) concluded that the con- structions and deconstructions of future scenarios must have the active participation of all actors involved, both public and societal. Attention is drawn to the potential that the population holds for environmental protection and that is underused by governments, which is to play the role of enforcement agents. Moreover, in addition to qualifying the society, which still has a low level of education re- garding environmental laws and procedures for licensing an activity (Fernandes et al., 2008; Giaretta et al., 2012), it is necessary to clarify the role that each actor should play in the governance system, includ- ing defining the strategies and participation mechanisms, in order to promote greater transparency of actions (Rodorff et al., 2015). Then, the respondents were asked to think about the compatibility of socioeconomic development with the preservation of the environment (Question 10). Of the 59 respondents, only 9 (15%) understand that so- cioeconomic development is not compatible with the preservation of the environment, as the environmental impact is inherent in every devel- opment process. In other words, society must opt for economic devel- opment, accepting the impacts arising from degradation, or it needs to give up a series of consumer goods and amenities to ensure a healthy environment for present and future generations (Romeiro, 2012). Showing themselves to be appeased with environmental problems, 2 (3%) respondents answered that, although they believe in the incom- patibility of these two factors, there are situations in which the impact generated by an activity must be accepted as a price to be paid by soci- ety in exchange for the development of a region. Hammes, H. F. et al. 564 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 Therefore, there are two pessimistic views of environmental licens- ing, which loses the sense of prevention and begins to be seen as a tool for minimizing the side effects of development. In contrast, 38 (65%) people answered that they believe that so- cioeconomic development is compatible with the preservation of the environment, as long as there is an environmental control of the pol- luting sources. In this study, once again, licensing assumes its role of guaranteeing the integrity of ecosystems and their ecological functions before they are completely degraded (Cirne et al., 2022). Therefore, it is understood that the application of the principle of sustainability — guiding the compatibility of socioeconomic develop- ment with the preservation of the environment — supposes the impo- sition of some sacrifices on society (Canotilho, 2010), which must be aware of the costs and benefits involved in decision-making processes of environmental agencies. It must be recognized that environmental licensing seeks to imple- ment the principle of sustainability when it assesses the feasibility of a given activity to install itself in a specific location, taking into account the negative effect that could result from its operation. However, when the incompatibility of environmental impacts with the ability of the environment to absorb them is verified, environmental agencies are generally labeled as enemies of development. Again, we emphasize the importance of instructing society about the aspects evaluated during licensing procedures and their conse- quences, thus promoting transparency actions with the objective of gaining the support of communities for decision-making processes in favor of quality of life (Alves and Canestrini, 2020). Regarding the laws enacted by governments on this issue (Ques- tion 11, Figure 4), most respondents believe that current regulations should be stricter, given that environmental degradation has advanced considerably. However, some believe that the legislation must main- tain its current rigor or even be less strict in view of the advancement of technological functions that have minimized the negative effects of certain activities. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the laws are strict enough, but the inspection bodies do not always have the necessary staff to meet the demand; moreover, the population remains silent when they see any irregularities. Furthermore, when asked about the importance of environ- mental issues during the planning of a city (Question 12), 100% of the respondents stated that this is an important issue and that, therefore, it should be part of public policies for the management of urban centers. To register spontaneous thinking on the subject, the interlocutors were asked to, upon hearing about environmental licensing, inform which word, phrase, or image seemed to best represent their feelings (Question 13). In Figure 5, the main comments are presented, separat- ing them into the positive or negative perception that they reflect Out of the 59 responses on the forms, 36 showed a positive percep- tion about licensing, while the other 23 showed disbelief with environ- mental procedures. INTUITIVE PERCEPTION OF THE POPULATION Regarding what environmental environmental licensing POSITIVE PERCEPTION Responsibility Protection Concern Permission EIA-RIMA Preservation Important Enforcement Negotiated responsibility Sustainable development Control and care Important Sustainability Optimism Seriousness Conservation Monitoring Necessary and indispensable Responsible use of space and/or natural resources Legislative organization and supervision Concern about how and where companies can degrade the environment Recovery of space or revitalization; Care for the environment to develop activities Maintaining respect for and renewing natural resources is the way to chart the future of a sustainable society I think of something related to control/management of how companies interfere with the environment and to what extent they can do so A body responsible for mediating/monitoring issues related to the environment comes to mind. I also think of a body responsible for licensing business works and analyzing how much it will degrade or impact the environment of a certain city, etc. NEGATIVE PERCEPTION Lack of transparency Bureaucracy Slowness Disbelief Confusion Delays Blind eye "Will it go now?" Releasing documents De-characterization of the space It hinders development Don't know how to answer Doubt, credibility, trust In some issues I see a certain exaggeration Amount to be paid, because the damage, almost always is irreversible Fees for purposes that are not explained State permission to degrade the environment Privilege granted to a few, who have influence in the political environment Exacerbated growth of the burning of the Amazon forest and the absence of the government in adopting more energetic preservation attitudes Fear because of the terrible political decisions that can be made regarding an issue that would collaborate in a positive way for the sustainable development of Brazil There has to be a strong campaign to clarify and commit the population and the public power to assume the relevance of their role in the environmental issue Feeling of impotence in knowing that many activities are improperly licensed for political, immoral and unethical reasons It is for entertainment. What it does least is protect the environment. It is susceptible to change under pressure (corruptible). Figure 5 – Intuitive perception of the population about what environmental licensing is. Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices 565 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 The key negative points raised refer to issues that characterize the main problems of public administration, such as lack of trans- parency in procedures, feeling of impotence among the population, political influence, excessive bureaucracy, and slowness. In contrast, the positive view mentioned by the population demonstrates that the environmental protection tool can be efficient, as long as it is used properly (Abreu and Fonseca, 2017; Bragagnolo et  al., 2017; Nasci- mento and Fonseca, 2017; Loomis and Dziedzic, 2018; Nascimento et al., 2020). Some questions were also made in order to grasp the level of knowl- edge that the interlocutor has on the subject of environmental licensing. As for the purpose of environmental licensing (Question 14), most respondents (91%) understand that it is a way to control where and how enterprises may be installed, and it is an important tool for the protection of natural resources. However, for one respondent, it is nothing more than an “attempt to legitimize environmental degrada- tion.” The other respondents affirmed that it is a document that com- panies must have but do not know what it is for. About the opportunity to see an Environmental License (Question 15), 58% of the respondents said they had never seen the document. In addition, only 9 (15%) of the respondents have ever followed the in- stallation of any enterprise in their neighborhood that has undergone environmental licensing (Question 16). Those who answered that they had followed the installation of some project in their neighborhood were asked if the community had been informed about the activity (Question 17). Of the nine respon- dents, four respondents said they were not informed about the work in question, three respondents said that both the company responsible for the licensing and the technicians from the environmental agency talked to the community, one respondent answered that only the tech- nicians from the environmental agency provided information to the community, and one respondent called attention to the Environmental Council and the City Council as a form of discussion and dissemina- tion about the activity. In addition, these respondents stated that several negative impacts could be perceived with some intensity, which directly influenced the quality of life of the surrounding communities (Question 18, Figure 6), demonstrating the weakness of the environmental agency. Furthermore, when questioned about the efficiency of environ- mental agencies in minimizing the negative effects of ventures that have been installed (Question 19), four respondents believe that, with- out this control, the effects caused by the installation and/or operation of ventures could be much more harmful. On the contrary, the other five respondents perceived the inefficiency of the environmental agen- cy, given that many negative effects were perceived. Besides, even when informed of the irregularities observed, no action was taken by the en- vironmental inspectors. It is important to emphasize that all situations observed represent forms of environmental degradation that should be avoided and/or minimized through environmental licensing. Therefore, the fact that the population perceives them ends up raising some doubt regarding the efficiency of licensing. It is worth noting that the population feels uncomfortable with the negative effects of the projects and that it could help to identify them. According to Giaretta et al. (2012), the population brings, through par- ticipation, knowledge and experiences that are inherent to it and that are often imperceptible to the local government and its agents. However, in order for society to play its role as a citizen inspector, it must first understand the rules stipulated by environmental agencies to allow the installation of a given enterprise, and above all, it must have a communication channel that connects the population and the environmental agency efficiently. For example, according to information provided by the Hen- rique Luiz Roessler State Foundation for Environmental Protection (FEPAM), the institution responsible for environmental licensing in the Rio Grande do Sul, most of the complaints filed by the pop- ulation with the state agency in the years 2020 and 2021 were not within its competence or were not valid, as can be seen in Figure 7 (FEPAM, 2021). Figure 6 – Situations observed by the population. Figure 7 – Information provided by FEPAM, Rio Grande do Sul environmental agency, referring to the complaints registered in the years 2020 and 2021. Hammes, H. F. et al. 566 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 This information reinforces the importance of capacitating the population, which shows that it is aware of what happens around it. However, without the necessary knowledge to discern what should or should not be taken to the environmental agency, it forces the efforts of the inspection teams to be directed to unnecessary situations. In this line of thought, Noga et al. (2021) reflected on the importance of sci- ence popularization, considered a valuable tool to transcend the tech- nical limits of environmental conservation and materialize in people’s daily lives, generating positive effects in society. Taking into account the extremely important role that the com- munity can play in favor of environmental preservation, respondents were asked if they would like to play a more active role in the envi- ronmental protection of their neighborhood (Question 20). It was observed that most people who answered this question would like to participate more actively (30.5%), either because they are knowl- edgeable in the area and would like to help or because they notice negative things happening but do not know who to turn to (37%). On the contrary, 15% of the respondents said they had no time to get involved in issues of this kind, and 7% said they had no interest in participating more actively because there was nothing wrong with their neighborhood. In addition, 5% mentioned that age and health problems are obstacles to more effective participation, and 3% said that there are already people working in their neighborhood and that their participation is dispensable. We also tried to explore what role the population believes it can play in searching for environmental protection (Question 21). The analysis of the answers allowed us to organize the ideas and suggestions into two groups, as can be seen in Figure 8. It can be seen, from the answers represented in Figure 8 that most respondents understand that, first of all, the population must acquire knowledge about environmental issues, requiring their constitutional right to environmental education as a form of empowerment for their active participation. According to Dutra et al. (2019), environmental education is able to bring the environmental theme into people’s daily lives, contributing to a behavioral change. Therefore, carrying out educational campaigns aimed at sharing knowledge by translating technical information into a more accessible language about the importance of licensing and in- spection, its procedures and the expected effects of an efficient perfor- mance are essential to draw the population’s attention to the subject. After gaining the involvement of the population, it is necessary to establish an efficient communication channel between the community and environmental agencies, given that another commonly reported complaint is that, when they perceive something threatening the envi- ronmental integrity, the population does not know who to turn to, nor what to do with the knowledge they have. Thus, the population, in addition to being fully aware of the partic- ularities of the environment in which they live, as well as of the tools available to protect it, would be able to seek information that should be made available on online sites about environmental licenses and their conditions. Once they perceived changes in the behavior and quality of the environment, they would trigger the environmental agencies aim- ing to restrain actions that are harmful to the environment. It should be noted that this type of engagement of the population, based on the encouragement of public authorities, characterizes a form of participatory management of decision-making processes that, through the appreciation of participants and rescue of their identities, enables the construction of a new type of citizenship based on engaged participation (Costa and Cunha, 2010). “Through full education, knowledge of and interaction with the environment in which people live, the strengthening of environmental empathy and perception for the landscape, even urban.” “First of all, the population needs to know what environmental licensing is all about, to be provided with information, to contextualize the positive and negative actions.” “Informing their perceptions and concerns about the enterprise”. “Serious and continued environmental education.” “The population does not have enough technical knowledge to give an opinion, but as people who know their region, they can collaborate by providing accurate information about what really impacts their lives and should therefore be considered during the analysis of environmental processes.” “The first step would be to raise awareness about the importance of environmental protection and the actions that take place around it.” “Dissemination of the main enterprises that are under discussion in the municipality with an impact assessment in accessible language.” “Participation in public policy through plebiscites, debates, and more democratic participation spaces.” “Increasing the spaces for public participation and social control.” “Participating in research on the subject, giving your opinion.” “Be more participative when called to meetings” “Participation in community meetings.” “Reporting irregularities, helping with fiscalization, demanding action from those responsible.” “Informing your perceptions and concerns about the enterprises.” “Demanding stricter rules for licensing from the government.” SUGGESTIONS FROM THE POPULATION Preparing the population to participate more actively Ways of participation About how they could collaborate with the environmental agencies to protect the environment. Figure 8 – Suggestions from the population about how they could collaborate with the environmental agencies to protect the environment. Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices 567 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 However, as highlighted by Do Carmo and Silva (2013, p. 4), It is important to understand that public policies are adopted at a given time and within a given context, that the government has political power to make decisions according to the preferences and interests of the various actors and that, in a democratic govern- ment, such preferences and interests are permanently negotiated. Understanding the peculiarities of this process is the first step to act towards the improvement of public environmental policies in a context of an imperfect democracy, in which some actors have more power than others. Thus, the construction of participatory agendas, such as those mentioned above, depends, to a great extent, on the ability of managers to understand that popular action can positively add to environmental protection policies, helping to make licensing increasingly efficient. At the end of their participation in this research, the respondents summarized their position on environmental issues and popular par- ticipation in decision-making processes that can influence environ- mental licensing. According to respondents, environmental licensing can be very efficient if committed to inspection. Furthermore, due to the current stage of degradation in which the environments are, in addition to in- vesting in prevention and preservation policies, it is extremely neces- sary to join efforts in favor of the recovery of impacted areas, given that, in a capitalist system, the environment is seen as a source of re- sources, to the detriment of its performance as a basis for sustaining life. It is only by changing this system that you can actually control the environmental impacts. In addition, with regard to the participation of the population in the licensing process, it is necessary to disseminate guidelines in ac- cessible language to facilitate popular inspection and allow for more assertive irregularity news. Finally, there is a consensus among respondents that the awareness of society must be continuous and that the rules stipulated by environ- mental agencies should be more accessible to the population. Conclusions Through this study, it was possible to observe that the population has an active environmental perception, since they understand the environment in which they live and understand the negative effects of anthropic actions on their quality of life. However, environmental awareness, composed of attributes such as attitude, behavior, and cog- nitive aspects, must be improved. The results of this research show that the population recognizes itself as one of those responsible for the environmental degradation that affects its quality of life. Thus, by being aware that they know the particularities of the environment in which they live, as well as being able to perceive errors and successes in the decision-making of public management that directly influence their daily lives, they find the mo- tivation to participate in this process. On the contrary, there is an understanding that the forms of par- ticipation offered by the public power are still presented as complex events, in which the citizen does not see himself as a functional part. Unmotivated, they no longer exercise their direct participation, dele- gating this right to a representative. There is, therefore, a desire to sim- plify the methods offered by public management for the exercise of citizenship, so that the citizen feels at ease to expose the knowledge he has about the region where he lives. Thus, we conclude that the engagement of the population affected by the decisions of the public power can be the driving force for a more just and participatory society, whose success is influenced by factors related to environmental education, aimed at the formation of envi- ronmental awareness, the availability of information, from the trans- parency of actions, and the simplification of the forms of democratic participation that are closer to the citizen. Contribution of authors: HAMMES, H. F.: Conceptualization; Data Curation; Formal Analysis; Acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project Administration; Visualization; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review & Editing. SIQUEIRA, T. M.: Conceptualization; Data Curation; Formal Analysis; Acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project Administration; Supervision; Visualization; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review & Editing. KAISER, M. F.: Visualization; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review & Editing. GUTERRES, D. S.: Visualization; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review & Editing. MARQUES, D. S.: Supervision; Writing – Review & Editing. References Abreu, E.L.; Fonseca, A., 2017. Análise comparada da descentralização do licenciamento ambiental em municípios dos estados de Minas Gerais e Piauí. Sustentabilidade em Debate, v. 8, (3), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.18472/ SustDeb.v8n3.2017.21891. Alves, A.F.S.; Resende, L.J., 2020. A relevância da mediação de conflitos socioambientais para a conscientização ambiental da sociedade contemporânea. Trayectorias Humanas Trascontinentales, (7), 63-78. https:// doi.org/10.25965/trahs.2082. https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v8n3.2017.21891 https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v8n3.2017.21891 https://doi.org/10.25965/trahs.2082 https://doi.org/10.25965/trahs.2082 Hammes, H. F. et al. 568 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 Alves, J.L.M.; Canestrini, V.G., 2020. A proteção ao meio ambiente como questão transnacional: solidariedade e fraternidade como novos pontos de partida. In: Piffer, C.; Garcia, D. S. S. (Eds.), Globalização e transnacionalidade (recurso eletrônico). Univali, Itajaí, pp. 205-220. Andrade, M.C., 2019. A legitimidade do direito no contexto dos processos de validação discursiva e da democracia. CSOnline, (29), 260-275. https://doi. org/10.34019/1981-2140.2019.17573. Assunção, L.O., 2018. O licenciamento ambiental brasileiro e as possibilidades de participação popular. Redes, v. 6, (2), 137-157. https://doi.org/10.18316/ REDES.v6i2.4097. Barros, C.S.; Silva, M.A.C.; Bezerra, E.P.; Ribeiro, R.M., 2017. Análise do processo de licenciamento ambiental: um estudo de caso na cidade de Sobral – CE. ScientiaTec, v. 4, (1), 72-89. https://doi.org/10.35819/scientiatec.v4i1.2092. Borile, G.O.; Calgaro. C., 2016. Democracia, participação e desenvolvimento sustentável: o caminho da nova democracia ambiental brasileira e a proteção do meio ambiente. Revista Contribuciones a las Ciencias Sociales, v. 3, 1-9. Bragagnolo, C.; Lemos, C.C.; Ladle, R.J.; Pellin, A., 2017. Streamlining or sidestepping? Political pressure to revise environmental licensing and EIA in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 65, 86-90. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.010. Brasil, 1981. Lei nº 6.938/1981. (Accessed December, 2021). Available at:. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l6938.htm. Brasil, 1988. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Brasília. Brasil, 1997. Resolução CONAMA 237/97. (Accessed December, 2021). Available at:. http://www2.mma.gov.br/port/conama/res/res97/res23797.html. Bratman, E.; Dias, C.B., 2018. Development blind spots and environmental impact assessment: tensions between policy, law and practice in Brazil’s Xingu river basin. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 70, 1-10. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.02.001. Canestrini, V.G.; Garcia, D.S.S., 2021. O observatório social como exercício de democracia e sua interface com a legislação ambiental. Revista Brasileira de Filosofia do Direito, v. 7, (2), 112-127. https://doi.org/10.26668/ IndexLawJournals/2526-012X/2021.v7i2.8339. Canotilho, J. J. G., 2010. O princípio da sustentabilidade como princípio estruturante do direito constitucional. Tékhne, v. 8, (13), 7-18. Cirne, M.B.; Fernandes, I.M.M.; Gama, F.C.P., 2022. Participação social no licenciamento ambiental federal de usinas hidrelétricas. RDP, v. 19, (101), 510- 537. https://doi.org/10.11117/rdp.v19i101.3850. Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI). Consulta sobre Licenciamento Ambiental. Confederação Nacional da Indústria, Brasília, 2019. Costa, B.R.L., 2018. Bola de neve virtual: o uso das redes sociais virtuais no processo de coleta de dados de uma pesquisa científica. Revista Interdisciplinar de Gestão Social, v. 7, (1), 2018. Costa, F.L.; Cunha, A.P.G., 2010. Seven mistaken theses about citzen participation: the dilemma of direct democracy in Brazil. Organizações e Sociedade, v. 17, (54), 543-553. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-92302010000300007. Cullen-Knox, C.; Eccleston, R.; Haward, M; Lester, E.; Vince, J., 2017. Contemporary challenges in environmental governance: technology, governance and the social licence. Environmental Policy and Governance, v. 27, (1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1743. Di Marco, C.A.F.; Passador, C.S., 2020. Participação social na Administração Pública do Brasil: um panorama histórico de sua gênese. VII Encontro Brasileiro de Administração Pública (online). Do Carmo, A.B.; Silva, A.S., 2013. Licenciamento ambiental federal no Brasil: perspectiva histórica, poder e tomada de decisão em um campo em tensão. Confins (Online), (19). https://doi.org/10.4000/confins.8555. Domingos, H.R.A.; Lanchotti, A.D.O.; Diz, J.B.M., 2016. Audiências públicas: instrumento de participação popular na tomada de decisão em meio ambiente. Belo Horizonte, 108 p. Duarte, C.G.; Ferreira, V.H.; Sánchez, L.E., 2016. Analisando audiências públicas no licenciamento ambiental: quem são e o que dizem os participantes sobre projetos de usinas de cana-de-açúcar. Saúde e Sociedade, v. 25, (4), 1075- 1094. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-12902016151668. Dutra, A.C.; Mederiros, G.; Gianelli, B., 2019. Avaliação do ciclo de vida como uma ferramenta de análise de impactos ambientais e conceito aplicados em programas educativos. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences, (51), 15- 27. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820190399. Fernandes, R.S.; Dias, D.G.M.C.; Serafim, G.S.; Albuquerque, A., 2008. Avaliação da percepção ambiental da sociedade frente ao conhecimento da legislação ambiental básica. Direito, Estado e Sociedade, (33), 149-160. https:// doi.org/10.17808/des.33.242. Fink, A., 2002. How to design survey studies. Sage, Los Angeles, 96 p. Fornasier, M.O., 2015. Regulação do risco ambiental nanotecnológico e participação democrática: possibilidades e óbices. Veredas do Direito, v. 12, (24), 63-95. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v12i24.465. Fundação Estadual de Proteção Ambiental Henrique Luiz Roessler (FEPAM), 2021. Denúncias à FEPAM: Relatório Anual. FEPAM. E-mail. Giaretta, J.B.Z.; Fernandes, V.; Philippi Jr., A., 2012. Desafios e condicionantes da participação social na gestão ambiental municipal no Brasil. Organizações & Sociedade, v. 19, (62), 527-550. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984- 92302012000300009. Gilliland, E.S.; Sarver, E.A.; Krometis, L.H.; Karmis, M., 2017. Public engagement and sustainable energy development. Geo-Resources Environment and Engineering, v. 2, 189-195. https://doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.034. Henkel, K., 2017. A categorização e a validação das respostas abertas em surveys políticos. Opinião Pública, v. 23, (3), 786-808. https://doi. org/10.1590/1807-01912017233786. Klering, L.R.; Kruel, A.J.; Stranz, E., 2012. Os pequenos municípios do Brasil – uma análise a partir de índices de gestão. Revista de Administração da PUCRS, v. 23, (1), 31-44. Loomis, J.J.; Dziedzic, M., 2018. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: a state of the art. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 68, 29-37. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005. Machado, L.B.; Agra-Filho, S.S., 2022. Licenciamento ambiental municipal: uma análise dos critérios apreciados pelos órgãos municipais. Revista Eletrônica de Gestão e Tecnologias Ambientais, v. 9, (3), 46-61. https://doi. org/10.9771/gesta.v9i3.44041. Maldaner, K.; Lima, A.M.; Akama, A.; Marques, E., 2019. A avaliação ambiental integrada e os cenários socioeconômicos de municípios impactados pelas usinas hidrelétricas peixe angical e são salvador no Rio Tocantins. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences, (52), 119-134. https:// doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820190094. Mayring, P., 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey, G., Mruck, K. (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp. 601-613. Milaré, E., 2015. Direito do ambiente: a gestão ambiental em foco. 10ª ed. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo. https://doi.org/10.34019/1981-2140.2019.17573 https://doi.org/10.34019/1981-2140.2019.17573 https://doi.org/10.18316/REDES.v6i2.4097 https://doi.org/10.18316/REDES.v6i2.4097 https://doi.org/10.35819/scientiatec.v4i1.2092 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.010 http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l6938.htm http://www2.mma.gov.br/port/conama/res/res97/res23797.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.02.001 https://doi.org/10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2526-012X/2021.v7i2.8339 https://doi.org/10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2526-012X/2021.v7i2.8339 https://doi.org/10.11117/rdp.v19i101.3850 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-92302010000300007 https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1743 https://doi.org/10.4000/confins.8555 https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-12902016151668 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820190399 https://doi.org/10.17808/des.33.242 https://doi.org/10.17808/des.33.242 https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v12i24.465 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-92302012000300009 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-92302012000300009 https://doi.org/10.15273/gree.2017.02.034 https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-01912017233786 https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-01912017233786 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005 https://doi.org/10.9771/gesta.v9i3.44041 https://doi.org/10.9771/gesta.v9i3.44041 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820190094 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820190094 Impressions of public opinion on environmental licensing and popular participation in decisions regarding the design and implementation of public management practices 569 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.4 | Dez 2022 | 555-569 - ISSN 2176-9478 Nascimento, T.; Abreu, E.L.; Fonseca, A., 2020. Decentralization of environmental licensing and impact assessment in Brazil: literature and regulatory reviews. Ambiente e Sociedade, v. 23, e02662. https://doi. org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20180266r2vu2020L1AO. Nascimento, T.; Fonseca, A., 2017. A descentralização do licenciamento ambiental na percepção de partes interessadas de 84 municípios brasileiros. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, v. 43, (spe. ed.), 152-170. https://doi. org/10.5380/dma.v43i0.54177. Noga, P.; Antiqueira, L.O.R.; Jacinski, E., 2021. Connecting environmental education, science–technology–society and ecological theory: possible pathways to reduce socioenvironmental problems. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences, v. 56, (3), 491-500. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z21769478996. Novelli, A.L.R., 2006. O papel institucional da Comunicação Pública para o sucesso da Governança. Organicom, v. 3, (4), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.11606/ issn.2238-2593.organicom.2006.138912. Queiroz, I.N.L.F.; Miller, F.S., 2018. Democracia e participação popular no licenciamento ambiental de um empreendimento eólico em São Miguel do Gostoso - RN. Revista Direito Ambiental e Sociedade, v. 8, (1), 237-264. Rodorff, V.; Siegmund-Schultze, M.; Köppel, J.; Gomes, E., 2015. Governança da bacia hidrográfica do Rio São Francisco: desafios de escala sob olhares inter e transdisciplinares. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences, (36), 19-44. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820151003. Romeiro, A.R., 2012. Sustainable development: an ecological economics perspective. Dossiê Sustentabilidade, v. 26, (74), 65-92. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0103-40142012000100006. Sánches, L.H., 2013. Avaliação de impacto ambiental: conceitos e métodos. 2ª ed. Oficina de Textos, São Paulo, 40 p. Sant’anna, M.L.; Olifiers, N.; Namen, A.A., 2021. Percepção da população do bairro Tijuca (RJ) quanto aos resíduos sólidos e à logística reversa. Revista Ibero Americana de Ciências Ambientais, v. 12, (11), 174-186. https://doi. org/10.6008/CBPC2179-6858.2021.011.0016. Santos, C. 2020. Estratégias bioclimáticas de projetos para melhores desempenhos ambientais em universidades no sul baiano. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences, v. 55, (1), 122-144. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176- 947820200540. Schlegelmilch, B.; Bohlen, G.M.; Diamantopoulos, A., 1996. The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, v. 30, (5), 35-55. https://doi. org/10.1108/03090569610118740. Silva, J.A. da., 2016. Direito constitucional ambiental. 4ª ed. São Paulo, Forense, 1995 p. Van-Putten, I.E.; Cvitanovic, C.; Fulton, E.; Lacey, J.; Kelly, R., 2018. The emergence of social licence necessitates reforms in environmental regulation. Ecology and Society, v. 23, (3), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 10397-230324. Verdum, R.; Medeiros, R.M.V.D., 2014. Rima - relatório de impacto ambiental: legislação, elaboração e resultados. UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 300 p. Vieira, A.C.; Harrison, D.M.; Bueno, M.; Guimarães, N., 2018. Use of the FacebookTM social network in data collection and dissemination of evidence. Escola Anna Nery, v. 22, (3), e20170376. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-9465- EAN-2017-0376. Vieira, S., 2009. Como elaborar questionários. Atlas, 176 p. Weder, F., 2021. Strategic problematization of sustainability reframing dissent in strategic communication for transformation. Public Relations Inquiry, v. 11, (3), 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X211026857. Zanini, A.M.; Rocha, M.B., 2020. Relação de comunidades do entorno com as unidades de conservação. Terrae Didatica, v. 16, e020037. https://doi. org/10.20396/td.v16i0.8660516. Zhouri, A., 2008. Justiça ambiental, diversidade cultural e accountability: desafios para a governança ambiental. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 23, (68), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092008000300007. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20180266r2vu2020L1AO https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20180266r2vu2020L1AO https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v43i0.54177 https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v43i0.54177 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z21769478996 https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2238-2593.organicom.2006.138912 https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2238-2593.organicom.2006.138912 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820151003 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142012000100006 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142012000100006 https://doi.org/10.6008/CBPC2179-6858.2021.011.0016 https://doi.org/10.6008/CBPC2179-6858.2021.011.0016 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820200540 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820200540 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569610118740 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569610118740 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10397-230324 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10397-230324 https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-9465-EAN-2017-0376 https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-9465-EAN-2017-0376 https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X211026857 https://doi.org/10.20396/td.v16i0.8660516 https://doi.org/10.20396/td.v16i0.8660516 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092008000300007