Beyond support rates: assessing evidence of knowledge, concerns and response chains in Chinese EIA public participation reports

High support rates are often presented as evidence of successful public participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA), yet a percentage alone says little about how views were formed or addressed. This article develops a framework for documentary evidence on knowledge, concerns and response chains and applies it to two Chinese EIA participation reports; the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey provides context only. Survey estimates for education and reported action are imprecise or model-dependent. Case A reports 99.7% support for a chemical industrial park planning revision, although only 44.2% selected ‘very clear’ on a self-reported awareness item. In Case B, all 288 respondents (100.0%) supported a waste-to-energy project and 94.8% selected ‘very clear’; neither report directly tested understanding. Within the report-framed audit subset, response-chain evidence is borderline moderate for Case A (six of 12 units moderate) and weak for Case B (three of 16). Neither report provides a complete chain from concern and source to decision, measure, responsibility, implementation and verification. These ratings describe the audited subset, not participation effectiveness. Support rates alone cannot substantiate meaningful participation, and response-chain documentation can make such claims more auditable.