Digital environmental impact assessment: An exploration of emerging digital approaches for non-technical reports

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool for providing systematic assessment to identify environmental, social, and economic impacts of significant developments. Through a series of technical assessments, public-facing reports are produced, including non-technical summaries of larger reports- these documents communicate assessment outcomes to non-technical public stakeholders during consultation. Consultation approaches have stagnated and achieve minimal feedback with a notable age-bias based on low turn-outs at consultation events. Digital technology is being promoted to create a widely accessible, engaging, information source to aid public knowledge and awareness of EIA outcomes. In recent years, progressive digital reporting approaches such as Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) StoryMaps, purpose-built web-solutions and bespoke-built websites, have been adopted by environmental and engineering consultancies to digitalise EIA public-facing reports.The 1998 Aarhus Convention sets out fundamental requirements for public participation within environmental decision-making, requiring inclusivity, accessibility and transparency. Consultation phases are increasingly utilising digitalised reports for their non-technical stakeholder audience, and therefore need to fulfil Aarhus requirements. This study explored the usability of digitalised public-facing documents. Interactive digital reports intended for a non-technical audience, using the interface formats ESRI StoryMaps, purpose-built web solutions and bespoke websites, were focused on due to their increasing use within public EIS reporting in engineering and environmental consultancies operating globally. Three research approaches were employed: a usability test of a purpose-built interactive digital document, interviews with digital EIA practitioners and a comparative cartographic and interface feature review. We found evidence of a digital divide between age groups and ability to effectively utilise a precedent digital report- with older users (aged 66+) less able to access information and avoid errors. Digital literacy on its own was not a reliable indicator of a user's ability to navigate a digital environment but is likely compounded by other factors such as cognitive function among older users. Practitioners saw opportunities in digitalised reports but recognised limitations in their value to some users. Current digital reporting practice presents initial usability issues, indicating direction for essential development towards a receptor-based, personalised, report.