Environmental assessments in the Internet age: the role of e-governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation

Abstract

Critical to impact assessments (IA) evolution has been the advent of more meaningful processes for participation. The use of the Internet as a tool of participation, as well as the scope and ambition of IA, has been growing since their inception. This work explores e-governance and social media in IA and the potential contribution these may make to meaningful public participation. Research is informed by literature and case studies in Hong Kong and Canada. The cases and literature revealed that e-governance in IA is used predominantly for sharing information and not for generating dialogue. Social media is used primarily by participants to share information, but is also to organize themselves and their input to IA cases. In addition, we found the innovative use of virtual cloud environments for collaboration and the establishment of one of the first websites for starting, signing and submitting public petitions with a focus on the local environment. Suggestions are made regarding how to better connect the rise in e-participation and conventional IA public participation.

Keywords:

• Impact assessment
• public participation
• e-governance
• social media
• Hong Kong
• Canada

Context

Impact assessment (IA), the process of considering the economic, social and environmental ramifications of a proposed project, has many forms and is now carried out in over a hundred countries worldwide and has deep roots in many nations. Critical to its evolution has been the advent of more meaningful processes for participation in IA (Stewart & Sinclair 2007; Sinclair & Diduck 2016a). As observed by Devlin et al. (2005), Petts (1999), O’Faircheallaigh (2010), Morgan (2012), and others, public participation has long been recognized as a cornerstone of IA. In fact, for some, the basic legitimacy of an IA process is questionable if the process does not provide for meaningful participation (Webler et al. 1995; Roberts 1998; Gibson 2012) while others indicate that such participation is reflective of the ‘new thinking of concepts like deliberative democracy, collaborative rationality and environmental justice’ (Morgan 2012, p. 9).

The use of e-participation (Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010; Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016), as well as the scope and ambition of IA, has been growing since their inception (Gibson et al. 2005). Many recognize that new and interactive methods must be utilized to communicate information and attract more participants (IAIA Session Discussion 2016). Government decision-makers and IA practitioners have adopted the Internet as a helpful tool for electronically disseminating the IA registry and other information about a proposed project (Geldermann & Rentz 2003; Fredericks & Foth 2013; Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016). Electronic dissemination has proven to be a cost effective way of reaching many disperse people with the relevant information and is typically used in many jurisdictions (Geldermann & Rentz 2003; Dietz & Stern 2008; Fredericks & Foth 2013). The Internet provides an electronic platform for information sharing and ensures that the public has timely access to all relevant information that is necessary to make an informed decision (Geldermann & Rentz 2003; Odparlik & Köppel 2013). Practice has shown, however, that presenting registries on the Internet is not always a direct legal obligation (Odparlik & Köppel 2013). Further, even when registries are available on the Internet some documents may be unavailable for proprietary and privacy reasons (Odparlik & Köppel 2013). Unavailable documents can be challenging for participants who have only a brief period to prepare for participation (Sinclair et al. 2012; Odparlik & Köppel 2013).

Though using electronic platforms to educate and inform participants is not new, finding ways to use the electronic tools to engage the public in meaningful participation and planning is relatively novel and is emerging in practice and literature (Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010; Kleinhans et al. 2015; IAIA Session Discussion 2016). Electronic tools have thus far been explored more thoroughly in planning ventures other than IA but are being investigated for usefulness in IA (Geldermann & Rentz 2003; Dietz & Stern 2008; Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016). The Internet is especially attractive because of its ability to connect geographically diverse people and those who may have limited time and interest in traditional participation and face-to-face meetings (Dietz & Stern 2008; Fischer et al. 2009). Perhaps since many IAs have well defined and relatively small geographic scale there has been little need for electronic participation until recently. With more ‘wicked’ environmental issues emerging, characterized by larger geographic scope and more stakeholders and participants, conceivably IA practitioners will move towards more electronic and Internet-based participation (e.g. Geldermann & Rentz 2003; Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016).

The IA literature seems to suggest that using electronic technologies for participation is beneficial (Weber et al. 2003; Dietz & Stern 2008; Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010; Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016). For example, there is potential for electronic forums to create the two-way interaction among participants and also between the public and decision-makers (Abelson et al. 2003; Fredericks & Foth 2013). However, some have found that social media and online participation in IA can lead to polarization in a way that face-to-face participation does not (Price et al. 2002; Iyengar et al. 2003; Dietz & Stern 2008; IAIA Session Discussion 2016). Participants may feel that, through their cursory online involvement, they are ‘voting’ for a preferred outcome instead of truly participating in the process (IAIA Session Discussion 2016). This can be described as a divide between new forms of participation (i.e. electronic) and old institutions (Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010; Fredericks & Foth 2013). Evans-Cowley and Hollander suggest,

citizens can participate in social networking to voice their opinions, but the public hearing is the legal instrument of decision-making. If citizens do not provide letters in writing or appear at a public hearing, their opinion may not be heard. (Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010, p. 399)

The recent IA literature on participation also establishes that use of innovative communication and participation methods and technologies is an important step in moving towards next generation participation processes (Lawrence 2013; Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016; Sinclair & Diduck 2016b). There is an opportunity and an imperative to move past simply posting EA registries online, by finding innovative ways to enhance transparency by helping people piece together and contextualize the flood of information available in complicated resource development decision processes though the use of information and communication technologies (ICT’s) and social media. The Königslutter Landscape Plan in Germany utilized ‘web-based interactive mapping and text based participation’ and noted substantial increases in public comment and involvement, creating higher project acceptance and a more democratic decision (Fischer et al. 2009, p. 2). Another good example of innovative e-participation comes from Iceland where consultants have created an interactive project online where the public can connect with materials beyond the standard EA including scalable maps, detailed images of the proposed project and viewscapes of the areas.¹ Decision-makers should use these techniques to bring people together and to foster the sorts of collaboration, sharing, and critical discussion that are central needs of next generation impact assessment (Sinclair & Diduck 2016b).

Our purpose here is to explore evolution in the use of e-governance and social media in IA and thereby its potential contribution to meaningful public participation through considering the use of electronic tools by government decision-makers, proponents and public participants as a means to help people understand IA decisions at hand and to influence those decisions.

Approach

We approached our purpose by taking into account the literature and recent IA case-based experience in Hong Kong and Canada. We selected these two jurisdictions due to their long IA experience and because we have each garnered years of experience with IA through both project participation and involvement in developing legislative direction. We adopted a qualitative research method and utilized a case study strategy of inquiry (Yin 2013). The case study strategy allowed us to consider several cases by collecting data from different information sources using multiple collection procedures (Creswell 2013). The IA cases selected for study were chosen because they were recent, had gained significant public attention, and had evidence of the use of e-participation to mobilize and engage people. Once selected, we reviewed relevant case documents, such as impact statements, panel reports, and in each case the project websites created, systematically looking for evidence of e-participation. We also spoke to a handful of people who helped to design and guide the participatory processes outlined. We used these opportunities to confirm what we learned from the document review and to gain insights about e-participation not contained in those documents. We then analysed the data by looking for key e-participation activities as established in the literature (e.g. electronic registry) and by identifying themes grounded in the data (e.g. cloud computing).

Experiences from Hong Kong

ICT tools have a significant role in participation in Hong Kong. Data show that ICT tools such as inexpensive portable mobile and smart phone devices, wireless Internet and new social media platforms allow communities and shared interest groups to unite in the cyber world of e-participation, activism and the projection of the community’s voice. In urbanized Hong Kong, according to a 2015 posting by the Office of the Communications Authority, the penetration rate of mobile phone subscribers is 229.1%. This figure means that there are 2.2 mobile phones in use for every man, woman, and child in the region (Office of the Communications Authority 2015). As for the use of Internet services, statistics from the Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shows that, in 2012, nearly 80% of households in Hong Kong have personal computers that are connected to the Internet (Census & Statistics Department Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 2013). This is a significant increase from the 36.4% household Internet connection rate that Hong Kong had in 2000.

Extreme virtual connection lends itself nicely to rallying and organizing. The early adopters in Hong Kong’s e-participation were the interveners in the planning of infrastructure and development projects, in both the public and the private sectors. E-participation spaces allowed interveners to freely raise their concerns with a significant and almost immediate influence on the community. For instance, in 2010 Christina Chan, a young activist aroused public attention via her Facebook. She successfully called project opponents to come forward and surround Hong Kong’s Legislative Complex in a wildfire protest regarding the construction of a multi-billion dollar high-speed rail link between Hong Kong and its Mainland China neighbour, Guangzhou.

Aside from individual activists, non-government organizations (NGOs) and interveners of specific projects have also used social media to share and rapidly multiply their points of view on other infrastructure projects in Hong Kong. For example, World Wildlife Fund launched an email petition campaign in Hong Kong in opposition of the IA of a Liquefied Natural Gas terminal site project as early as 2007 (World Wide Fund for Nature 2015). Over 20,000 petition signatures were submitted during the formal IA public consultation period. The two cases mentioned above demonstrate that social media should be regarded as a rapid response ‘opinion-amplifier’ that is able to quickly bring together public voices in a more effective way then conventional media, such as print, TV and radio news.

In Hong Kong, we found the use of the Internet for dissemination of project information and expression of public opinion in most government planning, infrastructure and development projects. A current Hong Kong example is the Tung Chung New Town Extension Study. This project focuses on the future development of Tung Chung, one of the latest in a series of new towns in Hong Kong, from an 85,000 to a 220,000 person community to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for land and housing in the city. By setting up an official Study website, the Hong Kong Government’s Civil Engineering, Development and Planning Departments are able to drive the agenda and control the information flow about the new town expansion by providing continually updated and accurate details of the project (Civil Engineering and Development Department and Planning Department 2012). This form of e-participation and public engagement allows existing and future residents of Tung Chung, environmental and other non-government interest groups, district representatives and media to instantly view or download information. E-versions of Public Engagement materials such as event dates and venues, leaflets, promotional videos and the principal summary public engagement document called a Public Engagement Digest, which contains information on the study background and details of the three-stage public participation process, are available on the study site. The website is especially useful for encouraging the public to join the various conventional public participation activities that are designed to allow the proponent to share plans at key milestones and collect public views. The website allows all Internet connected citizens to be informed before voicing their opinions on the development. Citizens may voice these opinions either by the traditional face-to-face attendance at events, by means of telephone, fax, and by e-mail via a downloadable opinion form that is available from the website.

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) of the Hong Kong Government has also set up a website for the environmental impact assessment ordinance (EIAO) (2015). The EIAO clearly explains the entire IA process, in a lay/non-technical language, and identifies periods when the community can submit their comments on issues that they would wish to be considered and examined in environmental studies of development projects. This e-participation tool is useful for both the project proponents and interested parties, such as interest and green groups and the media. Proponents can submit their IA Study Briefs, Environmental Permits, Variations of an Environmental Permit, and also submit supplementary information under various sections of the EIAO (EPD 2014). The public may comment on and search for desired information on the website, which is updated in real time with pertinent details and information. Participants may access and search the website by going through the different areas and district sub-sections, or by clicking directly on an interactive map of Hong Kong. They can also alphabetically search for the application history of designated projects or via key words. An opinion form is also available for the public to download if they wish to submit their opinion formally during statutory public consultation periods, similar to the Tung Chung New Town Extension Study website.

We also found a more recent and increasing trend of using SMS as a tool to better deliver public services and organize public participation events by the Hong Kong Government. One of the recent examples is the organization of a public forum for the North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study. In the final public engagement exercise, over 10,000 people registered to attend, providing a major organizational challenge. While a larger venue had to be arranged, the government also adopted ICT tools such as emails and SMS notification to confirm with registered attendees and disseminate details of the forum (Civil Engineering & Development Department & Planning Department 2013).

Additionally, ‘Really Simple Syndication’ (or ‘Rich Site Summary’, RSS) has also been widely used by the government in delivering news and important information on policies and programmes to members of the public. RSS messages can be read instantly and are shown as feeds on any computer or ‘smart phone’ installed with compatible software. With suitable configuration, RSS feeds could be automatically updated with a wide range of information that the user subscribes to. In Hong Kong, the EPD has adopted the RSS technology with different channels for disseminating information including news, highlights, events and activities, press releases, newsletter and the Air Quality Health Index (EPD 2014). Additionally, lists of IAs released in the EIAO register website are updated and sent to RSS subscribers every three months. As well, any new gazetted statutory plan posted in the Statutory Planning Portal is also served by RSS technology. There are two sets of systems for members of the public to choose from in order to keep track on any updates to the existing statutory plans. They could, therefore, be kept informed with necessary information that allows them to make comments and submissions during the period of representation to Town Planning Board.

Experiences from Canada

The use of ICT tools, such as those outlined above, is also widespread in Canada and they are used extensively for e-participation, activism and as a platform for community voice. However, unlike Hong Kong there are still some challenges particularly related to connectivity and the cost of wireless communication. In the Province of Manitoba, home to our first case study example, only about 80% of Manitobans had home Internet access in 2012, according to the latest Stats Canada figure (2013). In Alberta and British Columbia, both implicated in our second case, the figure is 86% for the same year. As well, in terms of cell phone use some of the regions of each province outside the largest cities still have somewhat unreliable cell phone services, or no service at all, and often where it is available it is not 3G/4G. One does not have to go very far north of Manitoba’s Provincial Capital city, Winnipeg, to have spotty, little, or no service. Many First Nations do, however, have connectivity and widely use the Internet. These points have implications for IA e-governance in Canada since many of the contentious resource developments proposed are in rural areas and the north. All provinces, territories and the Federal Government maintain web-sites and registries for IA-related law, policy and other information, as well as IA case registries (e.g. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 2015).

The recent Keeyask hydroelectric project development proposal in Manitoba provides a useful case example. Keeyask is a 695 megawatt hydroelectric facility under development in northern Manitoba along the lower Nelson River (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2014). The energy generated at Keeyask will be integrated into Manitoba Hydro’s electric system and will be used in Manitoba and for export to other provinces and the United States. The Project is being developed as a partnership between Manitoba Hydro and four Manitoba First Nations communities, known as the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. The Partnership worked together to innovatively propose this project.

There were several opportunities for public involvement, including a Public Involvement Program led by the Partnership during project development, government-led public consultation on the IA and with potentially affected Aboriginal communities, public Clean Environment Commission (CEC) hearings, and a public Needs For and Alternatives To Review led by the Public Utilities Board. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship have an online Public Registry that has the filings from the IA available to the public and also provides opportunity to file public comments (Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship 2014, 2015). The CEC maintains a website with application forms to receive participant funding or register to make a public presentation, e-registration for updates, hearing transcripts, hearing reports and hearing updates, all of which were used in this case (Manitoba Clean Environment Commission 2015). The commission also uses video conference/Skype links for people to present from distant locations.

The Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership also made the IA filings and other supporting documents available online through their partnership website² (Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership 2015). This site provided detailed information throughout the development and decision-making process. Everything from EIS documents, technical memos and reports to maps and photos were posted on the site and available for all to review. The site also provides opportunity to contact the partners and will now be used to post monitoring and reports to government since the project was approved and is being developed. Participants also used ICTs for their preparation and participation. The Consumers Association of Manitoba was a key participant in the case, with the Manitoba Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) bringing together experts from various fields from across the country to provide input on behalf of the Association. The development of the expert input by PILC for the hearing panel – that covered eight main themes, ranging from a health impact assessment of Keeyask to an assessment of the impact of the project on Lake Sturgeon – was all carried out by electronic means – primarily e-mail and Skype.

Manitoba Hydro developed some unique approaches for working together with their partners and internal and external teams for the Keeyask project. They established a virtual cloud environment outside of MB Hydro’s mainframe system that could be accessed by company employees, partners and other external team members (e.g. IA consultants). The cloud was used as a collaborative space for the Partners (not the public) to work together on IA documents, to coordinate activities, to respond to and refine documents and many other tasks (Cole, personal communication, June 2015). For example, when the Partners were responding to the over 1000 interrogatory questions on the EIS over 150 authors were involved. Using the cloud environment, responses could be developed collaboratively among core authors. Draught and final documents were available when they needed to be, everyone had access to current versions, tasks were automated and notification was sent to review teams. This put an end to several rounds of often large e-mail attachments (and the difficulty tracking versions), and allowed for much more robust and collaborative responses (Cole, personal communication, June 2015). An external company manages the cloud for the partnership and MB Hydro has internal employees that manage the site. The site was, and is, a big investment and required a change in thinking about how communication and collaboration can take place during project development (Cole, personal communication, June 2015).

Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is a proposed twin pipeline from the northern Alberta Oil Sands (tar sands) to Kitimat, British Columbia as well as a marine terminal in Kitimat (NEB 2012) and provides examples of the use of e-governance and social media in a highly contentious case. The proposed pipelines are approximately 1,170 km long. The westbound line would carry thinned bitumen petroleum products from the Oil Sands and the eastbound line would carry condensate to thin the bitumen for pipeline transport. The project proponent is Enbridge Inc., a pipeline manufacturing company. The project has caused plenty of conflict, over 60 First Nation groups in the area have organized in part through social media and signed the ‘Save the Fraser Declaration’, which recognizes the potential threat an oil spill could have on the environment (especially the river and salmon populations) and the First Nations’ right and responsibilities to protect the area (Gathering of Nations 2014). Many people and organizations across the country have joined together to oppose this project – both for direct environmental protection and as a way to combat climate change and our reliance on cheap fossil fuels – and maintain a web presence and communicate through social media (Pipe up Against Enbridge 2014). In her analysis of Twitter activity related to the oil sands and pipeline proposal White (2013) found that the main function of tweets was to disseminate information (57.5%) followed by mobilizing action (24.5%) and that much of the activity was generated by environmental non-governmental organizations. She concludes that Twitter played an important role in mobilizing action and creating communities of interest. Globe media also reported that Twitter was ‘lit up’ with reaction to the Federal Government’s positive decision on Northern Gateway and reported extensively on the mostly negative tweets (Global News 2014).

In getting to a decision the Northern Gateway project underwent a Joint Panel Review (JPR) under the National Energy Board (NEB 2014). The JRP hearings were held in different locations and allowed interested people to participate (NEB 2011). There were four kinds of participation available: letter of comment, oral statement, intervenor, and government participant. A letter of comment is a written letter, sent to the JRP, which explains the participant’s knowledge, concerns and views on the Northern Gateway Project. These letters can be submitted via email, fax, or mail and there is no need to register to send in a letter of comment. All letters are available on the project’s on-line public registry. An oral statement is a way for a participant to present their knowledge, concerns, and views on the project to the JRP in person at a hearing. Participants need to register to present an oral statement. To register, a participant may call or register online by completing a form. At present there is no electronic method (such as Skype or video conferencing) to accommodate participants and allow electronic oral statements during JRP hearings. Intervenor participation is more involved and allows participants to submit questions and request information, submit evidence to the JRP, question other intervenors at the final hearing, submit notices of motion, receive all documents submitted to the JPR, and submit a final argument. Registration for intervenor status is necessary and the appropriate forms can be submitted online or via mail. Government participant status is for governmental organizations (federal, provincial, territorial, or municipal) that want to participate but do not want to be intervenors. Government participants must register to participate.

It is worth noting that the Federal Government was a strong supporter of this project and used social media to support these ends. For example, Joe Oliver (former Minister of Finance and Minister of Natural Resources) put out an open letter in January of 2009 (when he was Minister of Natural Resources). In the letter that underscores the need for the pipeline he calls those who oppose it ‘radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade’. He goes on to say that environmental groups ‘Threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda’ (Natural Resources Canada 2012, para. 4).

Social media can also be the battleground between proponents, individual members of the public, and NGOs in an attempt to ‘inform’ the public. In this case Enbridge was accused of creating a misleading promotional video showing a much safer tanker route through the Douglas Channel than actually exists by deleting approximately 1000 sq km of islands in the channel (see Figures 1 and 2). Members of the public and NGOs used social media to illustrate the cartographic discrepancies and try to pressure Enbridge to remove the video that they allege was deliberatively misleading (Tencer 2012; Waters 2014).

Figure 1. Douglas channel according to Enbridge. The figure is a screenshot from Enbridge’s ‘Route Video’. It depicts a fairly clear channel and routing option. Source: Photo from Waters (2014) and Tencer (2012).

Figure 2. Douglas channel missing Islands. The figure is the same screenshot as Figure 1 with the ‘missing’ islands from Enbridge’s ‘Route Video’ added in. Source: Photo from Waters (2014) and Tencer (2012).

Discussion and conclusions

Information sharing is clearly one of the essential components of and a critical on-ramp for meaningful participation in IA – information about a proposed project and people’s reactions to it have to be shared (e.g. Sinclair & Diduck 2016a, 2016b). Both the literature referenced above (e.g. Geldermann & Rentz 2003; Dietz & Stern 2008; Odparlik & Köppel 2013) and our case reviews in Hong Kong and Canada indicate that e-governance in IA through the use of various ICT tools is being used primarily for the purpose of sharing information and that this helps to promote efficiency and fairness of process of the sort lauded as being critical to IA participatory processes (e.g. Petts 1999; Sinclair & Diduck 2016b). The use of electronic registries, where they exist, and other tools are facilitating, and thereby democratizing, participants’ greater access to project documentation in ways that historic library and project databases or civic archives do not. Further, such digitized information and documentation can be instantly shared, for support and opposition, around communities, interest groups and the world. Studies (e.g. Sinclair & Diduck 2000; Diduck et al. 2013) also show that in some jurisdictions public events around development often occur with little time to provide notice and venues often change. Since most people in these jurisdictions have cell phones SMS messaging could have very positive impacts on participation as was seen in Hong Kong.

The case studies also underscore, however, the crucial importance of maintaining conventional participatory information mechanisms such as a paper registry and continuing to make that registry easily accessible to those directly affected in regions where there is no or limited connectivity. In both Hong Kong and Canada there are those not yet connected to the Internet, such as the elderly, people without the financial means to access ICT tools, or who are unfamiliar with the ICT world. These groups of people must be considered as participation plans are developed.

While information sharing through such e-governance is an essential on-ramp to meaningful participation our cases indicate further that sharing has largely been of the monologue form of ‘information-out’ that helps to inform but do not in and of themselves encourage more interactive participation (Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016; Sinclair & Diduck 2016a). Our study showed that e-governance tools are not being used to promote the sorts of two-way dialogue and deliberation essential to meaningful participation and genuine project betterment through involvement of the sort needed to improve current and for next generation assessment (Gibson et al., 2016; Sinclair & Diduck 2016b). In this regard it may be that IA and the electronic forms of information exchange (as opposed to provision) are, in a way, intrinsically incompatible: IA provides lots of detailed information whereas the Internet seems to work best as ‘Twitter-type’ communication. Having said that, examples of new ways of communicating environmental impact statements and communicating about their contents have been used with some success in Germany (Fischer et al. 2009) and are being tested in Iceland and will shortly be in the Netherlands, each offering intriguing new potential for more deliberative e-participation (IAIA Session Discussion 2016).

As well, the Manitoba Hydro case does indicate that proponents are looking for ways to use electronic means to communicate more effectively with their partners, the consulting community and government through using cloud space e-environments and perhaps in the future this can be extended to include the public and/or specific NGOs. This model of participation could be very useful and innovative if scaled up to the public level. Participants have also used ICTs to communicate and organize among themselves in preparation for events such as hearings. Our data as well as that of others (e.g. Fredericks & Foth 2013; Barrios-O’Neill & Schuitema 2016) shows they have shared information back and forth. Further, interest groups are democratically utilizing international databases, information and even interrogated sources that can be geographically remote from the project.

It is also clear that IA participants and the NGO sector of participants are extensively using social media, likely due to its potential reach and cost. Again, the Canadian and Hong Kong case studies and the literature (e.g. Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010; White 2013) reveal that Twitter, Facebook and other communication tools are being used by participants to share information and to mobilize people to become involved and to invoke actions, such as joining a forum or protest, so their use of ICTs has lead to more deliberative forms of participation and communication. In the IA context social media has been useful for uniting the voices of individuals who have the same views on planning and development issues and helping them to organize to participate in IA cases. Gaining voice through these means is also evolving quickly. ‘Support HK’, a non-profit initiative launched in 2013, is the first website in Hong Kong for starting, signing and submitting public petitions with a focus on the local environment to different government departments or politicians in Hong Kong (Support HK 2015). As stated on the website, it is completely open to both individuals and organizations and enables concerned parties to connect with and gather suitable quantum of support from others to lobby for change. Each petition on the website could also be easily shared elsewhere on the Internet, such as social media sites.

We see great potential for establishing more meaningful participation as described at the outset through finding ways to better connect this rise in e-participation and engagement occurring through e-governance and social media with conventional public participation via face-to-face meetings, public forums and roving exhibitions. The public can be informed of project details and proponents can be informed, almost in real time, to the publics’ concerns in terms of local knowledge or issues. Doing so in highly interactive and digestible formats holds promise for wider understanding of project proposals and great participation from the public in decision-making. One can also envision opportunities for improved connections through the use of virtual spaces as seen in the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership. For example, there could be the addition of collaborative space to such a cloud environment. As well, hearing participants could be given collaborative space in a virtual cloud environment to automatically enter data, comment, modify submissions and so on making the process more user-friendly for all parties and the eventual face-to-face hearing more productive.

There is also huge opportunity in considering how social media might be used beyond a ‘salt and pepper condiment’ to conventional communication and engagement tools to actually enhance public participation. For example, there are many sectors that have traditionally not been involved in IA such as youth (i.e. people under 25) and there is clearly the potential to tap into this demographic with social media. It seems to us that while the literature indicates that electronic tools should be utilized alongside more traditional ‘in-person’ participation methods (e.g. Evans-Cowley & Hollander 2010), there has been little consideration or thinking about how IA decision-makers might create meaningful opportunities for participation to do this. We also recognize the need to share experiences regarding the use of social media, especially among government and proponents, to help establish best practices for its use. Such sharing would likely greatly help to reduce concerns and even fears about communicating in these ways and help to promote the effective use of social media (IAIA Session Discussion 2016).

As well, we feel there is opportunity in government re-engage in IA participatory processes by providing the resources necessary to create forums and chat rooms around which people could provide e-input into decisions at hand. One approach to this may be to utilize gaming technologies to appeal and more meaningfully connect and engage youth. This is being tested in Hong Kong with the use of 3D IA based on the popular city building computer games SimCity and Megapolis (EPD 2015). In proposing greater integration of social media we understand that a real issue is that government institutions and proponent organizations have little control over their message, who has access to it, and how it is used in this environment.

In suggesting further serious consideration of how e-governance and social media can help to encourage more meaningful IA participatory process, we recognize the need for finding new approaches to engagement as traditional means wither. For example, while we do not want to see people’s opportunity to voice their concern about projects through IA hearings wane and weaken, the reality is that hearings occur in by far the minority of IA cases in most jurisdictions (normally less than 2%) and that number is falling further. Better integrating e-governance and social media for participation in IA can provide important new and low-cost approaches to ensuring community voice is a part of development decision-making. In our support for this we remain cognizant of the fact that while social media sites like Facebook have billions of users and present opportunities for greater participation in IA, use of such sites for participation cannot further marginalize those who do not have the ability to use technology and those who do not have access to the Internet, especially in relation to decisions that affect them – care must be taken in moving forward (Dietz & Stern 2008).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants who made this research possible. We would also like to acknowledge that some of the research was done with fiscal support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The reviewers also provided comments that were helpful to improving the paper.

Notes

1. See the project website at burfellwindfarm.landsvirkjun.com.

2. See the project website at http://keeyask.com/the-project/environment-and-montoring/.