Using an Artificial intelligence chatbot to critically review the scientific literature on the use of Artificial intelligence in Environmental Impact Assessment

References

• Aghion P, Jones BF, Jones CI. 2018. Artificial intelligence and economic growth in the economics of artificial intelligence: an agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alemohammad S, Casco-Rodriguez J, Luzi L, Imtiaz Humayun A, Babaei H, LeJeune D, Siahkoohi A, Baraniuk RG. 2023. Self-consuming generative models go mad. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.01850.
   Google Scholar
• Au Yeung J, Kraljevic Z, Luintel A, Balston A, Idowu E, Dobson RJ, Teo JT. 2023. AI chatbots not yet ready for clinical use. Front Digit Health. 5:60. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1161098.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S, Fischer TB. 2020. Impact assessment for the 21st century–what future? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):89–93. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2020.1731202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonab AB, Rudko I, Bellini F. 2021. A review and a proposal about socio-economic impacts of artificial intelligence. In Business Revolution in a Digital Era: 14th International Conference on Business Excellence, ICBE 2020; Bucharest, Romania: Springer p. 251–270.
   Google Scholar
• Bond A, Dusík J. 2020. Impact assessment for the twenty-first century – rising to the challenge. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):94–99. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1677083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broussard M. 2018. Artificial unintelligence: how computers misunderstand the world. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campolo A, Crawford K. 2020. Enchanted determinism: power without responsibility in artificial intelligence. Engag Sci Technol Soc. 6:1–19. doi: 10.17351/ests2020.277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortés U, Sànchez-Marrè M, Ceccaroni L, R-Roda I, Poch M. 2000. Artificial intelligence and environmental decision support systems. Appl Intell. 13(1):77–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1008331413864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costello E. 2023. ChatGPT and the educational AI chatter: full of bullshit or trying to tell us something? Postdigital Sci Educ. 1–6. doi: 10.1007/s42438-023-00398-5.
   Google Scholar
• Curmally A, Sandwidi BW, Jagtiani A. 2022. Chapter 9: Artificial intelligence solutions for environmental and social impact assessments. In: Fonseca A, editor. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; p. 163–177.
   Google Scholar
• Day T. 2023. A preliminary investigation of fake peer-reviewed citations and references generated by ChatGPT. Prof Geogr. 75(6):1024–1027. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2023.2190373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Fine Licht K, de Fine Lichtde Fine Licht J. 2020. Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making. AI Soc. 35(4):917–926. doi: 10.1007/s00146-020-00960-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Minin E, Fink C, Hausmann A, Kremer J, Kulkarni R. 2021. How to address data privacy concerns when using social media data in conservation science. Conserv Biol. 35:437–446. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dostatni E, Mikołajewski D, Rojek I. 2023. The use of artificial intelligence for assessing the pro-environmental practices of companies. Appl Sci. 13(1):310. doi: 10.3390/app13010310.
   Google Scholar
• Dupps WJ Jr. 2023. Artificial intelligence and academic publishing. J Cataract Refr Surg. 49(7):655–56. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eke DO. 2023. ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: threat to academic integrity? J Responsib Technol. 13:100060. doi: 10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060.
   Google Scholar
• Francini M, Salvo C, Vitale A. 2023. Combining deep learning and multi-source GIS methods to analyze urban and greening changes. Sensors. 23(8):3805. doi: 10.3390/s23083805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galaz V, Centeno MA, Callahan PW, Causevic A, Patterson T, Brass I, Baum S, Farber D, Fischer J, Garcia D. 2021. Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability. Technol Soc. 67:101741. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giuffrida I. 2019. Liability for AI decision-making: some legal and ethical considerations. Fordham L Rev. 88:439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R. 2019. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goto A, Katanoda K. 2023. Should we acknowledge ChatGPT as an author? J Epidemiol. 33(7):333–334. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20230078. JE20230078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurstein M. 1985. Social impacts of selected artificial intelligence applications: the Canadian context. Futures. 17(6):652–71. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(85)90018-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerty A, Rubinov I. 2019. Global AI ethics: a review of the social impacts and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07892.
   Google Scholar
• International Association for Impact Assessment. undated. About IAIA, IAIA, [Accessed 26 May 2021]. http://www.iaia.org/about.php.
   Google Scholar
• Kaur D, Uslu S, Rittichier KJ, Durresi A. 2022. Trustworthy artificial intelligence: a review. ACM Comput Surv. 55(2):1–38. doi: 10.1145/3491209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan M, Nawaz Chaudhry M. 2023. Artificial intelligence and the future of impact assessment. SSRN Electron J. Available at SSRN 4519498. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4519498.
   Google Scholar
• Kim JK, Chua M, Rickard M, Lorenzo A. 2023. Response to letter to the editor re ChatGPT and large language model (LLM) chatbots: the current state of acceptability and a proposal for guidelines on utilization in academic medicine. J Pediatr Urol. 19(5):607. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2023.07.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koyamparambath A, Adibi N, Szablewski C, Adibi SA, Sonnemann G. 2022. Implementing artificial intelligence techniques to predict environmental impacts: Case of construction products. Sustainability. 14(6):3699. doi: 10.3390/su14063699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause D. 2023. Large language models and generative AI in finance: an analysis of ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing AI. Bard, and Bing AI (July 15, 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Ligozat A-L, Lefevre J, Bugeau A, Combaz J. 2022. Unraveling the hidden environmental impacts of AI solutions for environment life cycle assessment of AI solutions. Sustainability. 14(9):5172. doi: 10.3390/su14095172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu KF-R, Chih-Wei Y. 2009. Integrating case-based and fuzzy reasoning to qualitatively predict risk in an environmental impact assessment review. Environ Model Softwa. 24:1241–51. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.04.005. 10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lozo O, Onishchenko O. 2021. The potential role of the artificial intelligence in combating climate change and natural resources management: political, legal and ethical challenges. J Nat Resour. 4(3):111–31. doi: 10.33002/nr2581.6853.040310.
   Google Scholar
• Makhkamov D. 2022. Modern trends in regulation of environmental and legal relations: digitalization and artificial intelligence. Am J Pol Sci Law Crim. 3(01):41–46. doi: 10.37547/tajpslc/Volume04Issue01-07.
   Google Scholar
• McGovern A, Ebert-Uphoff I, John Gagne D, Bostrom A. 2022. Why we need to focus on developing ethical, responsible, and trustworthy artificial intelligence approaches for environmental science. Environ Data Sci. 1:e6. doi: 10.1017/eds.2022.5.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(1):5–14. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mustak S, Singh D, Kumar Srivastava P. 2023. Advanced remote sensing for Urban and landscape ecology. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nadeem O, Hameed R. 2008. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system in Pakistan. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(8):562–71. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ought. 2023. Elicit: the AI research Assistant. [Accessed 15 August 2023]. https://ellicit.org.
   Google Scholar
• Pachot A, Patissier C. 2022. Towards sustainable artificial intelligence: an overview of environmental protection uses and issues. Green Low-Carbon Econ. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11738. doi: 10.47852/bonviewGLCE3202608.
   Google Scholar
• Pagallo U, Ciani Sciolla J, Durante M. 2022. The environmental challenges of AI in EU law: lessons learned from the artificial intelligence act (AIA) with its drawbacks. Transforming Gov. 16(3):359–376. doi: 10.1108/TG-07-2021-0121.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzoli AE, Young WJ. 1997. Delivering environmental decision support systems: software tools and techniques. Environ Model & Soft. 12(2–3):237–49. doi: 10.1016/S1364-8152(97)00016-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sample I. 2023. Science journals ban listing of ChatGPT as co-author on papers. The Guardian, 26 January 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Sandfort R, Uhlhorn B, Geissler G, Lyhne I, Jiricka-Pürrer A. 2024. AI will change EA practice - but are we ready for it? A call for discussion based on developments in collecting and processing biodiversity data. In Preprint Org. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2024.2318684
   Google Scholar
• Schibuola S, Byer PH. 1991. Use of knowledge-based systems for the review of environmental impact assessments. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 11(1):11–27. doi: 10.1016/0195-9255(91)90014-B.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz R, Vassilev A, Greene K, Perine L, Burt A, Hall P. 2022. Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce; p. 1270. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.1270.
   Google Scholar
• Spector JM, Shanshan M. 2019. Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: from artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learn Environ. 6(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s40561-019-0088-z.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl BC, Leach T. 2023. Assessing the ethical and social concerns of artificial intelligence in neuroinformatics research: an empirical test of the European Union Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI)’. AI Ethics. 3(3):745–67. doi: 10.1007/s43681-022-00201-4.
   Google Scholar
• Stokel-Walker C. 2023. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature. 613(7945):620–21. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor & Francis. 2023. Taylor & Francis clarifies the responsible use of AI tools in academic content creation. Taylor & Francis, [Accessed 8 November 2023]. https://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/taylor-francis-clarifies-the-responsible-use-of-ai-tools-in-academic-content-creation/.
   Google Scholar
• Um T-W, Kim J, Lim S, Lee GM. 2022. Trust management for artificial intelligence: A standardization perspective. Appl Sci. 12:6022. doi: 10.3390/app12126022.
   Google Scholar
• Uren V, Edwards JS. 2023. Technology readiness and the organizational journey towards AI adoption: an empirical study. Int J Inf Manage. 68:102588. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2015. Changes in the impact assessment family 2003–2014: implications for considering achievements, gaps and future directions. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 17(1):1550003. doi: 10.1142/S1464333215500039.
   Google Scholar
• Wang YM, Yang JB, Xu DL. 2006. Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. Eur J Oper Res. 174(3):1885–913. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.09.059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wischmeyer T. 2020. Artificial intelligence and transparency: opening the black box. In: Wischmeyer T, and Rademacher T, editors. Regulating artificial intelligence. Cham: Springer International Publishing; p. 75–101.
   Google Scholar