This article examines the multi-faceted politics of digital platforms in the context of the Korean Digital Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) system. Based on semi-structured interviews with environmental experts, this study analyzes digital platforms in terms of three roles: as a surveillance system for ethopolitics; as a marketplace that sustains interest group politics; and, as a data display interface that shapes sensory politics. First, as a surveillance system, the DEIA monitors the moral conduct of environmental assessors to ensure data integrity and transparency. This aspect reflects ethopolitics—the regulation of research ethics through mechanisms of governmentality. Second, as a marketplace, the DEIA system demonstrates interest group politics, as the system has the potential to install domestic software for environmental impact prediction modeling (EIPM), potentially disrupting the market dominance of larger environmental impact assessment firms that currently use expensive foreign modeling software. Third, as the data display interface between the government and citizens, the DEIA system employs sensory politics by prioritizing data visualization over haptic and auditory elements in data presentation. I conclude that while data science will not save environmental impact assessment from politics, it may give rise to novel forms of environmental politics.
AcemogluDaronJohnsonSimon. 2023. Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. New York: Public Affairs.
2.
BakkerKarenRittsMax. 2018. “Smart Earth: A Meta-Review and Implications for Environmental Governance.” Global Environmental Change52: 201–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.011.
3.
BraunVirginiaClarkeVictoria. 2020. “One Size Fits All? What Counts as Quality Practice in (Reflexive) Thematic Analysis?” Qualitative Research in Psychology18 (3): 328–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.
4.
BraunVirginiaClarkeVictoria. 2023. “Toward Good Practice in Thematic Analysis: Avoiding Common Problems and Be(Com)Ing a Knowing Researcher.” International Journal of Transgender Health24 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597.
BrombalDaniele. 2020. “Is Fighting With Data Enough? Prospects for Transformative Citizen Science in the Chinese Anthropocene.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management63 (1): 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1641071.
7.
BruyninckxJoeri. 2015. “Trading Twitter: Amateur Recorders and Economies of Scientific Exchange at the Cornell Library of Natural Sounds.” Social Studies of Science45 (3): 344–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715580404.
8.
CrawfordKate. 2021. The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
FlatøHedda. 2020. “Socioeconomic Status, Air Pollution and Desire for Local Environmental Protection in China: Insights from National Survey Data.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management63 (1): 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1630373.
13.
FoucaultMichel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
14.
FoucaultMichel. 2011. The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the College De France, 1982–1983. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
GraingerSamMaoFengBuytaertWouter. 2016. “Environmental Data Visualisation for Non-Scientific Contexts: Literature Review and Design Framework.” Environmental Modelling & Software: With Environment Data News85: 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.004.
16.
HawkesworthMary. 2012. “From Policy Frames to Discursive Politics: Feminist Approaches to Development Policy and Planning in an Era of Globalization.” In The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, edited by FischerFrankGottweissHerbert, 114–48. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17.
HowesDavid. 2005. Empire of the Senses. New York: Berg.
18.
HowesDavidClassenConstance. 2014. Ways of Sensing: Understanding the Senses in Society. London and New York: Routledge.
19.
HsuAngelYeoZhi YiWeinfurterAmy. 2020. “Emerging Digital Environmental Governance in China: The Case of Black and Smelly Waters in China.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management63 (1): 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1661228.
20.
JanssenMarijnKukGeorge. 2016. “The Challenges and Limits of Big Data Algorithms in Technocratic Governance.” Government Information Quarterly33 (3): 371–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.011.
21.
JasanoffShiela. (ed.) 2004. States of Knowledge: The Coproduction of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
22.
KimEun-sung. 2016. “The Sensory Power of Cameras and Noise Meters for Protest Surveillance in South Korea.” Social Studies of Science46 (3): 396–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716648403.
23.
KimEun-sung. 2022a. Policy and Society. Paju: Hanul.
24.
KimEun-sung. 2022b. Senses and Things: A New Code to Read Korean Society. Seoul: Galmuri.
KimEun-sung. 2024b. “Can Data Science Achieve the Ideal of Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Environmental Regulation?” Technology in Society78: 10261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102615.
27.
KimEun-sungChungJi-bum. 2019. “The Memory of Place Disruption, Senses, and Local Opposition to Korean Wind Farms.” Energy Policy131: 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.011.
28.
KimEun-sungChungJi-bum. 2023. “Assembling Good Citizenship Under Korean COVID-19 Surveillance.” Critical Policy Studies17 (1): 123–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.011.
29.
KimEun-sungChungJi-bumSeoYongseok. 2018. “Korean Traditional Beliefs and Renewable Energy Transitions: Pungsu, Shamanism, and the Local Perception of Wind Turbines.” Energy Research & Social Science46: 262–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.024.
30.
KimJi-WonKimJongyoung. 2013. “The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project and the Politics of Expertise.” ECO17 (1): 163–232.
31.
KloppenburgSannekeGuptaAartiKrukSake R. L.MakrisStavrosBergsvikRobertKorenhofPaulanSolmanHelenaToonenHilde M.. 2022. “Scrutinizing Environmental Governance in a Digital Age: New Ways of Seeing, Participating, and Intervening.” One Earth5 (3): 232–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.004.
Leal FilhoWalterYangPeterEustachioJoão Henrique Paulino PiresAzulAnabela MarisaGellersJoshua C.GielczykAgataDinisMaria Alzira PimentaKozlovaValerija. 2022. “Deploying Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Development Research.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02252-3.
34.
LeeB.2021a. Development of Integrated Decision Support Model for Environmental Impact Assessment. Sejong: Korea Environment Institute.
35.
LeeS.2021b. Verification and Actual Proof of Decision-Making Model for Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment. Sejong: Korea Environment Institute.
36.
LeeB.JeonH.ParkJ.ImS.YiS.. 2020a. How to Improve Digital Environmental Assessment for the Future. (October 29, 2020). (PPT document). Sejong: Korea Environment Institute.
37.
LeeB.MoonN.KimY.SunH.LeeS.LeeY.HaI.. 2020b. Convergence Data Usage Plan for Environmental Assessment to Enhance Future Environmental Responsiveness. Sejong: Korea Environment Institute.
38.
LiuMiaomiaoZhangBingBiJun. 2022. “Appreciating the Role of Big Data in the Modernization of Environmental Governance.” Frontiers of Engineering Management9 (1): 163–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-021-0185-x.
39.
LythreatisSophieSinghSanjay KumarEl-KassarAbdul-Nasser. 2022. “The Digital Divide: A Review and Future Research Agenda.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change175: 121359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359.
MINDsLab. 2021. 2020 Environmental Technology Development Project Report: The Development of the Integrative Decision-Making Support System for Artificial Intelligence-Based Environmental Impact Assessment. Seoul: MINDsLab.
NorthmoreLaurelHudsonMalcolm D.. 2022. “Digital Environmental Impact Assessment: An Exploration of Emerging Digital Approaches for Non-Technical Reports.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review92: 106689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106689.
44.
PinchTrevorBijsterveldKarin. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
RobertsLissa. 2005. “The Death of the Sensuous Chemist: The ‘New’ Chemistry and the Transformation of Sensuous Technology.” In Empire of the Senses, edited by HowesDavid, 106–27. New York: Berg.
RotheDelf. 2017. “Seeing Like a Satellite: Remote Sensing and the Ontological Politics of Environmental Security.” Security Dialogue48 (4): 334–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617709399.
48.
SomaKatrineTermeerCatrien J. A. M.OpdamPaul. 2016. “Informational Governance—A Systematic Literature Review of Governance for Sustainability in the Information Age.” Environmental Science & Policy56: 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.006.
SunH.ChoiJ.LeeB.. 2018. “Digital Environmental Impact Assessment Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” KEI Focus6 (1): 1–18.
51.
SunAlexander Y.ScanlonBridget R.. 2019. “How Can Big Data and Machine Learning Benefit Environment and Water Management: A Survey of Methods, Applications, and Future Directions.” Environmental Research Letters14 (7): 73001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1b7d.
52.
TironiMartínRivera LisboaDiego Ignacio. 2023. “Artificial Intelligence in the New Forms of Environmental Governance in the Chilean State: Towards an Eco-Algorithmic Governance.” Technology in Society74: 102264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102264.
53.
Van DijckJoséPoellThomasde WaalMartijn. 2018. The Platform Society. New York: Oxford Academic.
54.
VinuesaRicardoAzizpourHosseinLeiteIolandaBalaamMadelineDignumVirginiaDomischSamiFelländerAnnaLanghansSimoneTegmarkMaxFrancescoFuso Nerini. 2019. “The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Communications11 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y.
55.
YunSun-Jin. 2014. “Experts’ Social Responsibility in the Process of Large-Scale Nature-Transforming National Projects: Focusing on the Case of the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project in Korea.” Development and Society43 (1): 109–41. https://doi.org/10.21588/dns.2014.43.1.005
56.
ZuboffShoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
