Popular as it may be, the tool has a downside. It survives for its perceived objectivity, but it isn’t as objective as it is claimed. Perhaps people confuse mathematical simplicity with objectivity. First of all, there is no definition of significance and which renders the tool subjective instead of objective. Secondly, the likelihood scale makes little sense to stakeholders who are concerned. Seeing their concern being marginalized only infuriates them further. Finally, the significance of cumulative impacts cannot be determined with this method (while most impacts are).
Traditional EIA’s are lost public relations opportunities. Their message of “this is what we expose you to” is rather negative and fails to do justice to the societal benefits of a project. By focusing on impact reduction, each traditional EIA reaffirms the notion that industries are polluting and that increases people’s motivation to ban rather than welcome any new development projects.
It is time to go back to basics. Remember that the main purpose of environmental risk assessment is to increase the acceptability of the risk. Reducing levels of pollution is not of secondary importance, but not the primary objective. Whether something is acceptable depends on a great number of factors, of which pollution is only one. It comes down to weighing interests and making informed decisions.
The biggest challenge is to overcome the polarization that can occur when weighing interests. Local residents organize themselves increasingly against industrial and other large-scale projects and the associated emotions make it challenging to have objective and factual conversations. In these situations a depolarizing approach to environmental assessment is required; such as the EnvAid EM 3.0 approach.