roles of social impact assessment practitioners
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /e ia r
Roles of social impact assessment practitioners
Cecilia H.M. Wong ⁎, Wing-chung Ho 1
Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
⁎ Corresponding author at: Unit 210, 1 Queens AvenAustralia. Tel.: +61 490244587.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.H.M.(W. Ho).
1 City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue,Administrative Region. Tel.: +852 34428134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.0080195-9255/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 2 August 2013Received in revised form 9 September 2014Accepted 12 September 2014Available online xxxx
Keywords:Social impact assessment practitionerProfessional roleProject managementCommunity developmentPublic involvementSystematic review
The effectiveness of social impact assessment (SIA) hinges largely on the capabilities and ethics of the practi-tioners, yet few studies have dedicated to discuss the expectations for these professionals. Recognising thisknowledge gap, we employed the systemic review approach to construct a framework of roles of SIA practi-tioners from literature. Our conceptual framework encompasses eleven roles, namely project manager of SIA,practitioner of SIAmethodologies, social researcher, social strategy developer, social impactmanagement consul-tant, community developer, visionary, public involvement specialist, coordinator, SIA researcher, and educator.Although these roles have been stratified into three overarching categories, the project, community and SIAdevelopment, they are indeed interrelated and should be examined together. The significance of this study isthreefold. First, it pioneers the study of the roles of SIA practitioners in a focused and systematicmanner. Second,it informspractitioners of the expectations of them thereby fostering professionalism. Third, it prepares the publicfor SIAs by elucidating the functions and values of the assessment.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Social impact assessment (SIA) is a strategic tool for managing thesocial consequences of development. Through analysing and monitor-ing the social change processes and social impacts of planned interven-tions, it fosters the sustainability and equitability of the biophysical andhuman environment (Vanclay, 2003). For its value in promoting cost-effectiveness in the long run, SIA has been applied to an array of arenassuch as dam construction (e.g. Wang et al., 2013), mining (e.g. Lockie,2009), land use management (e.g. Tilt et al., 2009), food control (e.g.Dreyer et al., 2010), agriculture (e.g. Bournaris andManos, 2012),fishery(e.g. Pollnac et al., 2006), sports (e.g. Burnett, 2001), transportation andprocurement (e.g. Esteves and Barclay, 2011), public management(Antonie, 2012), supply chain management (Esteves et al, 2012) anddisaster management (e.g. Kumagai et al., 2006).
Given thiswide application, the practitioners of SIA also come from awide spectrum of disciplines (Baines et al., 2013; Morgan et al., 2012).Practitioners, in this context, refer to the people who “practice themethodology of SIA and undertake associated social and environmentalresearch to inform the practice of SIA” (Vanclay, 2003; p. 2). Theyusually first have training in other professions, then learn and practiceSIA methodologies.
ue, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122,
Wong), [email protected]
Kowloon, Hong Kong Special
Corresponding to the purposes and context of SIAs, the types of prac-titioners vary. For example, in the SIAs conducted by corporations toseek social license for their development projects, the practitionerscan be the internal staff or external private consultants. In the commu-nity initiated SIAs, the practitioners can be the community members orconsultants hired from universities (Vanclay, 2003).
As SIA is a trans-disciplinary social science which requires knowl-edge ranging from sociology, anthropology, demography to environ-mental law (Esteves et al., 2012); the exercises usually employ a teamapproach so that each professional can contribute their expertise andmake the best use of inter-professionalism (Morgan et al., 2012;Vanclay, 2003).
While all SIAs are generally guided by the International Principles forSocial Impact Assessment (the Principles), each practice is case-specific(Vanclay, 2003). The selection of study scope and targets, the adaptionsof methods, and the formulation of plans all demand a sensitive andflexible use of SIA theories and methods. Hence, the quality of SIAs islargely, though not solely, determined by the ethics and capabilities ofthe practitioners.
Literature shows how the inadequacies and malpractices of practi-tioners hamper the effectiveness of SIAs. For example, Suopajärvi(2013) reported that by failing to perform a thorough scoping, the prac-titioners resulted in leaving some vulnerable groups in the impact areasunassessed. Burdge and Johnson (1994) revealed that some practi-tioners refused to conduct primary research for saving cost and time;hence their research lacked empirical evidence. Harvey et al. (2011)also called for attention to the misconduct of deliberately shapinga favourable public opinion by controlling the content, structure andorganisation of public engagement. Goldenberg and Frideres (1986)
Records identified in Scopus(n = 75)
Records identified in ScienceDirect
(n = 333)
Papers from Key Citations(n = 27)
Papers after removal of
duplicates and non-English paper
(n = 413)
Papers screened(n = 362)
Removal of abstracts, book
reviews, editorials and other supporting materials(n =51)
Full-text articles for eligibility
assessment(n = 374)
Papers identified from
cross-referencing(n = 12)
Studies included in thematic analysis
(n = 73)
Papers not discussed SIA
practices excluded(n = 270)
Papers lacked generalizability
excluded(n = 31)
Identification
Screening
Selection
Fig. 1. Data selection flow chart.
125C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
pointed out that many public participation programmes organised inSIAs were only delivering information but failed to solicit inputs fromcommunities.
Despite the gatekeeper role of SIA practitioners, limited literature fo-cuses on the expectations for them.We used “social impact assessment”and “practitioner” as the search keys in Scopus and ScienceDirectJournals, the two databases which store a substantial amount ofenvironmental science literature, in the early July 2014, and found nojournal or book that used them in title. Recently, with the publishingof the two papers on ethical practices (Baines et al., 2013; Vanclayet al., 2013), more light has been shed on the practitioners. However,to our knowledge, there has still been no research on the expectedroles of the professionals. Seeing this knowledge gap, we employedthe systematic review technique to collect related propositions andevidence scattered in the literature to construct a framework of rolesof SIA practitioners.
The significance of this research is threefold: It is a pioneer study tosystematically investigate the roles of SIA practitioners; it informs theexisting and prospective practitioners of the expectations on themthereby reinforcing professionalism; it prepares the public, especiallythose involved in the assessments, of what to anticipate thus settinga context for collaboration. The rest of this paper is structured intofour sections: methodology, conceptual framework, limitations andsuggestions, and conclusion.
Methodology
Guiding references
This research was guided by two references — the PreferredReporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)(Liberati et al., 2009; Moher et al., 2009) and a paper using reviewmethod to identify roles of librarians (Cooper and Crum, 2013). PRISMAis an evidence-based guide for reporting systemic reviews and meta-analyses. It contains a list of 27 items to be included in the researchwrit-ing and a flowchart portraying the data selection process. Although it isoriginally designed for synthesising the clinical results of randomisedtrials, it can also be adapted for other types of research (Liberati et al.,2009; Moher et al., 2009). This reference provides a practical and com-prehensive roadmap for our data collection and selection.
“New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: asystemic review, 1990–2012”, our second research method reference,is an example demonstrating a different use of PRISMA. In it, Cooperand Crum (2013) followed the steps instructed to reduce 371 papersin their preliminary search to a manageable amount of 50 articles foranalysis. This reference exemplified the application of PRISMA to roleidentification.
Data search and selection
We recognise that SIA practitioner per se is already a role; hence,what we actually explored in this study were the sub-roles (Hoffman,1959). Just as the counsellors who serve the racial/ethnic minoritieshave eight sub-roles as adviser, consultant, counsellor, change agent,psychotherapist, facilitator of indigenous healing methods, advocate,and facilitator of indigenous support system (Atkinson et al., 1993);we see that the SIA practitioners also have their sub-roles which de-scribe the multiple dimensions of their work.
However, unlike the well-established field of counselling and librar-ianship, the literature rarely examines the job as a SIA practitioner; thus,the use of search keys such as “role”, “job” and “position”, as in Cooperand Crum's paper (2013), did not yield useful results. We resolved thisproblem by loosening our criteria to include two key phrases — “socialimpact assessment” AND “practitioner”.
Our search was performed in “all fields” with the use of Scopus andScienceDirect Journals databases in the early July 2014. Limitation was
set to “peer-reviewed journals”. In the initial search, 75 papers werelocated in Scopus and 333 in ScienceDirect Journals. Both conceptualand research report papers were retrieved. One non-English paperwas removed. We then added 27 papers listed on the key citation listof SIA provided by the International Association for Impact Assessment(IAIA, 2009). Among these 434 papers, 21 duplicates were identifiedand removed. A filtering was conducted to exclude all abstracts, bookreviews, editorials, and other supporting materials, leaving 362 papers.
We then proceeded to content assessment for eligibility. The inclu-sion criteria were: papers that (1) concerned SIAs or impact assessmentin general, and (2) discussed the goals, quality or work of practitioners.We excluded papers that (1) dedicated to other types of impact assess-ments such as health impact assessment (HIA), environmental impactassessment (EIA) and strategic environment assessment (SEA), or(2) examined the applications of SIAs in a specific contextwithout offer-ing insights for general practice. Twelve additional papers were foundfrom cross-referencing in the selection process. Altogether, we assessed374 articles, and identified 73 relevant ones. Fig. 1 illuminates our dataselection process. Of these 73 records, 64 focused on SIAs and 9 dis-cussed more than one type of impact assessments (Fig. 2). Thirty four(46.6%) of them were from Environmental Impact Assessment Review,19 (26%) from Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, and 20(27.4%) from other journals (Fig. 3).
Data analysis and conceptualisation of framework
To identify the roles of SIA practitioners from the selected literature,we adopted thematic analysis due to its usefulness in coding new ideas.It places an accent on what is “in” the data, and allows themes toemerge. The conceptualisation process is inductive, and no prede-termined codes are used. Researchers unfold the analysis throughthree procedures — open, axial and selective coding; and graduallyconstruct an organised view from observation (Ezzy, 2002; Straussand Corbin, 1990). Although this methodology is devised for processingprimary qualitative data; we found it suitable for analysing our second-ary data. Fig. 4 portrays the procedures in our data analysis.
9, 12%
64, 88%
Impact assessmentsSIAs
Fig. 2. Focuses of selected articles.
Fig. 4. Data analysis and framework conceptualisation flow chart.
126 C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
WeusedNVivio10 to assist coding. In the open coding stage,we codeddata in-vivo or with a descriptive label. These codes were experimentalthat served to group data for comparison. Throughout this process, wecontinued to add new codes, rename the existing ones, introducesecond-level codes and recode until data saturation. The evolvementwas stimulated by constant comparison and re-examination of articles.
After coding the 73 papers, we moved on to the axial coding stage.We examined the associations between codes and integrated theminto different expectations. To enhance content validity and reliability,wematched these themes back to our dataset and confirmed 11 expec-tations. In the selective coding stage, we identified a core role of a prac-titioner from each expectation, and stratified the roles into threecategories to build a structure into the framework.
Research findings: conceptual framework of roles of SIA practitioners
In our conceptual framework, we categorise the roles of SIA practi-tioners into three groups — project, community and SIA development.Under these umbrellas, there are eleven roles, namely project managerof SIA, practitioner of SIA methodologies, social researcher, social strat-egy developer, social impact management consultant, communitydeveloper, visionary, public involvement specialist, coordinator, SIAresearcher, and educator. Fig. 5 depicts our conceptual framework andTable 1 summarises the definition of each role.
Sociological Inquiry
Rural Sociology
Resources Policy
Ocean & Costal Management
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy…
Futures
European Journal of Operational Research
Environment and Behavior
Ethics, Place and Environment
Diversity and Distribution
Annual Review of Sociology
Human Organization
Society and Natural Resources
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fig. 3. Distribution of selected data across journals.
Roles in project development
Planned interventions can take the form of projects, plans, pro-grammes and policies (Vanclay, 2003, 2012; Wolf, 1980). Despite thisdifferentiation, we found that the use of “project” to denote all formsof planned intervention prevailed (e.g. Becker et al., 2003; Buchan,2003; Mahmoudi et al., 2013; Ross and McGee, 2006).
Meanwhile, some scholars also referred SIAs themselves as projects(e.g. Becker, 2003; Rowan and Streather, 2011), though this usage hasnot been prevalent. From our observation, SIAs do possess whatmakes a project; that is (1) they are temporary; (2) they have a clearstart and end date; and (3) they involve a product or service productionprocess to create somethingnew(HeldmanandMangano, 2011). Clearlypositioning SIAs as projects, we believe, brings two advantages. First, itoffers a clear project structure to guide the development of SIAs fromthe initial phase to the closing. Second, it paves way for tapping intothe rich resources of project management tools to enhance the SIApractices.
Fig. 5. Framework of roles of SIA practitioners.
Table 1Definitions of roles of SIA practitioners.
Roles of SIA practitioners
Project developmentSIA project manager- People who are responsible for managing the SIA processes and applying
tools and techniques to carry out SIA activities.Practitioner of SIA methodologies- People who apply SIA methodologies with discernment and flexibility.
Social researcher- People undertake SIA research and apply social theories and concepts to
all research processes.Social strategy developer- People who devise mitigation, coping and enhancement strategies for
planned interventions based on the findings of predictive assessment.Social impact management consultant- People who participate in the implementation of planned intervention
as a consultant to manage the social impacts of the project.Community developmentCommunity developer- People who contribute to the sustainability and betterment of community.
Visionary- People who envisage the future development of community and
extrapolate the impact pathways of the planned interventions.Public involvement specialist- People who deliberately seek communities' involvement in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of the planned interventions.Coordinator- People who facilitate discussion and negotiation among different
parties involved in the planned interventions.SIA developmentSIA researcher- People who conduct SIA research and share the learning with other
practitioners for the purpose of improving SIA practices.Educator- People who educate others about the core concepts of SIA and inculcate
the SIA values into the practice norm.
127C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
In our conceptualisation, we recognise both SIAs and the plannedinterventions as projects. To avoid confusion, we always give a contextto the usage. An example of it is the “SIA project manager”.
For roles in project development, we have five propositions: projectmanager of SIA, practitioner of SIA methodologies, social researcher,social strategy developer, and social impact management consultant.
Role 1: project manager of SIAWhen SIAs are seen as projects, then logically, SIA practitioners
assumed the role to manage these projects. Adapting the definition ofproject managers provided by Heldman and Mangano (2011), the SIAproject managers are responsible for managing the SIA processes andapplying tools and techniques to carry out the SIA activities.
SIAs progress in five phases in a project life cycle — the initiating,planning, executing, monitoring and closing phases. Revealed in ouranalysis was a lack of exploration of SIA activities in the initiating andclosing phases. This may be explained by a call for developing andimproving the SIA methodologies (Rowan, 2009; Schirmer, 2011;Vanclay, 2004) that drew attention to the planning to monitoringphases.
Desirably, all SIAs can span across the planning and implementationof the planned interventions; however, given the tight financial andtime budgets, some of them can only contribute to the planning.Acknowledging this, we examined the project life cycles of SIAs inboth circumstances. The following is an illustration with SIA activitieslargely drawn from the Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) (Franksand Vanclay, 2013) (Fig. 6). Although they are by no means exhaustive,they serve well to give directions of the types of SIA processes in eachproject phase.
SIA commences when the developers of planned interventions,community members or other proponents decide to conduct a SIA.In the initiating stage, a SIA team is set up to plan and manage thewhole SIA cycle. There are two sets of planning questions they have to
consider — (1) the criterion problem that defines the goals and perfor-mance; and (2) the analytic problem that concerns the design ofmethods (Wolf, 1980). When these parameters are ready, the nextstep is to prepare for the predictive assessment. Activities here includescoping, formulating intervention alternatives, profiling and conductingbaseline studies. In the executing stage, SIA practitioners assess theprobable social consequences of different alternatives. The findings areused to inform the design and selection of intervention, and formulatesocial management strategies in the monitoring stage. In the closingstage, the project manager reports the assessment processes and find-ings to the proponents, and shares the information with the publicand SIA community.
For the SIAs that continue to the implementation of interventions,the SIA project managers are accountable for tracking the developmentof social impacts and advising any necessarymeasures. At the end of theimplementation, the SIAs close with a post-intervention evaluation toreview the effectiveness of each process as well as the overall perfor-mance. The experience has to be documented for future reference andshared with communities and other practitioners.
An effective impact assessment has to meet several criteria (Bondet al., 2013; Chanchitpricha and Bond, 2013): First, it works. Second, itfulfils all its objectives. Third, it informs the decision making of theinterventions. Fourth, it gains acceptance from the key stakeholders.Fifth, it facilitates the learning of stakeholders and improves theirviews. To achieve these goals, SIA project managers have to be com-petent in (1) attaining project goals, (2) defining business cases,(3) formulating and implementing appropriate strategies in a timelymanner, (4) soliciting strong support from stakeholders, (5) obtainingsufficient funds and resources, (6) managing people, risks and changes,(7) technical capability, (8) cultivating effective organisational cultureand structure, (9) being sensitive to the health and safety needs, and(10) communication (Lock, 2013).
Role 2: practitioner of SIA methodologiesPractitioners are expected to apply the SIA methodologies with
discernment and flexibility (Burdge, 1990; Vanclay, 2003). To do so,they need to acquire the knowledge of SIA theories andmethods, collecta stock of SIA tools, accumulate practical experiences, and developinsights from case studies (Esteves et al., 2012).
Following the advancement of the field, more resources becomeavailable. Concerning the theories and conceptual frameworks, thereare Burdge's (1987) SIA model, community empowerment framework(Gagnon et al., 1993), community response model (Blishen et al.,1979; Bowles, 1981; Ross andMcGee, 2006), community organisationalmodel (Little and Krannich, 1988; Ross andMcGee, 2006), social organi-sation model (Branch et al., 1984; Ross and McGee, 2006), SIA in thepolicy process (Dietz, 1987), and temporal phases and affected systemsframework (Gramling and Freudenburg, 1992). For models that amal-gamated with other professions, there are conflict-sensitive impactassessment (Kapelus et al., 2011), functional evaluation (Slootweget al., 2001), and risk and social impact assessment (Mahmoudi et al.,2013). Regarding the tools, there are sensitivity analysis (Wolf, 1983),scenario simulations (Becker, 2001), multi-criteria decision makinganalysis (MCDA; Estévez et al., 2013), social development needs analy-sis (Esteves and Vanclay, 2009) and SIMPs (Franks and Vanclay, 2013).Furthermore, myriads of SIAs have been conducted in different fieldsand in different regions for case study (e.g. du Pisani and Sandham,2006; Henry, 1990; Holm et al., 2013; Ip, 1990; O'Faircheallaigh, 2009;Suopajärvi, 2013; Tang et al., 2008).
Despite the effort, the selection, application and reporting of SIAmethods remain a weakness. The chosen methods have been foundlacking reliability, validity, robustness and significance levels (Burdgeand Vanclay, 1996; Esteves et al., 2012). When applying the methods,some practitioners failed to consider the alternatives, collect the qualitybaseline data, involve the public in a meaningful way, assess the cumu-lative impacts, and identify the distribution of impacts and benefits
Fig. 6. SIA activities in a project life cycle.
128 C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
(Esteves et al., 2012; Pope et al., 2013). Many practitioners did notreport their methods, sources and assumptions (Burdge and Vanclay,1996; Esteves et al., 2012). In the face of these problems, it is especiallyimportant to make known of the SIA methodologies practitioner role.Some good practices are documented in Esteves et al. (2012) andVanclay (2012).
Role 3: social researcherAs SIA is a research and a paradigm of social sciences (Esteves et al.,
2012; Finsterbusch, 1985; Vanclay, 2003;Wolf, 1982), therefore the SIApractitioners are social researchers. In this role, practitioners are expect-ed to apply social theories and concepts to all SIA activities (Baines et al.,2013; Burdge, 1990, 2003; Chase, 1990; du Pisani and Sandham, 2006;Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for SocialImpact Assessment, 1994; Ross and McGee, 2006; Rowan and Streather,2011; Sairinen and Kumpulainen, 2006; Vanclay, 2003; Vanclay andEsteves, 2011; Vanclay et al., 2013).
As a social researcher, the practitioners have to:
● Understand the social dynamics of impacted communities;● Determine the research scope and subjects with the knowledge of
social organisation;● Develop the conceptual frameworkwith reference to social theories;● Adhere to the SIA principles and research ethics● Prepare social impact variables;● Collect primary and secondary data with social investigation
techniques;● Assess the primary, secondary and cumulative social impacts of
planned interventions in different development stages;
● Interpret the linkages between social variables;● Assist the choosing and designing of intervention alternatives
with findings from social research;● Devise measures to manage positive and negative social conse-
quences; and● Inform the distribution of compensations and benefits.
The literature reviewed suggested some knowledgewhich is condu-cive to the SIA research. The key concepts include power, culture, partic-ipation, difference, community, human rights, gender, justice, place,resilience, sustainable livelihood, capital and participatory approach(Esteves et al., 2012; Howitt, 2011; Ross and McGee, 2006). Amongthe disciplines in social sciences, sociology and community develop-ment have found to be the most useful for locating social receptorsand community resources in the baseline studies (Rowan, 2009).The use of social capital, especially the partnership with local com-munities, is essential for developing enhancement measures (Rowanand Streather, 2011). Lists of social changes processes and social impactvariables are composed for consideration (e.g. Cloquell-Ballester et al.,2006; Vanclay, 2002).
The application of theories and concepts can be challenging (Burdgeand Vanclay, 1996; Vanclay, 2004). The propositions and the uses oflanguage in different social sciences disciplines are sometimes contra-dictory. Not all social sciences theories can provide practical and proac-tive recommendations. The qualitative data requires value-weightingwhich inevitability introduces subjectivity. To these difficulties, we pro-pose four mitigations:
First is the use of triangulation to enhance validity. Esteves andVanclay (2009) recommended using four data collection methods
129C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
simultaneously — soliciting local residents' perspectives with qualita-tive and quantitation techniques, analysing impacts with the use ofquantitative indicators, combining primary and secondary data sources,and including expert judgments from experienced SIA practitioners.
Second is the employment of creditability controls for qualitativeanalyses. For instance, Creswell and Miller (2000) examined the use ofnine validity procedures, namely triangulation, member checking, theaudit trail, disconfirming evidence, prolonged engagement in the field,thick and rich description, researcher reflexivity, collaboration, andpeer debriefing. Patton (2002), on the other hand, suggested five setsof evaluation criteria — traditional scientific research criteria, socialconstruction and constructivist criteria, artistic and evocative criteria,critical change criteria and evaluation standards and principles.
Third is using SIAs only for the purpose they are designed for, that isto manage process (Craig, 1990; Finsterbusch, 1995; Vanclay, 2004).Practitioners and decisionmakers are not advised to base their decisionson the face value of the assessment results; rather, they should considerthe impact pathways articulated andmake flexible plans to prevent andaddress the probable consequences.
Fourth is the sharing of learning with other practitioners. IAIA hashoused the practitioners and encourages exchanges among them. Mean-while, journals, especially the Environmental Impact Assessment Reviewand Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, have published manyconceptual and research papers which facilitate knowledge transfer.
Role 4: social strategy developerSIAs have been recognised as a tool to devise social management
plans for the planned interventions based on the findings of predictiveassessment since its inception (Freudenburg, 1986; Wolf, 1974, 1983);hence SIA practitioners have a role as a social strategy developer.
Summarised from our data were four goals of social strategies. First,they must seek to maximise the benefits for stakeholders and minimisethe negative consequences (Vanclay, 2003). Second, if possible, theyshould turn risks into benefits (Rowan and Streather, 2011; Vanclay,2006). Third, they have to contribute to the betterment of communities(Vanclay, 2003). Fourth, they need to assist proponents to achieve theirobjectives (Loxton et al., 2013). While scholars appeared to arrive at aconsensus on the first three goals, the fourth one remains controversial.Wolf (1983) advocated that SIAs should not just be a tactic for obtainingsocial license but an instrument to consider different interventionoptions, including the no intervention option which may contradictthe will of proponent.
SIA practitioners conceive three types of social strategies:mitigation,coping and enhancement measures. Mitigation measures are abouteliminating or alleviating the negative impacts arisen from the interven-tion; coping strategies deal with the unavoidable negative impactswhich the stakeholders need to accept and tolerate; enhancementplans concern bringing out benefits to the communities (e.g. Baineset al., 2013; João et al., 2011; Loxton et al., 2011; Rowan and Streather,2011; Vanclay, 2003). When formulating these strategies, the SIA prac-titioners need to take the following into consideration:
(1) Corporate social responsibility (ISO, 2010; Rowan and Streather,2011)
(2) Community development (João et al., 2011; Vanclay, 2003)(3) Different levels of strategies — individual, family, business and
community (Loxton et al., 2011)(4) Local specificity (Baines et al., 2013; Esteves, 2008; Vanclay,
2003)(5) Distribution of benefits (Vanclay, 2003)(6) Duration of measures (Loxton et al., 2013)(7) Avoidance of over-promise (Vanclay, 2012)(8) Hierarchy of control/mitigation hierarchy — first seek to avoid,
mitigate and minimise the negative impacts, then consider com-pensation and benefit sharing (Holm et al., 2013; João et al.,2011).
(9) Enhancement hierarchy— enhance the positive effects of project,then go beyond to enhance thewellbeing of local area andwiderarea (João et al., 2011).
Role 5: social impact management consultantSIAs aremostmeaningfulwhen the strategy proposals are translated
into actions (Égré, and Senécal, 2003; O'Faircheallaigh, 2009). As men-tioned in the section Role 1: project manager of SIA, some practitionersparticipate in the implementation of interventionwith a role tomanagethe social impacts.
The tool, SIMP, is devised especially for carrying out this role. Itserves to signpost the priorities, resources, strategies, processes, activi-ties, commitments and staffing of the measures (Franks and Vanclay,2013); hence, it assists the project stakeholders to identify their rolesand responsibilities in a larger project scope and engender their man-agement plans for the intervention (Esteves et al., 2012; Holm et al.,2013; Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines forSocial Impact Assessment, 2003). FromHolm et al.'s (2013) perspective,it is best to utilise the results of predictive assessment to developthe plans. The implementation of strategies can be made through thedevelopment of management system, impact and benefit agreements,social programmes, and standard operating procedures (Franks andVanclay, 2013).
The role of a social impact management consultant does not stopwhen the social strategies are introduced. Throughout the developmentprojects, SIA practitioners have to monitor the use of the SIMPs and en-vironmental management plans, manage anxiety and conflicts, identifydiscrepancies between the predicted and actual social impacts, reportthe changes to stakeholders, and propose measures to promote benefitto cost efficiency (Barrow, 2010; Franks and Vanclay, 2013; Rossouwand Malan, 2007; Vanclay, 2012). Ideally, this monitoring role is to beperformed in collaboration with other community stakeholders(Armour, 1988; Franks and Vanclay, 2013).
As per our analysis, the success of social strategies hinges on an inte-gration of strategies into policies, an adaptive management and aneffective communication (Boggs, 1994; Burdge and Vanclay, 1998; Dareet al., 2011a; Loxton et al., 2013; Sairinen and Kumpulainen, 2006;Vanclay, 2012). The community members need to be informed of theirrights and obligations as well as the details of the different measures. Toensure that the messages reach different social groups, SIA practitionersneed to employ multiple communication approaches and use them in away that matches the stakeholders' preferred modes. The informationhas to be transparent, accessible and clear (Loxton et al., 2013).
Roles in community development
The recognition of social diversity leads us to the discussion of com-munity. Whereas its members share a community identity; they are,at the same time, embedded into different social groups and possessdifferent characteristics (Vanclay, 2012). For a well-thought SIA, it hasto consider the concerns of each group, examine the distribution ofimpacts, and devise specific strategies accordingly (InterorganizationalCommittee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment,1994; Vanclay, 2003). In addition to meeting the needs of stakeholders,SIA practitioners are encouraged to take the larger community intoconsideration (Esteves and Vanclay, 2009), especially when the second-ary and higher ordered social impacts usually cause more damages(Vanclay, 2012).
In our conceptual framework, the roles of SIA practitioners incommunity development are (1) community developer, (2) visionary,(3) public involvement specialist, and (4) coordinator.
Role 6: community developerUnderscored in the Principles (Vanclay, 2003), SIAs have to contrib-
ute to the sustainability and betterment of community, therefore thepractitioners should see themselves as a community developer. In the
130 C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
design of intervention alternatives and social strategies, practitionersneed to aim at engendering long-lasting positive outcomes (Franks andVanclay, 2013; João et al., 2011; Vanclay, 2003; Vanclay and Esteves,2011). Below are some community development goals exemplified inthe literature (e.g. Rowan and Streather, 2011; Vanclay, 2003, 2012):
● Protect tangible and intangible cultural heritage;● Cultivate community and individual capacities;● Empower local people;● Develop social capital;● Enhance the position of disadvantaged or marginalised members
of society;● Abate dependency;● Promote equity;● Reduce poverty; and● Create employment opportunities.
Role 7: visionaryThe role of a community developer cannot be performedwithout the
SIA practitioners being a visionary. To build a better future, one has tofirst envisage the possible transformation of the community at an intu-itive level, and foresee the necessary resources and procedures toactualise the visions. On the other hand, SIAs as predict exercises alsodemand the same abstract thinking to forecast the social change pro-cesses and social impacts of planned interventions.
The looking-into-the-future in both cases, however, does not devel-op in vacuum. The extrapolation has to be devised from studying similarcases (e.g. Burdge, 1987), conducting scenario testing (Becker, 2001;João et al., 2011) and backcasting (Robinson, 2003; Vanclay, 2012),soliciting ideas from locals (e.g. Dale and Lane, 2008; Vanclay, 2003,2012), and applying planning techniques (João et al., 2011; Vanclay,2012). As observed in the data, few SIA papers have exploited the plan-ning theories. To this, we suggest gaining insights from Lawrence(2000)'s paper on the planning theories and environmental impactassessment.
Role 8: public involvement specialistRepeatedly mentioned in this paper is the use of participatory ap-
proach to seek communities' inputs to the SIA processes (e.g. Beckeret al., 2004; Burdge and Robertson, 1990; Dare et al., 2011a; Esteveset al., 2012; Franks and Vanclay, 2013; Lockie, 2007; Vanclay, 2003,2012). It is an endeavour to incorporate local knowledge into the plan-ning and decision making so that the interventions can bring mutualbenefits to the involved parties (e.g. Esteves et al., 2012; Lockie, 2001;Vanclay, 2003). Besides encouraging stakeholders to voice out; whereappropriate, the practitioners can also invite them to lead in certainplanning and reviewing activities (Franks and Vanclay, 2013). As aneffective public involvement needs professional skills and experience(Vanclay, 2012), SIA practitioners have to be a specialist.
There are several fundamental public involvement concepts that thepractitioners need to grasp firmly. First is diversity. It has been exploredin the section Roles in community development of this article. Second isstakeholder. Defined by Dare et al. (2011b), the stakeholders of aplanned intervention not only include the affected parties, but also thepeople who are interested or are influential. Third is deliberation. Thepractitioners are expected to take “deliberate” effort to reach the stake-holders, especially those worst-off society members who often keepsilence in the engagement process and barely have resources to defendtheir rights (Vanclay, 2012). [Hartz-Karp and Pope (2011) expoundedon deliberative democracy.] Fourth is the free, prior and informedconsent which is achieved when the social researchers uphold theirethics (Esteves et al., 2012; Hanna and Vanclay, 2013; Howitt, 2005).
While scholars generally recognise the values of participatory SIA, itis proposed that the integration of it with the technocratic approachwillresult in an even better outcome (Becker et al., 2004; Gagnon et al.,1993; Lane et al., 1997;Manring et al., 1990). The technocratic approach
is about the use of expert knowledgewhich complements theweaknessof participatory approach.
A successful public involvement attains multiple outcomes (Baineset al., 2013; Buchan, 2003; Esteves, 2008; Karjalainen and Järvikoski,2010; Sairinen et al., 2010; Vanclay, 2003, 2012):
● It allows communities to air their grievance, anger and hope, andleads to anxiety reduction, healing and coping;
● It renders the perceptions of fairness and builds trust;● It facilitates discussion thereby assisting consensus building and
conflict resolution;● It brings social objectives into light thus fostering community's
ownership of the decisions;● It helps obtain social license for development and reinforces its
sustainability; and● It cultivates human and community capitals.
Nevertheless, when mismanaged, public involvement can bringharm to the current and future SIAs. The engagement sometimes intro-duces redundant or controversial informationwhichmay ignite conflict(Becker et al., 2004; Manring et al, 1990). If this happens, practitionershave to show their impartiality and reliability so as to regain the trust(Prenzel and Vanclay, 2014). A prolonged social involvement, on theother hand, drains the enthusiasm of community members and causesconsultation fatigue. To prevent this from happening, SIA practitionersneed to be transparentwith the time pressure they are facing, negotiatethe meeting arrangements in advance, make an effort to meet at placesconvenient to the informers, show their willingness to engage, and pro-vide prompt feedback (Baines et al., 2013). Vanclay (2012) reminded usthat a sincere andwell-thought engagement alleviates fear and anxiety.A lack of genuine concern and a dismissive attitude towards opposition,however, generate distrust and scepticism.
Role 9: coordinatorThe SIA practitioners do not work on their own but in partnership
with other stakeholders such as the government agencies, project pro-ponents and communities. In the cooperation, the SIA practitionerstake up a coordinator role to bridge the different parties, and facilitateconversations and negotiations (Égré, and Senécal, 2003; Esteves et al.,2012; Franks and Vanclay, 2013; O'Faircheallaigh, 1999; Vanclay,2012). This mediation work is underscored in the SIMPs (Franks andVanclay, 2013).
For the building of consensus among stakeholders, there are toolssuch as cooperative discourse (Webler et al., 1995), interactive commu-nity forum (ICF; Becker et al., 2003), MCDA (Estévez et al., 2013) andstrategic perspectives (Dale and Lane, 2008).
Roles in SIA development
In addition to the roles in project and community development, theSIA practitioners are also responsible for the advancement of SIA. In thisarena, we have conceptualised two roles— SIA researcher and educator.
Role 10: SIA researcherThe practices of SIA are grounded on the SIA methodologies devel-
oped through research around the globe (Vanclay, 2003). Thus, the con-tinuous advancement of the field heavily relies on the global endeavourto undertake social and environmental research and share the learnings(Vanclay, 2003). This collaboration is recognised as one of the strengthsof impact assessments by Pope et al. (2013).
Role 11: educatorSIA practitioners are called to promote the values of SIA by teaching
them to the others and inculcate them into the practice norm. Esteveset al. (2012) saw it necessary to educate the proponents, regulators,and impact assessment colleagues from other professionals about the
131C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
core concepts in SIA paradigm. By doing so, the practitioners can gainthe acceptance and recognition from the public.
Interrelatedness of roles
To facilitate readers to understand the eleven sub-roles of SIA prac-titioners, we have labelled them under three categorises. Indeed, allthese roles are interrelated and should be examined together. Wehave used two-sided arrows to indicate the connectedness in Fig. 5.Here we exemplify the intra- and inter-group relationships.
Examples of intra-group connectedness:
● The competitiveness of project managers is demonstrated in theireffective development and management of social strategies.
● Tobe an effective coordinator betweenproponent and communities,one has to be competent in public involvement so as to solicit thepublic's participation.
Examples of inter-group connectedness:
● An effective public involvement requires the social inquiry tech-niques of a social researcher.
● When adopting the participatory approach of SIA, practitioners needto seek communities' inputs in the development, monitoring andevaluation of social strategies.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Despite our best effort, this research still entails some limitations.First, to select and arrange data for the conceptualisation of framework,we inevitably applied abstraction for inductive analysis and instilledsubjectivity. Noticing the potential biases, we tried to enhance thecontent validity by re-examining all the roles with the data. Second,although we seek to include a comprehensive dataset for derivingmeaningful analyses, we cannotmake a claim of including all data avail-able due to a constraint of manpower. However, the saturation in anal-ysis reflected an adequate coverage. Third, as we selected only thepapers that inform the general practice of SIAs, our framework willnot be adequate to cover all roles in every field. As to the limitationsof this review, we urge researchers to undertake qualitative and quanti-tative studies to examine the roles proposed, especially for specific dis-cipline. Also, as our analysis revealed a lack of studies on the initiatingand closing phases of SIAs, we recommend exploration in these twoareas. More, the selection, application and reporting of SIAs appearto be a continuous challenge, hence we suggest more proposals ofimprovement. Lastly, we encourage more studies on the utilisation ofplanning resources to support the performing of visionary role.
Conclusion
Recognising the lack of deliberate discussions on the expectationsfor SIA practitioners, we employed the systematic review approach toconstruct a framework of roles of practitioners. From the literature, weidentified eleven roles and divided them into three categories — rolesin project, community, and SIA development. For project development,the propositions include project manager of SIA, practitioner of SIAmethodologies, social researcher, social strategy developer, and socialimpact management consultant. For community development, we pro-pose the roles of community developer, visionary, public involvementspecialist, and coordinator. For the development of SIA community,there are SIA researcher, and educator. Despite the categorisation,all roles are indeed interrelated. This study is significant in three ways.First, it pioneers to study the roles of SIA practitioners in a focused andsystematic manner. Second, it informs the practitioners of the expecta-tions for them thereby fostering professionalism. Third, it preparesthe public for SIAs by elucidating the functions and values of theassessment.
Acknowledgements
The idea of this study was conceived when we undertook the SocialImpactAssessment of UrbanRenewal Plan inKowloon City (Grant num-ber: PLNQ 4/2012), hence we acknowledge the District Urban RenewalForum for funding the project. For the conceptualisation of framework,we are indebted to Prof CHEUNG Chau Kiu Jacky, Prof CHAN HengChoon Oliver, Prof CHEUNG Sing Hang andMr Cyrus Leung for their ad-vices. A special thank is given to Prof Andreas Hirschi who generouslyshared his experience and reading in theory building. We also thankthe anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
References
Antonie R. Introducing a model for social impact assessment of public administrationreform in Romania. Transylv Rev 2012:5–12.
Armour A. Methodological problems in social impact monitoring. Environ Impact AssessRev 1988;8(3):249–65.
Atkinson DR, Thompson CE, Grant SK. A three dimensional model for counseling racial/ethnic minorities. Couns Psychol 1993;21(2):257–77.
Baines JT, Taylor CN, Vanclay F. Social impact assessment and ethical research principles:ethical professional practice in impact assessment Part II. Impact Assess Proj Apprais2013;31(4):254–60.
Barrow CJ. How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA? Environ Impact Assess Rev2010;30(5):293–301.
Becker HA. Social impact assessment. Eur J Oper Res 2001;128(2):311–21.Becker HA. Theory formation and application in social impact assessment. In: Becker HA,
Vanclay F, editors. The international handbook of social impact assessment: concep-tual and methodological advances. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2003. p. 129–42.
Becker DR, Harris CC, McLaughlin WJ, Nielsen EA. A participatory approach to socialimpact assessment: the interactive community forum. Environ Impact Assess Rev2003;23(3):367–82.
Becker D, Harris C, Nielsen E, McLaughlinW. A comparison of a technical and participatoryapplication of social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2004;22(3):177–89.
Blishen BR, Lockhat A, Craib P, Lockhart E. Socio-economic impact model for northerndevelopment. Hull: Department of Indian and Northern Affairs; 1979.
Boggs JP. Planning and the law of social impact assessment. Hum Organ 1994;53(2):167.Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R. Framework for comparing and evaluating sus-
tainability assessment practice. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors.Sustainability assessment: pluralism, practice and progress (natural and built envi-ronment series). London: Routledge 0415598494; 2013.
Bournaris T, Manos B. European Union agricultural policy scenarios' impacts o socialsustainability of agricultural holdings. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 2012;19:426–32.
Bowles RT. Social impact assessment in small communities: an integrative review ofselected literature. Toronto: Butterworths; 1981.
Branch K, Hooper DA, Thompson J, Creighton J. Guide to social assessment. Boulder CA:Westview Press; 1984.
Buchan D. Buy-in and social capital: by-products of social impact assessment. ImpactAssess Proj Apprais 2003;21(3):168–72.
Burdge RJ. The social impact assessment model and the planning process. Environ ImpactAssess Rev 1987;7:141–50.
Burdge RJ. The benefits of social impact assessment in ThirdWorld development. EnvironImpact Assess Rev 1990;10(1–2):123–34.
Burdge RJ. The practice of social impact assessment — background. Impact Assess ProjApprais 2003;21(2):84–8.
Burdge RJ, Johnson S. Environmental impact statements and the social scientist. In:Burdge RJ, editor. A conceptual approach to social impact assessment: collection ofwritings. Middle, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press; 1994. p. 65–76.
Burdge R, Robertson RA. Social impact assessment and the public involvement process.Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990;10(1–2):81–90.
Burdge R, Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series.Impact Assess 1996;14(1):59–86.
Burdge R, Vanclay F. The practice and future of social impact assessment. In: Burdge R,editor. A conceptual approach to social impact assessment. Middleton, WI: SocialEcology Press; 1998. p. 265–84.
Burnett C. Social impact assessment and sport development: social spin-offs of theAustralia–South Africa junior sport programme. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2001;36:41–57.
Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessmentprocesses. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;43:65–72.
Chase A. Anthropology and impact assessment: development pressures and indigenousinterests in Australia. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990;10(1–2):11–23.
Cloquell-Ballester V, Cloquell-Ballester V, Monsterde-Diaz R, Santamarina-Siurana M.Indicators validation for the improvement of environmental and social impact quan-titative assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(1):79–105.
Cooper D, Crum J. New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: asystematic review, 1990–2012. J Med Libr Assoc 2013;101(4):268–77.
Craig D. Social impact assessment: politically oriented approaches and applications.Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990;10(1–2):37–54.
Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract 2000;29(3):124–30.
132 C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
Dale AP, Lane MB. Strategic perspectives analysis: a procedure for participatory and politicalsocial impact assessment. Soc Nat Resour 2008;7:253–67.
Dare M, Schirmer J, Kimber J. Tasmanian drought evaluation project. Report to theDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, and the SocialInclusion Unit (Department Premier and Cabinet); 2011a.
Dare M, Schirmer J, Vanclay F. Handbook for operational community engagement withinaustralian plantation forest management. Hobart: Cooperative Research Centrefor Forestry; 2011b [Available at: http://www.crcforestry.com.au/publications/downloads/CRCForestry-CE-FINAL.pdf.].
Dietz T. Theory and method in social impact assessment. Sociol Inq 1987;57(1):54–69.Dreyer M, Renn O, Cope S, Frewer LJ. Including social impact assessment in food safety
governance. Food Control 2010;21:1620–8.du Pisani JA, Sandham LA. Assessing the performance of SIA in the EIA context: a case
study of South Africa. Environ Impact Assess Review;26(8):707-24.Égré D, Senécal P. Social impact assessments of large dams throughout the world: lessons
learned over two decades. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(3):215–24.Esteves AM. Mining and social development: refocusing community investment using
multi-criteria decision analysis. Resour Policy 2008;33(1):39–47.Esteves AM, Barclay MA. Enhancing the benefits of local content: integrating social and
economic impact assessment into procurement strategies. Impact Assess Proj Apprais2011;29:205–15.
Esteves AM, Vanclay F. Social Development Needs Analysis as a tool for SIA to guidecorporate-community investment: applications in the minerals industry. EnvironImpact Assess Rev 2009;29(2):137–45.
Esteves AM, Franks DM, Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. ImpactAssess Proj Apprais 2012;30(1):34–42.
Estévez RA, Walshe T, Burgman MA. Capturing social impacts for decision-making: amulticriteria decision analysis perspective. Divers Distrib 2013;19(5–6):608–16.
Ezzy D. Qualitative analysis: practice and innovation. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Routledge;2002.
Finsterbusch K. State of the art in social impact assessment. Environ Behav 1985;17(2):193–221.
Finsterbusch K. In praise of SIA: a personal review of the field of social impact assessment.Impact Assess 1995;13(3):229–52.
Franks D, Vanclay F. Social impact management plans: innovation in corporate and publicpolicy. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2013;43:40–8.
Freudenburg WR. Social impact assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 1986;12:245–78.Gagnon C, Hirsch P, Howitt R. Can SIA empower communities? Environ Impact Assess Rev
1993;13(4):229–53.Goldenberg S, Frideres JS. Measuring the effects of public participation programs. Environ
Impact Assess Rev 1986;6(3):273–81.Gramling R, Freudenburg WR. Opportunity-threat, development, and adaptation: toward
a comprehensive framework for social impact assessment. Rural Sociol 1992;57(2):216–34.
Hanna P, Vanclay F. Human rights, indigenous peoples and the concept of free, prior andinformed consent. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2013;31(2):146–57. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.780373].
Hartz-Karp J, Pope J. Enhancing the effectiveness of SIA through deliberative democracy.In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: con-ceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing;2011. p. 253–72.
Harvey B, Vanclay F, Esteves A. Foreword: SIA from a resource developer's perspective.In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011. [xxvii-xxxiii].
Heldman K, Mangano V. PMP: project management professional exam review guide. 2nded. Indianapolis, Ind: Wiley; 2011.
Henry R. Implementing social impact assessment in developing countries: a comparativeapproach to the structural problems. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990;10(1–2):91–101.
Hoffman AE. An analysis of counselor sub roles. J Couns Psychol 1959;6(1):61–7.Holm D, Ritchie L, Snyman K, Sunderland C. Social impact management: a review of cur-
rent practice in Queensland. Australia Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2013;31(3):214–9.Howitt R. The importance of process in social impact assessment: ethics, methods and
process for cross-cultural engagement. Ethics Place Environ 2005;8(2):209–21.Howitt R. Theoretical foundations. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in
social impact assessment. Conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham,Gloucester, U.K: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2011. p. 78–95.
IAIA. Social impact assessment key citations; 2009 [Fargo, ND. Available at: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/Activity_Resources/Key_Citations/Key%20Citations_SIA%2009%20Oct.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1].
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social ImpactAssessment. Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess1994;12(2):107–52.
Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment.Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assess ProjApprais 2003;21(3):233–70.
Ip DF. Difficulties in implementing social impact assessment in China: methodologicalconsiderations. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990;10:113–22.
ISO. Final draft international standard ISO/FDIS 26000:2010(E). Guidance on social re-sponsibility; 2010.
João E, Vanclay F, den Broeder L. Emphasising enhancement in all forms of impact as-sessment: introduction to a special issue. Impact Assess Proj Apprais; 2011;29(3):170–80.
Kapelus P, Richards E, Sherwin H. Conflict-sensitive impact assessment. In: Vanclay F,Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011. p. 288–305.
Karjalainen TP, Järvikoski T. Negotiating river ecosystems: impact assessment and conflictmediation in the cases of hydro-power construction. Environ Impact Assess Rev2010;30(5):319–27.
Kumagai Y, Edwards J, Carroll MS. Why are natural disasters not “natural” for victims?Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(1):106–19.
Lane MB, Ross H, Dale AP. Social impact research: integrating the technical, political, andplanning paradigms. Hum Organ 1997;56(3):302–10.
Lawrence DP. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environ ImpactAssess Rev 2000;20(6):607–25.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetziaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Loannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMAstatement for reporting systematic reviews and meta analyses of studies that evalu-ate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(4):W65–94.
Little RL, Krannich RS. A model for assessing the social impacts of natural resourceutilization on resource-dependent communities. Impact Assess 1988;6(2):21–35.
Lock D. Project management. 10th ed. Farnham, England: Gower; 2013.Lockie SF. SIA in review: setting the agenda for impact assessment in the 21st century.
Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19(4):277–87.Lockie SF. Deliberation and actor-networks: the “practical” implications of social theory
for the assessment of large dams and other interventions. Soc Nat Resour 2007;20(9):785–99.
Lockie SF. Coal mining and resource community cycle: a longitudinal assessment the so-cial impacts of the Coppabella Coal Mine. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29(5):330–9.
Loxton EA, Schirmer J, Kanowski P. Designing, implementing and monitoring socialimpact mitigation strategies: lessons from Forest Industry Structural AdjustmentPackages. Environ Impact Assess Rev 42:105-15.
Loxton EA, Schirmer J, Dare M. Structural adjustment assistance in the Australian forestindustry: a review of recent experience and recommendations for best practicedesign of future structural adjustment packages. Hobart: Cooperative ResearchCentre for Forestry; 2011.
Mahmoudi H, Renn O, Vanclay F, Hoffmann V, Karami E. A framework for combiningsocial impact assessment and risk assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;43:1–8.
Manring N, West PC, Bidol P. Social impact assessment and environmental conflict man-agement. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990;10:302–10.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetziaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting itemsfor systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):1–6.
Morgan RK, Hart A, Freeman C, Coutts B, Colwill D, Hughes A. Practitioners, professionalcultures, and perceptions of impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2012;32(1):11–24.
O'Faircheallaigh C. Making social impact assessment count: a negotiation-based approachfor indigenous peoples. Soc Nat Resour 1999;12(1):63–80.
O'Faircheallaigh C. Effectiveness in social impact assessment: aboriginal peoples andresource development in Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2009;27(2):95–110.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousands Oaks,California: Sage Publications; 2002.
Pollnac RB, Abbott-Jamieson S, Smith C, Miller ML, Clay PM, Oles B. Toward a model forfisheries social impact assessment. Mar Fish Rev 2006;68:1–18.
Pope J, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. Advancing the theory and practice ofimpact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;41:1–9.
Prenzel PV, Vanclay F. How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict manage-ment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2014;45:30–7.
Robinson J. Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures 2003;35(8):839–56.
Ross H, McGee TK. Conceptual frameworks for SIA revisited: a cumulative effects study onlead contamination and economic change. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2006;24(2):139–49.
Rossouw N, Malan S. The importance of theory in shaping social impact monitoring:lessons from the Berg River Dam, South Africa. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2007;25(4):291–9.
Rowan M. Refining the attribution of significance in social impact assessment. ImpactAssess Proj Apprais 2009;27:185–91.
RowanM, Streather T. Converting project risks to development opportunities through SIAenhancement measures: a practitioner perspective. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2011;29(3):217–30.
Sairinen R, Kumpulainen S. Assessing social impacts in urban waterfront regeneration.Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006(1):120–35.
Sairinen R, Barrow C, Kumpulainen S. Environmental conflict mediation and social impactassessment: approaches for enhanced environmental governance? Environ ImpactAssess Rev 2010;30(5):289–92.
Schirmer J. Scaling up: assessing social impacts at the macro-scale. Environ Impact AssessRev 2011;31:382–91.
Slootweg R, Vanclay F, van Schooten M. Function evaluation as a framework for the inte-gration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais2001;19(1):19–28.
Strauss A, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures andtechniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1990.
Suopajärvi L. Social impact assessment inmining projects in Northern Finland: comparingpractice to theory. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2013;42:25–30.
Tang B, Wong S, Chi-hong Lau M. Social impact assessment and public participation inChina: a case study of land acquisition in Guangzhou. Environ Impact Assess Rev2008;28:57–72.
133C.H.M. Wong, W. Ho / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 124–133
Tilt B, Braun Y, He D. Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of interna-tional case studies and implications for best practice. J Environ Manag 2009;90(Suppl. 3):S249–57.
Vanclay F. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2002;22(3):183–211.
Vanclay F. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess ProjApprais 2003;21(1):5–11.
Vanclay F. The triple bottom line and impact assessment: how do TBL EIA, SIA, SEAand EMS relate to each other? J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2004;6(3):265–88.
Vanclay F. Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison betweenthe international and US documents. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(1):3–14.
Vanclay F. The potential application of social impact assessment in integrated coastal zonemanagement. Ocean Coast Manag 2012;68:149–56.
Vanclay F, Esteves AM. Current issues and trends in social impact assessment. In:Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment:conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2011.p. 3–19.
Vanclay F, Baines JT, Taylor CN. Principles for ethical research involving humans: ethicalprofessional practice in impact assessment Part I. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2013;31(4):243–53.
Wang P, Lassoie JP, Dong S, Morreale SJ. A framework for social impact analysis of largedams: a case study of cascading dams on the Upper-Mekong River, China. J EnvironManag 2013;117:131–40.
Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learningperspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995;15(5):443–63.
Wolf CP. Social impact assessment. Environmental Design Research Association Confer-ence 5: Man–environmental interactions: evaluations and applications: the state ofthe art in environmental design research. Stroudsburg, PA: Environmental DesignResearch Association; 1974.
Wolf CP. Getting social impact assessment into the policy area. Environ Impact Assess Rev1980;1(1):27–36.
Wolf CP. Social impact assessment. Impact Assess 1982;1(1):9–19.
Wolf CP. Social impact assessment: a methodological overview. In: Finsterbusch K,Llewellyn LG, Wolf CP, editors. Social impact assessment methods. Beverley Hills,California: SAGE Publication Ic; 1983. p. 15–33.
CeciliaWongholds a BBA inHumanResourcesManagementand aMaster's degree of Social Sciences in Counselling. She isdedicated to multidisciplinary research with interests inassessment and evaluation, community development, careerdevelopment and social relationships. Before her career in
academia, she practiced as a human resource and trainingconsultant in Hong Kong, Mainland China and Macau.Dr. Wing-Chung is Associate professor of sociology at CityUniversity of Hong Kong and holds a PhD in anthropologyfrom SOAS, University of London. He has published broadlyon community studies and social problems in relation to sub-ordinate people in Hong Kong and Chinese societies. His aca-demic articles appear in Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,Journal of Contemporary Asia, Modern Asian Studies, Journal ofSocial History and The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology. Heteaches mainly on social research issues and methods.