Introduction

This report begins with a review of Social Impact Assessment, including the objectives,

methodology and underlying theoretical intentions and assumptions that are used as the

basis of SIA processes. The second includes an examination of the feasibility of

implementing SIA in developing contexts, using frames of reference derived from Barrow

(2000) to categorise underlying issues arising from four case studies from the developing

world. The third section discusses pitfalls that face SIA implementation in developed

settings and finally brief, concluding remarks consider the future of Social Impact

Assessment.

An Overview of Social Impact Assessment

Vanclay (2002: 387) describes SIA as “the process of analysing and managing the

intended and unintended consequences of planned interventions on people so as to bring

about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment”. Barrow

concludes, more simply, that it is “a systematic, iterative and ideally ex-ante assessment

of changes” (Barrow 2000: 2). There is an abundance of different perspectives and

approaches on SIA and what it is intended to achieve.

Done well, Social Impact Assessment offers some benefits. Firstly it generates a level of

understanding of ongoing changes that are useful to both researchers and decision

makers. It provides indicators that can be used in planning and allows for the generation

of alternatives to the proposed changes (Burdge 2003:85). As a process in which

stakeholders participate, it has a role in addressing the uncertainty which communities

experience when new developments are proposed (Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 60). At its

most potent, SIA can lead to delays or alterations in ‘bad’ projects or even the cancelling

of those projects deemed too damaging to the communities to continue (Burdge 1995:

18).

Social Impact Assessment arose from legal frameworks such as the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Burdge 1995: 4). By 1983, most US agencies at a

federal level had procedures for environmental and social impact assessment. The World

Bank and the UNCED followed in the late 1980s, with reports making recommendations

on sustainability which further established the practice of assessing the potential impact

of proposed projects. By the year 2000, Barrow (2000: 1) could say that there had been

“three decades of theoretical and methodological development to improve foresight of

future change and understanding of past development”.

1 | P a g e

What Social Impact Assessment actually entails is contested (Barrow 2000: 2; Burdge

2003:84). Barrow (2000: 4) surveys seventeen different definitions and aims, showing

that the meaning depends very much on the context in which the term is being used.

These definitions generally derive from an intention to mitigate negative impacts

(Vanclay 2002: 387; Vanclay 2006: 1) or are based around regulatory frameworks and

requirements (Vanclay 2006: 1). More recent definitions are based around a philosophical

vision of development. Vanclay (2002: 388) argues for a value system for practitioners.

Social justice, community development and equity are all essential elements of achieving

better outcomes for development (Vanclay 2002: 388). This is at odds with a technocratic

approach that simply assesses projects for negative impacts.

This change in focus has come about through an awareness that negative social impacts

are mostly borne by local communities although mostly, the decision is made at a state

or national level with more global economic interests as the basis (Burdge in Burdge

1995: 2). Becker (2001: 318) asks about the moral obligations of the assessment

process, a sentiment that is echoed in the framing of the 1994 Inter-organisational

Committee’s guidelines and principles of SIA (Burdge 2003:85).

There are many conceptual approaches or frameworks that can be derived from the

principles behind SIA. It can be approached on different scales. ‘Micro’ applications

consider impacts on individuals and groups of individuals. ‘Meso’ applications consider

impacts on organisations and social movements and ‘Macro’ applications evaluate

impacts on larger political and legal systems (Barrow 2000: 36; Becker 2001: 316).

The participatory techniques employed and the focus on assessment of data, lends SIA

both to research purposes and to engaging people in a process (Barrow 2000: 2).

Differing scope (Vanclay 2002: 388) and intention allow SIA to be deployed as a tool,

either for policy making or planning, or as a methodology for assessment. In a wider

sense, SIA is even a paradigm in that it is a way of approaching development and a way

to engage communities in political process (Burdge 1995: 5; Burdge and Vanclay 1996:

77).

Despite these disparate approaches, and possibly even causal of these approaches, SIA

as a discipline has been accused of having little in the way of unifying theoretical basis

(Ross and McGee 2006: 139). This lack of theoretical basis is obvious in, and perhaps

related to, SIA’s perceived position as an adjunct to the better funded and more widely

accepted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Barrow 2000: 6).

2 | P a g e

Sometimes SIA is subsumed into EIA, appearing as a subsection within a report. This is

mostly because social issues are seen to be issues of a more all embracing

understanding of the ‘environment’ (Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 64; O'Faircheallaigh

2009: 96). For example, SIA is subsumed under EIA in China (Tang, Wong et al. 2008:

59) and integrated in Iran (Ahmadvand, Karami et al. 2009: 401). In Nigeria, it has been

described as “an adjunct to EIA” (Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 211).

There are differences however. Barrow (2000: 3) chronicles different evolutions for SIA

and EIA and there is some difference in the ways that impacts are generated and

evaluated (Vanclay 2002: 389). Environmental factors are more predictable than human

behaviour (Ross in Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 216) and Vanclay (2002: 393) goes so far as

to say that because all environmental impacts are related to human factors, then SIA is

environmental assessment and the umbrella under which all environmental impact

should sit. Suffice to say, however, that while EIA is often legally mandated, SIA is in

many cases ignored completely (Burdge 2003:85).

Methodologically, SIA processes are essentially an exercise in comparative prediction.

By studying past events in similar contexts, the practitioner can predict likely impacts in

the future (Burdge 1995: 23). The predictions are not limited to initial impacts, but also

impacts that follow as a result of the ‘first order’ impacts (Vanclay 2002: 388).

Series of commonly accepted categories, indicators (Burdge 2003:86) or variables

(Burdge 1987: 146) are used to give a basis for categorising, ordering and measuring

impacts. Variables are intended to have an indicator that can be collected, measured,

and interpreted within the context of a specific social impact setting (Burdge 1995: 29).

SIA attempts to involve a variety of actors in the process. In a ‘how to’ guide, Burdge

(1995: 6) describes five different actors; the project proponent, the community, the

consultant, the wider public and the government. These different stakeholders offer

different perspectives on, and experience varying levels of impact from, the

development.

A series of steps are used to facilitate this involvement and the assessment. Barrow

(2000: 38) lists the steps as scoping, formulation of alternatives, profiling, projection,

assessment, evaluation, mitigation, monitoring and an ex-post audit.

Scoping requires the gathering of relevant information concerning the project or

development, defining the breadth of the assessment, the actors, the data and the

concerns and needs of the community.

3 | P a g e

Formulation of alternatives is using various techniques to elicit the desires of the

community to provide viable alternatives to the proposed development.

Profiling is creating a profile of the community and establishing how and what to

measure to evaluate change.

Projection is using scenarios to extrapolate likely results for the future based on the

project and the alternatives.

Assessment involves evaluating the scale and significance of the impacts.

Evaluation is comparing the results to determine who ‘wins’ in the scenario.

Mitigation is identifying ways to mitigate or avoid the impacts.

Monitoring is an ongoing process of evaluating the actual impacts to highlight need for

intervention or inform further policy making.

Ex-post audit is an evaluation of the SIA process itself to improve procedures and identify

failures in process for future development.

SIA is intended to give a solid scientific basis to evaluating collected data. Understood as

a process by which communities are engaged, mitigating the impacts on vulnerable

elements of communities (Vanclay 2002: 389) means that the collection of data is only

part of the involvement.

Participation of the community in identifying negative impacts and involving them in

mitigating actions makes SIA a highly political process. O’Faircheallaigh says “many of

the activities involved in SIA are inherently and unavoidably political, and that SIA can

only be ‘effective’ if this is recognised and appropriate strategies developed”. SIA then,

becomes a reflective process (Vanclay 2002: 388) that requires ongoing consideration of

issues of power and equality.

Can Social Impact Assessment be implemented in developing contexts?

Certainly Social Impact Assessment can be implemented in developing countries and that

is clearly seen in four case studies of SIA surveyed including Nigeria, Iran, Bangladesh

and China. An increase of SIA in developing countries seems likely given two main

factors. Firstly, regulatory requirements of development bodies such as the World Bank

and USAID (Barrow 2000: 1), mean that inevitably, SIA will be implemented in developing

countries receiving that aid. Secondly, realisations of socio economic benefits offered by

effective SIA in developing contexts (Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 211) has lead to the

pressures of ‘best practice’ and ‘good governance’ engaging SIA as part of a legal

framework that requires some sort of environmental or social assessment .

4 | P a g e

That does not mean that SIA in developing contexts is without challenges. Theoretically,

SIA has been considered inappropriate for developing contexts. Because it was derived

from the legal frameworks and through pressures experienced in a developed context, it

couldn’t hope to address wider issues of development (Vanclay 2006: 2). Recognising

this difficulty, attempts have been made to make SIA more relevant, including a series of

international principles to drive and give a strong foundation to SIA process and

implementation. From changes in theoretical approaches to development and in

response to regulatory pressures, new ideas have been generated, including the

development of ”strategic environmental assessment and regulatory impact

assessment” (Cashmore, Bond et al. 2009: 92)

Methodologically, SIA is often faced with significant complexity in implementation. Vast

areas of great ecological complexity, containing many differing social groupings can

complicate matters of for effective SIA. Political instability makes SIA much harder

(Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 216). A case study from the Niger Delta shows that political

instability can be a significant challenge for implementation of SIA because of existing

suspicion and fear generated by ongoing strife. In the case study instance, practitioners

were nearly lynched because of mistaken identity. It is also relevant in terms of the

results to arise out of engaging such communities in a political process. Fear of further

strife or resulting communal clashes might encourage government to avoid engaging

(Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 217).

That having been said, in this same case, SIA was used by the government to engage

populations in a participatory process as a form of ‘softening up’ for what would be

perceived as the ‘harder’ EIA (Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 217, 219). That means it was

used as a form of co-option to facilitate activities that the communities would likely

reject. The history of international development established a precedent in showing

disregard for communities (Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 213) and expecting that SIA might

be turned from its professed roots in equity and social justice to the purposes of co-

option and compliance (Barrow 2000: 106) is not unreasonable. A similar concern was

outlined regarding land requisitions in Ghangzhou (Tang, Wong et al. 2008: 62, 68). In

this case, SIA was used to engage communities in an attempt to convince them that

selling their land to the government was a good option.

Other challenges include cultural and educational barriers. Elitism in planning

involvement, respect for centralised governance (Tang, Wong et al. 2008: 60) and poor

education (Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 218) all serve as obstacles to participation and a

lack of community access to the process of assessment and mitigation . Similar

experiences are found in Iran. Although SIA was carried out, a review of five agricultural

5 | P a g e

projects discovered little of no community participation in the process (Ahmadvand,

Karami et al. 2009: 406).

This same case study highlighted the issue of capacity and competence. While strong

legal and constitutional requirements existed for SIA, the review found that using criteria

developed by Ahamd and Wood (Ahmadvand, Karami et al. 2009: 405), most activities

were rated as poor in terms of effectiveness.

Using comparative methods requires access to existing data on past circumstances.

Obtaining this data is often difficult in a developing context. Momtaz (2003: 126) found

that socio-economic data for assessing the Khulna-Jessore Draininage Rehabilitation

Project in Bangladesh was not available, making an evaluation of the distribution of

benefits and the selection of alternatives more difficult (Momtaz 2003: 130). On the

same lines, Becker (2001: 318) suggests that this is a common experience and when

trying to apply SIA methods and concepts, differences in terms and understandings

frustrate effective communication.

Institutionally, four major concerns can be highlighted. Firstly, capacity to engage in SIA

is often limited within developing contexts. A lack of social science expertise in Iran led

to SIA’s being implemented by professionals in the natural sciences (Ahmadvand, Karami

et al. 2009: 402). This lack of expertise leads to an undue concentration on the physical

implications of EIA and a neglect of social factors. Similar experiences in China are

compounded by a lack of financial resources dedicated to the process (Tang, Wong et al.

2008: 59).

Secondly, regulatory frameworks often exist at a high level of governance, but don’t give

specifics concerning SIA process, as seen in Nigeria (Akpofure and Ojile 2002: 215),

Bangladesh (Momtaz 2003: 126) and China (Tang, Wong et al. 2008: 60). Iran has a

constitutional imperative for SIA, but no specific guidelines on what must be included in

the actual SIA implementation and reporting (Ahmadvand, Karami et al. 2009: 400).

Finally and perhaps most importantly, is the institutional commitment to the principles

and objectives of SIA. Governments can be hostile to the participatory processes of SIA

(Barrow 2000: 103) or regard it as ‘window dressing’ to satisfy international donors

(Horberry in Tang, Wong et al. 2008: 59) or even as an obstacle to development (Tang,

Wong et al. 2008: 68). Even complacency or disinterest can mean that SIA achieves

little. For example, a lack of legal requirement for any outcome from mandated SIA

processes meant that five agricultural projects never engaged in the critical, impact

mitigating step of suggesting or evaluating alternatives to the proposal.

6 | P a g e

What issues affect Social Impact Assessment in developed contexts?

It would be a mistake to say that some of the experiences and challenges seen in the

developing world have not been experienced in the developed world, but there are also

some different lessons to be learned from implementation in developed contexts. SIA in

the developed world will continue to gain importance and advance conceptually due to

the societal pressures applied. Becker (2001: 320) outlines how the media and fear of

litigation and exposure motivate organisations and governments to exercise a duty of

care by examining social impacts. He suggests that increasingly strong regulatory

frameworks create a pressure for the development and use of SIA. SIA’s increasing

relevance to developers and governing bodies is seen in the Brisbane City Council’s

decision to approve three multi-storey residential towers at Kangaroo Point being

overturned in court based on potential social impacts (Summerville, Buys et al. 2006: 2).

A review of Australian SIA by Hong Kong based academics indicates a thorough process

with focus on social equity (Yeung, Lau et al. 1998: 8).

Challenges exist however. Theoretically, concerns relate to conceptual conflicts that exist

between attempts to evaluate difficult to measure social indicators and criticisms of the

discipline’s scientific basis (Torgerson in Barrow 2000: 65). Predicting social impacts is

difficult and the lack of a strong theoretical basis leads to difficult in applying social

science to SIA (Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 66).

This is especially true, given that rather than drawing closer to satisfying technical

measurement concerns, the discipline is trying to encompass political concerns about

justice and equity. Challenges to ethical and moral concerns lead to the conclusion that

conceptions of social impacts and their importance are plural (Barrow 2000: 32; Becker

2001: 317; Cashmore, Bond et al. 2009: 92).

Attempts at measuring SIA itself by ‘effectiveness’ have been declared “untenable”

(Cashmore, Bond et al. 2009: 93) and a paradox exists between SIA’s strong relevance as

a technical tool in planning processes and the ethics behind participation. Barrow (2000:

30) suggests an increasing marginalisation if SIA is not strongly tied to decision making

processes and planning concerns.

Methodologically, Difficulties arise when considering the validity of measuring social

impacts (Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 75; Vanclay 2006: 1). The actual collection of data is

not always easy and it has been argued that often data is selected based on availability

rather than relevance. This questions the usefulness of predictions based on that data

7 | P a g e

(Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 67). Becker (2001: 313) comments that it is not until the

assessment is complete that the assessor truly understands the problem, raising

questions of value for an ongoing engagement process.

Issues of discrepancy between theory and practice (Cashmore, Bond et al. 2009: 92) are

obvious in the partisan use of SIA. A common complaint is that SIA is used simply as a

necessary step for securing planning approval. This means that data is often not

collected more than once, creating a snapshot picture of the impact rather than a

process of engagement and mitigation (Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 67; Barrow 2000: 3).

This is also partly because of issues of expertise. With the introduction of legal

requirements for impact assessments, the frameworks have often been developed by

engineers or planners (Burdge 1995: 18) or even those claiming expertise but without

the skills (Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 67).

Politically, SIA is problematic, not least when evaluating the importance of stakeholders

or who constitutes the ‘community’ (Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 72; Becker 2001: 317).

Similar to issues in developing contexts, SIA can trigger social impacts itself. Even the

rumour of developments or an SIA creates an impact. Consultation has risks of triggering

conflict (Barrow 2000: 8, 72; Becker 2001: 317).

Institutionally, the developed world has strong legal and regulatory frameworks for SIA.

This can cause its own problems however. Finsterbusch (Barrow 2000: 70) bemoans the

bureaucratisation of SIA, saying that inflexible regulations can make non-standard

circumstances impossible to assess or engage.

Even when the frameworks are effective, the process is not always taken seriously

(Burdge and Vanclay 1996: 68-69; Barrow 2000: 69). Common attitudes towards SIA

include ignoring certain elements or applying SIA cosmetically (Barrow 2000: 37). There

has been a general dissatisfaction with SIA because decisions that fail to take into

account SIA recommendations (Vanclay 2005: 1).

One of the central difficulties for SIA is that there is no obligation to follow

recommendations made in SIA’s other than through whatever pressures are applied by

communities. A good example of this is the following statement taken from an SIA

implemented in the Hunter Valley, Australia. It said ”Feedback from the Hunter

Department of Planning indicated that these recommendations were considered in the

development of the final strategy” (Wells, Gillham et al. 2007: 167). Even after the

statement, the reader cannot be sure whether the Department of Planning’s decision was

actually influenced by the Social Impact Assessment or not.

8 | P a g e

Conclusion

Clearly, Social Impact Assessment is increasingly relevant to planning and decision

making in both developed and developing contexts. There are however, fundamental

conflicts in the theory and the way SIA is conceived. There are conflicts in the methods

and pitfalls in applying them. There are difficulties associated with dealing with

institutions and their agendas. This means, for now, that SIA will remain a ‘torn’

discipline attempting to find relevance in planning, yet at the same time trying to uphold

a social justice agenda. It will continually find itself at odds with pragmatic concerns of

governments and decision making bodies.

9 | P a g e

References

Ahmadvand, M., E. Karami, et al. (2009). "Evaluating the use of Social Impact Assessment in the context of agricultural development projects in Iran." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 399-407.

Akpofure, E. A. and M. Ojile (2002). UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual. Social Impact Assessment: an interactive and participatory approach, UNEP.

Barrow, C. J. (2000). Social impact assessment : an introduction. London, Oxford University Press.

Becker, H. A. (2001). "Social Impact Assessment." European Journal of Operational Research 128: 311-321.

Burdge, R. J. (1987). "The Social Impact Assessment Model and the Planning Process." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 7: 141-150.

Burdge, R. J. (1995). A community guide to social impact assessment. Middleton, Social Ecology Press.

Burdge, R. J. (2003). "The practice of social impact assessment - background." Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(2): 84-88.

Burdge, R. J. and F. Vanclay (1996). "Social Impact Assessment: A contribution to the state of the art series." Impact Assessment 14: 59-84.

Cashmore, M., A. Bond, et al. (2009). "Introduction: The effectiveness of impact assessment instruments." Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27(2): 91-93.

Momtaz, S. (2003). "The practice of social impact assessment in a developming country: the case of environmental and social impact assessment of Khulna-Jessore Drainage Rehabilitation Project in Bangladesh " Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2(125-132).

O'Faircheallaigh, C. (2009). "Effectiveness in social impact assessment: Aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia." Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27(2): 95-110.

Ross, H. and T. K. McGee (2006). "SIA conceptual frameworks." Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2: 139-149.

Summerville, J., L. Buys, et al. (2006). The implementation of social impact assessment in local government Social Change in the 21st Century Conference. Brisbane, Centre for Social Change Research, QUT.

Tang, B.-s., S.-w. Wong, et al. (2008). "Social impact assessment and public participation in China: A case study of land requisition in Guangzhou." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 57-72.

Vanclay, F. (2002). Social Impact Assessment. Encyclopedia of global environmental change. T. Munn. New York, Wiley: 387-393.

Vanclay, F. (2005). Engaging Communities with Social Impact Assessment: SIA as a Social Assurance Process. Engaging Communities 2005. Brisbane.

10 | P a g e

Vanclay, F. (2006). Conceptual and methodological advances in social impact assessment. The international handbook of social impact assessment : conceptual and methodological advances. H. A. Becker and F. Vanclay. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 326 p.

Wells, V. L., K. E. Gillham, et al. (2007). "An equity-focussed social impact assessment of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy." NSW Public Health Bulletin 18(9-10): 166-168.

Yeung, S., K. Lau, et al. (1998). The application of social impact assessment in urban planning and development – the Australian experience. AREUEA International Conference. Macau, China.

11 | P a g e