Guidelines and Principles For
Social Impact Assessment
Prepared by The Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for
Social Impact Assessment May 1994
U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Contents
Since passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, environmental
impact assess-ment has become the key component of environ-mental planning and
decision making in the United States. More recently, agency planners and decision
makers have recognized a need for better under-standing the social consequences
of projects, pro-grams and policies. In response to this need a group of social
scientists formed the Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines Principles
for Social Impact Assessment (SIA), with the purpose of out-lining a set of guidelines
and principles that will assist agencies and private interest in fulfilling their
obligations under NEPA, related
authorities and agency mandates.
By "social impacts" we mean the consequences to human populations of any
public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work,
play, relate
to one another, organize to meet their needs and generally cope as members
of society. The term also includes cultural impacts involving changes to
the norms,
values, and beliefs that guide and rationalize their cognition of themselves
and their society.
In this monograph, however, we define social impact assessment
in terms of efforts to assess or estimate, in advance, the social consequences
that are
likely to
follow from specific policy actions (in-cluding programs, and the adoption
of new polices), and specific government actions (including buildings,
large projects
and leasing large tracts of land for resource extraction), particularly
in the context of the U.S. National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or "NEPA" (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4371
et seq.). A central requirement of NEPA is that before any agency
of the federal government may
take "actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" that
agency must first prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (or EIS). Preparing
an EIS requires
the integrated use of the social sciences. The social science components of EIS's are called social or socioeconomic
impact assessments, or simplySIA's. Several federal agencies have moved
to develop
SIA guidelines, but most have not. Even within agencies that have SIA guidelines
there is variation on how the social component of NEPA is to be implemented.
Since the passage of NEPA there has never been a systematic, inter-disciplinary
state-ment from the social science community as to what should be in the
content of an SIA, even though the term "social impact assessment" was first
used when the Department of the Interior was preparing the EIS for the Trans-Alaska
pipeline
in the early 1970's.
The purpose of this monograph is to present the central principles and
some operational guidelines for use by federal agencies in conducting social
impact assessments. The organizations and individuals listed on the cover sheet represent both
relevant social science disciplines and persons who have done SIA's both
in federal agencies
and the private sector, and those who have taught courses and conducted
social impact assessment research through universities. This document is
the first
systematic and interdisciplinary statement to offer guidelines and principles
to assist
government agencies and private sector interests in using SIA to make better
decisions under NEPA and related authorities (see Section II). These guidelines
and standards are equally important for those communities and individuals
likely to be affected by proposed actions in order that they might conduct
independent
assessments or evaluate the adequacy of SIA's. Within these few pages we
cannot cover over two decades of research on "social effects" much less every
contingency that may occur in the course of implementing a proposed project
or policy change.
However, we do provide a broad overview, focusing less on methodological
details and more on the guidelines and principles for the preparation of
technically
and substantively adequate SIA's within reasonable time and resource
constraints.
Listed alphabetically,
the paper was prepared by Burdge, Fricke, Finsterbush, Freudenburg, Gramling,
Holden,
Llewwellyn, Petterson, Thompson and Williams. Comments were received from
Hobson Bryan, Tom Greider, Lambert Wenner, and Richard Stoffle. A previous
draft of
the paper was given with the title, "Social Impact Assessment: Principles and
Standards for U.S. Federal Agencies and U.S. Sponsored Donor Agencies," as
a parallel plenary session at the 13th Annual Meeting of the International
Association
for Impact Assessment, Qian He Hotel, Shanghai, China, June 12-15, 1993
and included in the
Abstracts (p. 15-16).
Legal Mandates and Administrative Procedures
for Social Impact Assessment
Section II of the monograph provides a brief over-view of the legal mandates
and the administrative procedures that shape SIA's done in the context of environmental
impact statements; Section III pro-vides a basic model for social impact assessment;
Section IV outlines the steps in doing an SIA; and Section V provides principles
and guidelines for doing social impact assessment. We concluded with a list of
east-to-obtain references.
Prior to the enactment of the National Environ-mental Policy Act, analysis
of the social conse-quences of major projects often was fragmented and lacking
in
focus. For example, when construction-related impacts of public works projects
were at issue, attention was generally centered on economic considerations.
The prevailing view was that money could compensate for any adverse impacts.
There
was minimal concern for social impacts even if entire neighborhoods had to
be displaced so long as comparable housing could be located elsewhere. There
was
even less concern for the distribution or "equity" of these impacts on different
populations. Also lost in this process was the important people attach to their
communities and neighborhoods; and particularly to long-standing social networks
that form the basis of support both for daily living and during periods of
extreme stress
and hardship.
The passing of NEPA created a different, but somwhat vague, set of requirements
for federal agencies; among these is the integrated use of the social sciences
in assessing impacts on the human environment. Over the years, the legal definition
of "human
environment" has undergone substantial modification as a result of court decisions
stemming from NEPA-related litigation. The council on Envi-ronmental Quality's
(CEQ's) Regulations for Imple-menting the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental
Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508) point-out that the "human environment" is to be "interpreted
comprehensively" to include "the natural and physical environment and the relationship
of
people with that environment" (40 CFR 1508.14). Agencies need to assess not only
so-called, "direct" effects, but also "aesthetic, historic, cultural, eco-nomic,
social,
or health" effects, "whether direct, indirect, or cumulative" (40 CFR 1508.8).
The CEQ Regulations also contain another key provision that should be noted "..economic
or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an
environmental
impact statement" (40 CFR 1508.14). However, when an EIS is prepared "and economic
or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then
the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human
environment" (40 CFR 1508.14). The EIS's are thus intended to provide a kind
of full-disclosure procedure for federal decision-makers, who are then expected
to consider the negative as well as the positive implications of potential
courses of action, and the unintended as well as the intended consequences,
before they
proceed.
NEPA also provides citizens with the opportunity to challenge agency decisions;
again in this case, however, NEPA's provisions are often mis-understood. The
greatest level of legal vulnerability for the agency is not created by taking
actions that will create negative impacts. It comes from failing to consider
or fully analyze those impacts in
advance.
Most federal agencies are required to establish government-to-government relationships
with American Indian tribes. The requirement is passed on to states, cities,
and counties when federal funds are involved. The special status of American
Indian tribes is recognized in the CEQ Regulations with early knowledge of projects,
participation in the formulation of issues and data collection, and com-ments
on drafts whenever a project can
impact Indian people living on a reservation.
American Indian concerns are to be included in an EIS whenever a project affects
any of their culture's resources on or off current reservation lands. American
Indian rights in the SIA process have been expanded by the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act (PL 95-341) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act of 1990. Although neither act was specifically designed to affect the NEPA
and SIA processes, both acts have resulted in special sections in EIS's involving
traditional Indian lands.
Figure 1 presents a brief chronology listing stat-utes and regulations
that directly or indirectly man-date the conduct of social impact assessment.
However, the NEPA requirements were first. They continue to have the broadest
applicability in the U.S., and thus were focused on social impact assess-ment
within that context.
date | law | provisions |
---|---|---|
1970 | National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. | Calls for the integrated use of the social sciences in assessing impacts "on the human environ-ment". Also requires the identification of methods and procedures…which insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values be given appropriate consideration. |
1976 | Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.A. 1801, es seg.). | Where a "system for limiting access to the fishery in order to achieve optimum yield" is deemed necessary, the Act requires the Secretary of Com-merce and the regional Fishery Management Councils to consider in depth the economic and social impacts of the system. |
1978 | U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 1978. (40 CFR 1500-1508). Regulations for implementing the proce-dural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act. | "'Human environment' shall be interpreted com-prehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment." |
1978 | Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C.A. 1331 es seg.). | "The term 'human environment' means the physi-cal, social, and economic components, conditions and factors which interactively determine the state, condition, and quality of living conditions, employment, and health of those affected directly or indirectly" by the resource development activi-ties in question. |
1980 | Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-tion and Liability Act (26 and 43 U.S.C.A. es seg.). | Calls for working with affected publics through community relations programs and assessing community and state acceptance of Superfund plans and affecting local populations. |
1982 | Nuclear Waste Policy Act. | Calls for the preparation of an EIS, specific de- mographic limitations on siting the nuclear re-pository; inclusion of affected Indian Tribes in the siting process and impact assistance. |
1986 | Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. | Work with an affected public through community relations programs and assessing the acceptance of plans by local communiities. |
1986 | Council of Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508) re-issue of regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. | The treatment of incomplete or unavialable infor-mation is clarified. |
A Basic Model for Social Impact Assessment
The Link between Environmental Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment Impacts on the social environment resemble bio-physical impacts in several ways.
-
Social and biophysical impacts can vary in desir- ability, ranging from the desirable to the adverse.
-
They also vary in scale-the question of whether a facility will create 50 or 1000 jobs, for example, or will have the potential to spill 50 or 1000 gallons of toxic waste.
-
Another consideration involves the extent of du-ration of impacts in time and space. Like bio-physical impacts, some social impacts can be of short duration, while others can last a lifetime; and some communities "return to normal" quite quickly once a source of disruption is removed, while other do not.
-
Social impacts can also vary in intensity or severity, a dimension that is defined differently in different project settings, just as an objective biophysical impact (e.g., a predicted loss of 75 sea otters) might have a minor effect on populations in one location (e.g., off the coast of Alaska), while amounting to significant fraction of the remaining population in another location (e.g., off the cost of California).
-
Similarly, there are differences in the degree to which both type of impacts are likely to be cu-mulative, at one extreme, or mutually counter-balancing, at the other.
It is important to consider the social equity or distribution of impacts across
different populations. Just as the biological sections of EIS's devote par-ticular
attention to threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species, the socioeconomic
sections of EIS's must devote particular attention to the impacts on vulnerable
segments of the human population. Examples include the poor, the elderly, adolescents,
the unemployed, and women; members of the minority and/or other groups that are
racially, ethnically, or culturally distinctive; or occupational, cultural, political,
or value-based groups for whom a given community, region, or use of the biophysical
environment is particularly
important.
In addition to the types of disturbances that can affect other species, humans
are affected by changes in the distinctly human environment, including those
associated with the phenomenon known as the social construction of reality. Persons
not familiar with the social sciences are often tempted to treat social constructions
as mere perceptions or emotions, to be distinguished from reality. Such a separation
is not so easy to accomplish. We are careful to point out that the social construction
of reality is characteristic of all social groups, including the agencies that
are attempting to
implement changes as well as the communities that are affected.
In the case of proposed actions that involve con-troversy, attitudes and perceptions
toward a proposed policy change are one of the variables that must be considered
in determining the significance of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27b[4]). During controversies,
parti-cipants are often tempted to dismiss the concerns of others as being merely
imagined or perceived.
There are two important factual reasons not to omit such concerns from SIA's
and EIS's, regardless of whether the views are widely accepted internally or
come from an agency's critics. First, positions taken by all sides in a given
controversy are likely to be shaped by (differing) perceptions of the policy
or project, and the decision to accept one set of per-ceptions while excluding
another, may not be scien-tifically defensible. Second, if the agency asserts
that its critics are "emotional" or "misinformed," for example, it is guaranteed
to raise the level of hostility between itself and community members and will
stand in the way of a successful resolution of the problem.
In summary, some of the most important aspects of social impacts, involve not
the physical relocation of human populations, but the meanings, perceptions,
or social
significance of these changes.
A Social Impact Assessment Framework
To predict what the probable impact of development will be, we seek to understand
the past behavior of individuals and communities affected by agency actions,
development, or
policy changes.
We use a comparative SIA method to study the course of events in a community
where an environ-mental change has occurred, and extrapolate from that analysis
what is likely to happen in another community where a similar development or
policy change is planned. Put another way, if we wish to know the probable effects
of a proposed project in location B, one of the best places to start is to assess
the effects of a similar project that has already been completed in location
A. Specific variables to access project impacts are
shown later in this section.
Based on the direction outlined in NEPA and the CEQ Regulations, we need to identify
probable un-desirable social effects of development before they occur in order
to make recommendations for miti-gation. As we point out in a later section,
the appro-priate federal agency (in cooperation with the local community) bears
responsibility for coordinating mitigation efforts. The SIA model also allows
us to address the issues of alternative plans and alternative impacts of a proposed
project. Moreover, because social impacts can be measured and understood, recommendations
for mitigating actions on the part of the agencies can be made. In Section IV
we outline a procedure for mitigating
potentially adverse impacts.
It is almost impossible to catalogue all dimen-sions of social impacts because
change has a way of creating other changes. A freeway extension facili-tates
residential growth which leads to increased traffic and air pollution, creation
of new schools, retail centers, and other services, and the decline of a downtown
neighborhood.
In Figure 3 we have identified the basic social dimensions that can be measured
which reflect fun-damental and important characteristics of a com-munity. Studied
over time, these characteristics give us insight as to how social structure will
be altered when change occurs. Faced with a proposal to imple-ment a new ski
area, for example, the community and the agency proposing the change can profit
from the experience of other comparable communities that have already undergone
a ski area development and thereby gain a reasonably accurate expectation of
how the project will affect their community.
Forecasted impacts are the difference in the hu-man environment between the future
with the project and a future without the project. Since we cannot see the future,
we look at similar communities that have experienced similar policies or projects
in the past. The social impact assessment model is comparative. Our experience
has shown the forecasts can be made about probable social impacts. The model
also permits a restudy of the impacted community in the future to assess what
the actual impact has been, so that the fit between forecasts and outcome can
be matched.
One way to capture the dynamic complex quality of social impacts is to metaphorically
take a series of snapshots over time as the development event or policy change
unfolds and fill in what happened in between. Ideally, information about the
community or geographic area of study is available both before and after the
event to help in measurement. Social impacts then become the changes taking place
between the two measurements points. The social as-sessor attempts to forecast
the change associated with proposed activity, based on research and information
accumulated from comparative
studies of similar situations.
A strength of the comparative SIA model is that with appropriate data sources
(those which can be collected frequently, such as land transfer records) it allows
for an interpretation of dynamic events and can provide monitoring of short-term
impacts. This kind of frequent monitoring provides a continual source of evaluation
or check on the
direction of forecasts made about social impacts.
Stage in Project/Policy Development
All projects and policies go through a series of steps or stages, starting with
initial planning, then imple-mentation and construction, carrying through to
operation and maintenance (see Figure 2). At some point the project might be
abandoned or decom-misioned, or official policy could change. Social impacts
will be different for each stage. Scoping of issues prior to analysis may lead
the assessor to focus only on one stage. For example, one community might be
concerned about public reaction resulting from initial siting of a hazardous
waste disposal facility; another with the construction aspects of reservoirs;
and a third might be faced with a change in the designation of adjacent public
land from timber production to wilderness use. The specific stage in life of
the project or policy is an important factor in determining effects. Not all
social impacts will occur at each stage. Figure 2 illustrates the stages in project
development.
1. Planning/Policy Development
Planning/policy development refers to all activity that takes place from the
time a project or policy is conceived to the point of construction activity or
policy implementation. Examples include project design, revision, public comment,
licensing, the evaluating of alternatives, and the decision to go ahead. Social
impacts actually begin the day the action is proposed and can be measured from
that point.
Social assessors must recognize the importance of local or national social constructions
of reality, which begin during the earliest of the four stages-the planning/policy
development stage. We often assume that no impacts will take place until Stage
2 (construction/implementation) begins on a project -through dirt-moving operations,
for example, or the start-up of construction activities. However, real, measurable,
and often significant effects on the human environment can begin to take place
as soon as there are changes in social or economic conditions. From the time
of the earliest announce-ment of a pending policy change or rumor about a project,
both hopes and hostilities can begin to mount; speculators can lock up potentially
important properties, politicians can maneuver for position, and interest groups
can form or redirect their energies. These changes occur by merely introducing
new information into a community or
region.
2. Construction/Implementation
The construction/implementation stage begins when a decision is made to proceed,
a permit is issued or a law or regulation takes place. For typical construction
projects, this involves clearing land, building access roads, developing utilities,
etc. Displacement and relocation of people, if necessary, occurs during this
phase. Depending on the scale of the project, the buildup of a migrant construction
work force also may occur. If signi-ficant in-migration occurs, the new residents
may create a strain on community infrastructure, as well as creating social stresses
due to changing patterns of social interaction. Communities may have difficulties
in responding to the increased demands on school, health facilities, housing
and other social services. Further stresses may be created by resentments between
newcomers and long-time residents, by sudden increases in the prices for housing
and local services, and even by increased uncertainty about the future. When
new policies are implemented, local economies and organiza-tions may change,
and old behavior are replaced with new ways of relating to the environment and
its
resources.
3. Operation/Maintenance
The operation/maintenance stage occurs after the construction is complete or
the policy is fully oper-ational. In many cases, this stage will require fewer
workers than the construction/implementation phase. If operations continue at
a relatively stable level for an extended period of time, effects during this
stage can often be the most beneficial of those at any stage. Communities seeking
industrial devel-opment will often focus on this stage because of the long-term
economic benefits that may follow from a development. It is also during this
stage that the communities can adapt to new social and economic conditions, accommodation
can t take place, and the expectations of positive effects-such as stable population,
a quality infrastructure, and employment opportunities-can be
realized.
4. Abandonment/Decommissioning
Abandonment/decommissioning begins when the proposal is made that the project
or policy and associated activity will cease at some time in the future. As
in the planning stage, the social impacts of decommissioning begin when the
intent
to close down is announced and the community or region must again adapt, but
this time to the loss of the project or an adjustment to a policy change. Some-times
this means the loss of the economic base as a business closes its doors. At
other times, the dis-ruptions to the local community may be lessened or at
least altered
if one type of worker is replaced by another, as in a case such as the Hanford
Facility in Washington State, where nuclear production facili-ties have been
closed down, but employment has actually increased as environmental cleanup
spe-cialists have been hired to help deal with the con-tamination at the facility.
In other
cases, disruption may be exacerbated if the community is not only losing its
present economic base, but has lost the capacity to return to a former economic
base. Mor-gan
City, Louisiana which had been the self-pro-claimed "shrimp capital of the world" in
the 1950's is a good example of a community that lost its ca-pacity to return
to a former economic base. During the 1960's and 1970's the employment in this
community shifted to offshore oil development. When oil prices collapsed in
the 1980's, the community found it could not return to the shrimp industry
because
shrimp-processing facilities had closed down and most of the shrimp boats had
been allowed to decay or left the area.
The Project Type and Setting
Projects and policy decisions which require and benefit from social impact assessment range from prison and plant sitings, to highway, reservoir, and power plant construction, to managing old growth forests to maintain a biologically diverse region. Accordingly projects types may range from isolated wilderness areas to urban neighborhoods, each with special characteristics that can affect social impacts. Social impacts (as well as economic and physical changes) will vary depending upon the type of de-velopment. The following examples or projects types, settings, and policy changes are taken from the Di-gest of Environmental Impact Statements, published by The Information Resource Press:
-
Mineral extractions, including surface and un-derground mining as well as new oil and gas drilling.
-
Hazardous and sanitary waste sites, including the construction and operation of disposal sites for a variety of hazardous and sanitary wastes (also included are facilities that burn or otherwise destroy chemical and toxic wastes).
-
Power plants, including both unclear and fossil fuel electrical generating facilities and associ-ated developments.
-
Reservoirs, including all water impoundments for flood control, hydropower, conservation, and recreation; and cooling lakes and diversion structures.
-
Industrial plants (manufacturing facilities built and operated by the private sector, e.g., refi-neries, steel mills, assembly lines).
-
Land use designations, e.g., from timber pro-duction to wilderness designation.
-
Military and governmental installations, including base closures and openings.
-
Schools, public and private, including primary, secondary, and university.
-
Transportation facilities, including airports, streets, terminals.
-
Linear developments, including subways, railroads, power lines, aqueducts, bike paths, bridges, pipelines, sewers, fences, walls and barrier channels, green belts, and waterways.
-
Trade facilities, including businesses and shopping centers.
-
Designation of sacred sites.
-
Parks and preserves, refuges, cemeteries, and recreation areas.
-
Housing facilities, including apartments, office buildings, and hospitals.
Identify Social Impact Assessment Variables
Social impact assessment variables point to measur-able change in human population,
communities, and social relationships resulting from a development project or
policy change. After research on local community change, rural industrialization,
reservoir and highway development, natural resource develop-ment, and social
change in general, we suggest a list of social variables under the general headings
of:
1. Population Characteristics
2. Community and Institutional Structures
3. Political and Social Resources
4. Individual and Family Changes
5. Community Resources
1. Population Characteristics mean present population and expected change,
ethnic and racial diversity, and influxes and outflows of temporary residents
as well as the
arrival of seasonal or leisure residents.
2. Community and Institutional Structures mean the size, structure, and
level of organization of local government including linkages to the larger political
systems. They also include historical and present patterns of employment and
industrial diversification, the size and level of activity of voluntary associations,
religious organizations and interests groups, and finally, how these institutions
relate to each
other.
3. Political and Social Resources refer to the distribution of power
authority, the interested and affected publics, and the leadership capa-bility
and capacity within
the community or region.
4. Individual and Family Changes refer to factors which influence the
daily life of the individuals and families, including attitudes, perceptions,
family characteristics and friend-ship networks. These changes range from attitudes
toward the policy to an alteration in family and friendship networks to perceptions
of risk, health, and safety.
5. Community Resources Resources include patterns of natural resource
and land use; the availability of housing and community services to include health,
police and fire protection and sanitation facilities. A key to the continuity
and survival of human communities are their historical and cultural resources.
Under this collection of variables we also consider possible changes for indigenous
people and religious
sub-cultures.
Social Impact Assessment Variable | Planning/Policy Development | Implementation/ Construction | Operation/ Maintenance | Decommissioning/ Abandonment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Population Characteristics | ||||
Population Change | ||||
Ethnic and racial distribution | ||||
Relocated populations | ||||
Influx or outflows of temporary workers | ||||
Seasonal residents | ||||
Community and Institutional Structures | ||||
Voluntary associations | ||||
Interest group activity | ||||
Size and structure of local government | ||||
Historical experience with change | ||||
Employment/income characteristics | ||||
Employment equity of minority groups | ||||
Local/regional/national linkages | ||||
Industrial/commercial diversity | ||||
Presence of planning and zoning activity | ||||
Political and Social Resources | ||||
Distribution of power and authority | ||||
Identifications of stakeholders | ||||
Interested and affected publics | ||||
Leadership capability and characteristics | ||||
Individual and Family Changes | ||||
Perceptions of risk, health, and safety | ||||
Displacement/relocation concerns | ||||
Trust in political and social institutions | ||||
Residential stability | ||||
Density of acquaintanceship | ||||
Attitudes toward policy/project | ||||
Family and friendship networks | ||||
Concerns about social well-being | ||||
Community Resources | ||||
Change in community infrastructure | ||||
Native American tribes | ||||
Land use patterns | ||||
Effects on cultural, historical, and archaeological resources |
These variables are suggestive
and illustrative and are only intended to provide a beginning point for the social
assessor. Taylor et al., 1990 (and the U.S. Forest Service manual and handbook)
use the four major categories of: population change; life style; attitudes, beliefs
and values; and social organization. Brudge, 1994, uses the five categories of
population impacts; community and institutional arrangements; conflicts between
local residents and newcomers; individual family level impacts and community
infrastructure needs. Branch, et al., 1984, use four categories of social impact
assessment variables in their social organization model: direct project inputs;
community resources; community social organization; and indicators of individual
community well-being.
Project/Policy Stage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Project/Policy Settings (type) | Planning/Policy Development | Construction/ Implementation | Operation/ Maintenance | Decommission/ Abandonment |
Hazardous Waste Site | Perceptions of risk, health and safety | Influx of temporary workers | Trust in political and social institutions | Alteration in size of local government |
Industrial Plant | Formation of attitudes towards the project | Change in community infrastructure | Chang in employment/ income characteristics | Change in employment equity of minority groups |
Forest Service to Park Service Management | Interested and affected publics | Trust in political and social institutions | Influx of recreation users | Distribution of power/authority |
At this point in discussing a SIA model we have demonstrated a conceptual procedure
for both examining and accumulating information about social impacts. We have
also outlined a matrix which demonstrates that social impacts will be different
depending upon the project type and the stage of development. The next step in
the development of the social impact assessment model is to suggest the social
impact variables for stages in project develop-ment given different project type
and setting.
Combining Social Impact Assessment Variables, Project/Policy Stage, and Setting
The four stages of project/policy development affect the social processes which
produce changes in char-acteristics of the community or region. Social impact
assessment specialists must construct a matrix to direct their investigation
of potentially significant social impacts. Sample matrices are shown in Figure
3 and 4.
For each project/policy stage, the assessor should identify potential impacts
on each social variable identified in the matrix. This approach ensures that
no critical areas are overlooked. We emphasize that Figure 3 does not represent
all social impact assess-ment variables that may be of interest for any project.
It is presented to illustrate the issues which represent the beginning of such
a task. The task for the asses-sor is to spell out the magnitude and significance
of impacts for each cell
like those identified in the illustrations.
Figure 4 provides an abbreviated illustration of how SIA variables (as suggested
in Figure 3) might be applied within the context of both the setting type and
the stage of a project. The first example is the siting of a hazardous waste
facility. Perceptions about problems of public health and safety could emerge
during the early planning stage. If a decision is made to go ahead, construction
would be accompanied by an influx of temporary workers. In the case of the industrial
plan, community infrastruc-ture support might be needed during construction,
while changes in the industrial focus on the com-munity might occur during the
operational stage. These analytic procedures would be repeated for each of the
SIA variables for each stage of the project. Procedures for accomplishing this
task are outlined in Section V (principles for doing social impact
asses-sment).
Steps in the Social Impact Assessment Process
The social impact assessment itself should contain the ten steps outlined in
Figure 5. These steps are logically sequential, but often overlap in practice.
This sequence is patterned after the environmental impact assessment steps as
listed in the CEQ guidelines.
1. Public Involvement - Develop an effective public plan to involve all potentially
affected publics.
This requires identifying and working with all potentially affected groups starting
at the very beginning of planning for the proposed action. Groups affected by
proposed actions include those who live nearby; those who will hear, smell or
see a development; those who are forced to relocate because of a project; and
those who have interest in a new project or policy change but may not live in
proximity. Others affected include those who might normally use the land on which
the project is located (such as farmers who have to plow around a transmission
line). Still others include those affected by the influx of seasonal residents
who may have to pay higher prices for food or rent, or pay higher taxes to cover
the cost of expanded community services. Once identified, representative from
each group should be systematically interviewed to determine potential areas
of concern/impact, and ways each representative might be involved in the planning
decision process. Public meet-ings by themselves are inadequate for collecting
information about public perceptions. Survey data can be used to define the potentially
affect-ed population. In this first step, the pieces are put in place for a public
involvement program which will last throughout the environmental and social impact
assessment process.
2. Identification of Alternatives - Describe the proposed action or policy
change and
reasonable alternatives.
In the next step, the proposed action is described in enough detail to begin
to identify the data requirements needed from the project proponent to frame
the SIA. At a minimum,
this includes:
-
Locations
-
Land requirements
-
Needs for ancillary facilities (roads, transmission lines, sewer and water lines)
-
Construction schedule
-
Size of the work force (construction and operation, by year or month)
-
Facility size and shape
-
Need for a local work force
-
Institutional resources
The list of social impact assessment variables shown in Figure 3 is a guide for
ob-taining data from policy or project proponents. Sometimes the description
of the proposed alter-natives may not include all the information needed for
an SIA. Another problem is the provision of summary numbers when dis-aggregated
numbers are needed. For example, the social assessor may be given numbers for
the total peak work force of a construction project, when information is needed
on local, in-migrating, and nonlocal commuting workers
for each phase of construction.
3. Baseline Conditions - Describe the relevant human environment/area of influence
and
baseline conditions.
The baseline conditions are the existing con-ditions and past trends associated
with the human environment in which the proposed activity is to take place. This
is called the baseline study. For construction projects, a geographical area
is identified along with the distribution of special populations at risk; but
for programs, policies, or technology assessments, the relevant human environment
may be a more dispersed collection of interested and affected publics, interest
groups, organizations, and insti-tutions. The generic set of dimensions for inves-tigation
listed below would include the following aspects of the human environment for
construc-tion projects and geographically-located programs and policies (the
social impact assess-ment variables listed in Figure 3 require
similar information):
-
Relationships with the biophysical environ-ment, including ecological setting; aspects of the environment seen as resources or prob-lems; areas having economic, recreational, aesthetic or symbolic significance to specific people; residential arrangements and living patterns, including relationships among com-munities and social organizations; attitudes toward environmental features; and patterns of resource use.
-
Historical background, including initial settle-ment and subsequent shifts in population; developmental events and eras, including experience with boom-bust effects, as well as a discussion of broader employment trends; past or ongoing community controversies, parti-cularly those involving technology or the environment; and other experiences likely to affect the level of distribution of the impacts on local receptivity to the proposed action.
-
Political and social resources, including the distribution of power and authority; the capacities of relevant systems or institutions (e.g., the school system); friendship networks and patterns of cleavage or cooperation among potentially affected groups; levels of resi-dential stability; distributions of socio-demo-graphic characteristics such as age and ethnicity; presence of distinctive or potentially vulnerable groups (e.g., low income); and linkages among geo-political units (federal, state, county, local and inter-local).
-
Culture, attitudes and social-psychological conditions, including attitudes toward the proposed action; trust in political and social institutions, perceptions or risks; relevant psychological coping and adjustment capacity; cultural cognition of society and environment; assessed quality of life; and improvement values that may be relevant to or affected by the proposed action.
-
Population characteristics including the demo-graphics of relevant groups (including all sig-nificant stakeholders and sensitive populations and groups); major economic activities; future prospects; the labor markets and available work force; unemployment and underemploy-ment; population and expected changes; availability of housing, infrastructure and services; size and age structure of households; and seasonal migration patterns.
The level of effort that is devoted to the description of the human environment
should be commensurate with the size, cost, and degree of expected impacts of
the proposed action. At a minimum, the existing literature on comparable or analogous
events, knowledgeable experts, and readily available documents such as government
reports should be consulted. On-site investigations and the use of previous field
studies and surveys are recommended, as well as rapid appraisals and mini-surveys.
4. Scoping - After obtaining a technical under-standing of the proposal, identify
the full range of probable social impacts that will be addressed based on discussion
or interviews with numbers of all potentially affected.
After initial scoping, the social impact assessor selects the SIA variables for
further assessment situations. Consideration needs to be devoted both to the
impacts perceived by the acting agency and to those perceived by affected groups
and communities. The principal methods to be used by experts and interdisciplinary
terms are reviews of the existing social science literature, public scoping,
public surveys, and public participation techniques. It is important for the
views of affected people to be taken into consideration. Ideally, all affected
people or groups contribute to the selection of the variables assessed through
either a participatory process or by review and comment on the decision made
by responsible officials and the interdisciplinary team.
Relevant criteria for selecting significant impacts comparable to those spelled
out in
the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) include the:
-
Probability of the event occuring;
-
Number of people including indigenous populations that ill be affected;
-
Duration of impacts (long-term vs. short-term);
-
Value of benefits and costs to impacted groups (intensity of impacts);
-
Extent that the impact is reversible or can be mitigated;
-
Likelihood of causing subsequent impacts;
-
Relevance to present and future policy decisions;
-
Uncertainty over possible effects; and
-
Presence or absence of controversy over the issue.
5. Projection of Estimated Effects - Investigate the probable impacts.
The probable social impacts will be formulated in terms of predicted conditions
without the actions (baseline projection); predicted con-ditions with the actions;
and predicted impacts which can be interpreted as the differences between the
future with and without the proposed action. The empirical procedures is based
on the social impact assessment
model outlined in Section III.
Investigation of the probable impacts involves five major sources of information:
1) Data from project proponents;
2) Records of previous experience with similar actions as represented in reference
literature as well as other EIS's;
3) Census and vital statistics;
4) Documents and secondary sources;
5) Field research, including informant interviews, hearings, group meeting, and
surveys of the general population.
The investigation of the social impacts
identified during scoping is the most important component. Methods of projecting the future lie at the heart of social assessment, and much of the process of analysis is tied up in this endeavor. In spite of the long lists of methods available, most fall into the following categories:
-
Comparative method;
-
Straight-line trend projects taking an existing trend and simply projecting the same rage of change into the future);
-
Population multiplier methods(each specified increase in population implies designated multiples of some other variable, e.g. jobs, housing units);
-
Scenarios(1) logical-imaginations based on construction of hypothetical futures through a process of mentally modeling the assumptions about the variables in question; and (2) fitted empirical-similar past cases used to analyze the present case with experts adjusting the scenario by taking into account the unique characteristics of the present case;
-
Expert testimony(experts can be asked to present scenarios and assess their implications);
-
Computer modelingmodeling (involving the mathematical formulation of premises and a process of quantitative weighing of variables);
-
Calculation of "future foregone" " (a number of methods have been formulated to determine what options would be given up irrevocably as a result of a plan or project, e.g., river recreation and agricultural land use after the building of a dam).
The record of previous experiences is very important to the estimation of future
impacts. It is largely contained in case reports and studies and the experience
of experts. Variations in the patterns of impacts and responses in these cases
also should be registered. Expert knowledge is used to enlarge this knowledge
base and to judge how the study case is likely to deviate from the typical patterns.
The documents and secondary sources provide information on existing conditions,
plans, reported attitudes and opinions; and contribute to the case record. The
field research involves interviews with persons who have different interests
at stake, different perspectives, and different kinds of expertise. Wherever
feasible, it should also involve a search through a wide range of documentation
that is often available (in forms that range from official statistics and the
minute of meeting to the patterns of coverage and letters to the editors). The
opinions of various individuals and groups toward the proposed change should
also be part of the record. Surveys are valuable to assess public opinion properly,
because spokes-persons for groups do not always represent the views of the rank-and-file.
Statements at public meeting and by spokespersons should not be used as projections,
but as possible impacts to be evaluated through other means.
6. Predicting Responses to Impacts - Determine the significance to the identified
social impacts. This is a difficult assessment task often avoided, but the
responses of affected parties frequently will have significant subsequent impacts.
After direct impacts have been estimated the assessor must next estimate how
the affected people will respond in terms of attitude and actions. Their attitudes
before implementation predicts their attitudes afterwards, though there are increasing
data that show fears are often overblown and that expected (often promised) benefits
fail to meet expectations. This literature should be
consulted.
The actions of affected groups are to be esti-mated using comparable cases and
interviews with affected people about what they expect to do. So much depends
on whether local leader-ship arises (and the objectives and strategies of these
leaders), that this assessment step often is highly uncertain, but at least policy
makers will be notified of
potential problems and unexpected results.
This step is also important because adaption and response of affected parties
can have conse-quences of their own-whether for the agency that proposes an action
(as when political pro-tests stalls a proposal) or for the affected com-munities,
whether in the short-term or in the long-term (as in the previously noted example
of Morgan City,
Louisiana).
Patterns in previous assessments guide this analysis, and expert judgment and
field investi-gations are used to see whether they study case in following the
typical patterns or how it is de-veloping uniquely. Being able to show poten-tially
affected people that significant impacts are being incorporated into the assessment
is critical to the success
of this step.
7. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts - Estimate subsequent impacts and cumulative
impacts. Indirect impacts are those caused by the direct impacts; they often
occur later than the direct im-pact, or farther away. Cumulative impacts are
those impacts which result from the incremental impacts of an action added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regard-less of
which agency or person undertakes them (see 40 CFR 1508.7). A community residential
and retail growth and pressures on government services following the siting of
a major project are examples of indirect and cumulative impacts. While they are
more difficult to estimate precise-ly than direct and cumulative impacts be clearly
identified in the SIA.
date | Fedearl law | Socioeconomic Mitigation |
---|---|---|
1920 | Mineral Leasing Act (41 Stat 449) | Allowed 37.5% of receipts to be returned to local government for schools and roads; required protection of subsistence habitats. |
Coastal Energy Impact Program | Places Federal government in a secondary role behind State and local governments. | |
1969 | National Environmental Policy Act | Required human and community conditions to be considered in the assessment process. |
1975 | Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act | Increased percent of revenues for socioeconomic mitigation. |
1976 | Federal Land Policy Management Act | Required revenues received by States to go to impacted areas. |
1976 | Mineral Leasing Act Amendments | Increased the amount of receipts to 50% and broadened categories of receipts that could be spend on courts, sewers, infrastructure, etc. |
1978 | Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act | Federal government can pay for planning and land acquisition for housing and community facilities in coal/uranium development. |
1978 | Defense Economic adjustment programs Executive Order | Economic adjustment committee and encourages uniform economic impact analysis and information sharing. |
1981 | Military Construction and Authorization Act | Allows up to $1 million of Federal funds per county for impacts. |
8. Changes in Alternatives - Recommended new or changed alternatives and estimate
or
project their consequences.
Each new alternative or recommended change should be assessed separately. The
methods used in step five (estimation), apply here but usually on a more modest
scale. More innova-tive alternatives and changes probable should be presented
in an experimental structure. Expert judgment and scenarios are helpful in developing
project and policy alternations. The number of iterations here will depend upon
time, funding, and the
magnitude of the project or policy changes.
9. Mitigation - Develop a mitigation plan.
A social impact assessment not only forecasts impacts, it should identify means
to mitigate adverse impacts. Mitigation includes avoiding the impact by not taking
or modifying an action; minimizing, rectifying, or reducing the impacts through
the design or operation of the project or policy; or compensating for the impact
by providing
substitute facilities, resources, or opportunities (see 40 CFR 1508.20).
Ideally, mitigation measures are built into the selected alternative, but it
is appropriate to identify mitigation measures even if they are not immediately
adopted or if they would be the responsibility of another person or government
unit. (Federal legislation which mandates mitigation measures is shown in Figure
6.)
We suggest a sequencing strategy to manage social impacts modeled after one used
with wet-land protection and other natural resource issues. During the first
sequence, wetlands managers strive to avoid all adverse impacts. In the second
sequence, managers strive to minimize any adverse impacts that cannot be avoided.
During the third sequence, managers compensate for adverse impacts. Compensation
for the loss of a wetland, for example, could be to acquire a different wetland,
enhance a degraded site, or create a new wetland. The amount of compensation
can be based on the type of wetland or resource lost, the severity of the impact,
and the location of the wetland mitigation site.
The two steps of sequencing-avoiding and minimizing-can apply to the project
itself or to the host community or the impacted region. For example, the project
may be revised to avoid or minimize adverse social impacts (e.g., extend the
construction period to minimize in-migration), or the community may be able to
take steps to attenuate, if not avoid, and adverse effects. Application of the
sequencing concept for the mitigation of adverse social impacts requires that
the assessor first rank the level of importance of each significant SIA variable
determined during the estimated effects step.
The first step in evaluating potential miti-gation for each variable is to determine
whether the proponent could modify the project or pro-posed policy to avoid the
adverse effects. For example, a road that displaces families could be rerouted.
The next step in the sequencing pro-cess is to identify ways to minimize adverse
social impacts. For example, most citizens are uncomfortable with the idea of
locating a per-ceived as undesirable facility near their com-munity. Attitudes
(particularly negative ones) formed about the project cannot be eliminated, but
might be moderated if the public has com-plete information about the proposed
develop-ment, are included in the decision making process, or are provided with
structural
arrange-ments that assure safe operations.
There are at least three benefits of identi-fying unresolvable social impacts
that may result from a proposed project. The first is identifying methods of
compensating individuals and the community for unavoidable impacts, The second
occurs when the community may identify ways of enhancing other quality of life
variables as compensation or the adverse effects. The third happens when the
identification of unre-solvable social impacts makes community leaders and project
proponents more sensitive to the feelings of community residents. By articulating
the impacts that will occur and making efforts to avoid or minimize the adverse
consequences, or compensating the residents or the community for the losses,
benefits may be enhanced
and avoidable conflicts can be managed or minimized.
10. Monitoring – Develop a monitoring program.
A monitoring program should be developed that is capable of identifying deviations
from the proposed action and any important unanticipated impacts. A monitoring
plan should be developed to track project and program development and compare
real impacts with projected ones. It should spell out (to the degree possible)
the nature and extent of additional steps that should take place when unanticipated
impacts or impacts larger than the projections occur.
Monitoring programs are particularly necessary for projects and programs that
lack detailed information or that have high variability or uncertainty. It
is important to recognize, in advance, the potential for "surprises" that may
lie completely outside the range of options considered by the SIA. If monitoring
procedures cannot be adequately implemented, then miti-gation agreements should
acknowledge the un-certainty faced in implementing the decision.
It's generally only at this stage that the community or affected group has
the influence to "get it in writing." A recent example of a moni-toring program
with subsequent provision for mitigation was negotiated between the U.S. Department
of Energy, the State of Texas and the Super Conducting Super Collider Laboratory.
The process allowed for the payment of approxi-mately $800,000 to local jurisdictions
to monitor the impacts of the construction activity.
Principles for Social Impact Assessment
In general, there is consensus on the types of impacts that need to be considered
(social, cultural, demo-graphic, economic, social-psychological, and often political
impacts); on the need for the SIA to include a discussion of the proposed action
(i.e., the proposed facility, project, development, policy change, etc.); on
the components of the human environment where the impacts are likely to be felt
(affected neighbor-hoods, communities, or regions); on the likely im-pacts (generally
defined as the difference between the likely future of the affected human environment
with versus without the proposed policy and project); and on the steps that could
be taken to enhance positive impacts and to mitigate any negative ones (by avoid-ing
them, if possible, by modification and minimiza-tion, and by providing compensation
for any negative impacts that cannot be avoided or ameliorated).
As SIA textbooks point out Brudge, 1994; Branch et.al., 1984; Finsterbusch, 1980;
Freudenburg, 1986; Taylor, et.al., 1990) and as suggested by the Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA
(U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 1986) the SIA practitioner should focus
on the more significant impacts, should provide quantification where feasible
and appropriate, and should present the social impacts in a manner that can be
understood by
decision-makers and community leaders.
The following principles augment the guidance provided in earlier sections. These
principles are benchmarks for conducting an SIA.
They include the:
-
Joint role of SIA and public involvement in identifying affected groups;
-
Concept of impact equity (whoe "wins" and who "loses") as it concerns sensitive groups;
-
Focus of an SIA—The possible impacts identified by the affected public and impacts identified through social science expertise;
-
Explicit identification methods, assumptions, and determination of significance;
-
Feedback to project planners;
-
Use of SIA practitioners to do SIA;
-
Establishment of mitigation and monitoring or as joint agency-community responsibility;
-
Identifying appropriate data source for SIA; and
-
Planning for gaps in data.
1. Involve the Diverse Public – Identify and involve all potentially affected
groups and individuals.
A public involvement and conflict management program can beneficially be closely
integrated with the development of the social impact assessment process. A lack
of understanding still exists among many decision-makers as to how public involvement
fit within the planning process. Public involvement can complement and fit within
SIA process by identifying poten-tially affected groups, and by interpreting
the meaning of impacts for each group. Public involvement plays an important
role in recruiting participants for the planning process who are truly representative
of affected groups. Public involvement should be truly interactive, with communication
flowing both ways between the agency and affected groups.
2. Analyze Impact Equity – Clearly identify who will win or who will lose,
and emphasize vulnerability
under-represented groups.
Impacts should be specified differentially af-fected groups and not just measured
in the aggre-gate. Identification of all groups likely to be affected an agency
action is central to the concept of impact equity. There can always be winners
and losers as the result of a decision to construct a dam, build a highway or
close an area to timber harvesting, However, no category of persons, particularly
those that might be considered more sensitive or vulnerable as a result of age,
gender, ethnicity, race, occupation or other factors, should have to bear the
brunt of adverse social impacts. While most proposed projects or policies are
not zero-sum situations, and there may be varying benefits for almost all involved,
SIA has a special duty to identify those whose adverse impacts might get lost
in the aggregate benefits.
* Involve the diverse public Identify and involve all potentially affected groups and individuals |
* Analyze impact equity Clearly identify who will win and who will lose and emphasize vulnerability of under-represented groups |
* Focus the assessment Deal with issues and public concerns that really count, not those that are just easy to count |
* Identify methods and assumptions and define significance Describe how the SIA is conducted, what assumptions are used and how significance is determined. |
* Provide feedback on social impacts to project planners Identify problems that could be solved with changes to the proposed action or alternatives. |
* Use SIA practitioners Trained social scientist employing social science methods will provide the best results. |
* Establish monitoring and mitigation programs Manage uncertainty by monitoring and mitigating adverse impacts. |
* Identify data sources Use published scientific literature, secondary data and primary data from the affected area. |
* Plan for gaps in data Evaluate the missing information, and develop a strategy for proceeding. |
The impact assessment practitioner must be attentive to those groups that
lack political efficacy; such as groups low in political or economic power
which often are not heard, or do not have their interests strongly represented.
Examples abound in the literature of groups that could be considered sensitive,
vulnerable, or low in power. The elderly have been identified as a category
of persons sensitive to involuntary displacement and relocation. Children have
suffered learning problems resulting from long-term exposure to various forms
of transportation noise and local pollution (e.g., vehicular traffic, airports).
Minorities and the poor are disproportionately represented in groups low in
power; low-income; minority neighborhoods frequently were targeted in the 1960's
as optimal sites for road construction and similar public works projects. Persons
with some form of disability or impairment constitute another sensitive category
with important needs. Farmers often are affected by transmission lines, water
projects or developments that take large amounts of land. The special impacts
to those persons should be high-lighted in an SIA, not lost in summary statistics.
3. Focus the Assessment – Deal with issues and public concerns that really
count, not those that are just easy to count. Impacts Identified by the Public.
Social impact assessment practitioners must contend with stringent time and
resource constraints that affect the scope of the assessment and how much can
be done in the time available. Given such constraints, a central question emerges: "If
you cannot cover the social universe, what should you focus on?" The answer
is to focus on the most significant impacts in order of priority, and all significant
impacts for all impacted groups must be identified early using a variety of
rapid appraisal or investigative techniques. Clearly, impacts identified as
important by the public must be given heigh priority. Many of these will surface
during the NEPA scoping process or earlier if a survey is used to identify
the potentially-affected populations. However, as noted earlier, some groups
low in power that may be adversely affected do not necessarily participate
in early project stages. It is essential that broadly-based public involvement
occur throughout the life of the SIA; but additional means (e.g., key informants,
participant observation, and where possible, surveys) often must be used to
ensure that the most significant public concerns are addressed.
Impacts Identified by SIA Practitioners. SIA practitioners have the
expertise to help prioritize issues using a review of literature and profes-sional
experience. Often they will suggest the study of issues unrecognized by either
the public or the agencies.
4. Identify Methods and Assumptions and Define Significance – Describe
how the SIA is conducted, what assumptions are used and how significance
is determined.
The methods and assumptions used in the SIA should be made available and published
prior to a decision in order to allow decision makers as well the public to
evaluate the assessment of impacts (as required by NEPA). Practitioners will
need to consult the CEQ Regulations. Definitions and examples of effects (direct,
indirect, and cumulative) are provided in 40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8; "effects" and "impacts" are
used synonymously. The CEQ regulations are clear that an environmental impacts
statement has to focus on impacts found to be significant.
Significance in terms of context and intensity considerations is defined in
40 CFR 1508.27. Context includes such considerations as society as a whole,
affected regions, affected interests and locality (e.g., when considering site-specific
projects, local impacts assume greater importance than those of a regional
nature). Intensity refers to the dimensions presented under Scoping in Section
IV, as well as consideration of health and safety, endangered species or unique
human resources, precedents and laws. While these criteria are helpful in judging
significance, the SIA practitioner also needs to consult individual agency
procedures for NEPA compliance. Some of these list additional social impacts
that the agency must consider even if not always significant.
5. Project Planners – Identify problems that could be solved with changes
to the proposed action or alternatives. Provide Feedback on Social Impacts
to Findings from the SIA should feed back into project design to mitigate
adverse impacts and enhance positive ones. The impact assessment, therefore,
should be designed as a dynamic process involving cycles of project design,
assessment, redesign, and reassessment. This process is often carried out
informally with project designers prior to publication of the draft assessment
for public comment; public comments on a draft EIS can contribute importantly
to this process of feedback and modification.
6. Use SIA Practitioners – Trained social scientists employing social
science methods will provide the best results.
The need for professionally qualified, competent people with social science
training and experience cannot be overemphasized. An experienced SIA practitioner
will know the data, and be familiar and conversant with existing social science
evidence pertaining to impacts that have occurred elsewhere, which may be relevant
to the impact area in question. This breadth of knowledge and experience can
prove invaluable in identifying important impacts that may not surface as public
concerns or as mandatory considerations found in agency NEPA compliance procedures.
A social scientist will be able to identify the full range of important impacts
and then will be able to select the appropriate measurement procedures.
Having social scientist as part of the interdisciplinary EIS team will also
reduce the probability that an important social impact could go unrecognized.
In assessing social impacts, if the evidence for a potential type of impact
is not definitive in either direction, then the appropriate conservative conclusion
is that it cannot be ruled out with confidence. In addition, it is important
that the SIA practitioner be conversant with the technical and biological perspectives
brought to bear on the project, as well as t he cultural and proecdural context
of the agency they work with.
7. Establish Monitoring and Mitigation Program – Manage uncertainty by
monitoring and mitigation adverse impacts.
Crucial to the SIA process is monitoring significant social impact variables
and any programs which have been put into place to mitigate them. As indicated
earlier, the identification of impacts might depend on the specification of
contingencies. For example, if the in-migration of workers during the construction
phase work force is 1000, then the community's housing will be inadequate to
meet the need, but if it is only 500, then the impact can be accommodated by
currently vacant units.
Identifying a monitoring infrastructure needs a key element of the local planning
process. Two key points:
a)Monitoring and mitigation should be a joint agency and community
responsibility. b) Both activities should occur on an iterative basis
throughout the project life cycle. Depending on the nature of the project
and time horizons for completion, the focus of long-term responsibility for
monitoring and mitigation is not easily defined. Research shows that trust
and expertise are key factors in choosing the balance between agency and
community monitoring participation. Few agencies have the resources to continue
these activities for an extended period, but local communities should be
provided resources to assume a portion of the monitoring and mitigation responsibilities.
8. Identify Data Source – Published scientific literature, secondary data,
and primary data from the affected area. These three sources should be
consulted for all SIA's. Balance among the three may vary according to the
type of the proposed action, as well as specific considerations noted below,
but all three will be relevant.
Published Scientific Literature – The SIA should draw on existing,
previously reviewed and screened social science literature which summarizes
existing knowledge of impacts based on accepted scientific standards. Examples
include journal articles, books, and reports available from similar projects.
A list of easy-to-obtain, recommended sources is provided at the end of this
monograph. Existing documentation is useful in identifying which social impacts
are likely to accompany a proposed action. When it is possible to draw potentially
competing interpretations from the existing literature, the SIA should provide
a careful discussion of relative methodological merits of available studies.
As pointed out in Section III, the best guidance for future expectations is
past experience; therefore, consideration of existing literature should err
on the side of inclusiveness, not on exclusion of potentially relevant cases.
Caution is needed when the SIA presents a conclusion that is contradicted by
the published literature; in such cases, the reasons for the differences should
be explicitly addressed. Anthropological data on rural and ethnically- and
racially-diverse communities is best understanding the cultural context of
the impacted community.
Secondary Data Sources -The best known secondary sources of these are the Census, vital statistics, geographical data, relevant agency publications, and routine data collected by state and federal agencies. Examples of other secondary data sources include agency caseload statistics (e.g., from mental health centers, social service agencies and other human service providers, law enforcement agencies, and insurance and financial regula-tory agencies); published and unpublished historical materials (often available in local libraries, historical societies, and school district files); complaints produced by booster and/or service organizations (such chambers of commerce, welcome wagon organizations, and church groups); and the files of local news-papers. These secondary sources can be used in conjunction with key-informant interviews, to allow for verification of informant memories and to be alert for potential sources of bias in other data.
Primary Data from the Affected Area-Survey research, oral histories
and informant interviews are examples of primary data which may be collected
to verify other data sources. If a social assessor concludes that community
impacts will differ from those documented elsewhere, such conclusions must
be based on the collection and analysis of primary data which specifically
show why such alternative conclusions are more credible. Also, local residents
often have important forms of expertise, both about local socioeconomic conditions
and about the broader range of likely impacts. Because of its unique history
and structure, each community may react to a development event policy change
differently than other communities.
9. Plan for Gaps in Data
SIA practitioners often have to produce an assessment in the absence of all
the relevant or even the necessary data. The three elements of this principle
are intended to supplement the guidance already provided by CEQ Regulations
at 40 CFR 1502.22.
When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking.(a) If the incomplete information…is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement. |
Only if the relevant information "cannot be obtained because the overall costs
of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to
obtain it are not known," is the EIS permitted a gap in relevant information.
In such cases, however, the EIS needs to include: 1) a statement of relevance
of the incomplete or unavailable information… 2) a summary of existing credible
scientific evidence
[that] is relevant…, and 3) the agency's evaluation of the likely and possible
impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted
in the scientific community (40 CFR 1502.22).
The following three elements are acceptable procedures to the social science
community when there are shortages of resources necessary to do the desired data
collection.
-
It is more important to identify likely social impacts than to precisely quantify the more obvious social impacts. All assessors strive to identify and quantify significant impacts, thereby providing decision makers and the affected publics with information that is both as complete and as accurate as possible. In cases where the desirable goal cannot be met, it is better to be roughly correct on important issues than to be precisely correct on unimportant issues
Within the context of the social impact statement, there are two important differences between impact identification (what are the general categories or types of impacts that are likely to occur [see Figure 3]) and impact evaluation (precisely how significant and those impacts likely to be).
Research has identified the social impacts of many types of actions, and experienced SIA practitioner can identify plausible and potentially significant impacts relatively quickly and efficiently. On the other hand, an accurate evaluation is a resource-intensive process and deals with the question of significance. Research on the decision-making process has found that experts and policy makers were particularly prone toward premature closure. Given a partial listing of potential impacts experts tended to assume they have been given a complete list and in most cases, failed to recognize the potential i mpacts that had been omitted from consideration. While empirical estimates can appear to be quite precise, demographic and economic projections have been shown by empirical analysis to have an average absolute error in the range of 50-100 percent. We support the use of qualitative and quantitative measures of social impact assessment variables, but realize that the evaluation of significance has an important judgment component. -
It is important to be on the "conservative" side in reporting likely social impacts.
The purpose of the EIS us is to provide an evenhanded treatment of the potential impacts, offering a scientifically reasonable assessment of the probable impacts in advance of the development event. It is a very different matter from providing solid proof of impacts after the impacts occur and all the evidence is in! All EIS's and SIA's are by their nature anticipatory.
Questions about the "prooof" of impacts can be asked in an apparently scientific language, but cannot be answered with the true confidence in advance of the actions in question. In assessing social and economic impacts, accordingly, if the evidence for a potential type of impact is not definitive in either direction, the conservative conclusion is that the impact cannot be ruled out with confidence, not that the impact is not proven. In cases of doubt, in terms of statistical terminology, the proper interpretation is the Type II test for power or sensitivity, and not the Type I test for the strength of consistency of an association. -
The less reliable data there are on the effects of the projects or policy change, the more important it is to have SIA work performed by competent, professional social scientists.Resource limitations will not always allow for SIA's to be done by experienced social scientists. The two following situations are ones in which it may be appropriate to proceed without professional social scientists' involvement in an SIA.
1) In cases where proposed actions are considered by persons within the agency with social science training, and by those in the potentially affected community, to likely cause only negligible or ephemeral social impacts.
2) In cases where a significant body of empirical findings is available from the social science literature, which can be applied fairly directly to the proposed action in question, and is referenced, summarized, and cited by the person(s) preparing the SIA section of the EIS.
If one of these two conditions is not present, the absence of professional social science expertise would be imprudent for both the agency and affected groups and communities; and SIA would be speculative and not well grounded. If one of these two conditions is not present, the absence of professional social science expertise would be imprudent for both the agency and affected groups and communities; and SIA would be speculative and not well grounded.Social impact assessment is predicted on the notion that decision-makers should understand the consequences of their decisions before they act, and that the people affected will not only be appraised of the effects, but have the opportunity to participate in designing their future. The social environment is different than their future. The social environment is different than the natural environment because it reacts in anticipation of change, but can adapt in reasoned ways to changing circumstance in part of the planning process. In addition, persons in different social settings interpret change in different ways, and react in different ways. Perhaps because of this complexity, or the political consequences of making explicit the social consequences of projects and programs, social impact assessment has not been well-integrated into agency decision –making. The guidelines and principles presented herein are designed to assist agencies and other institutions in implementing SIA within the context of NEPA process. If a well-prepared SIA is integrated into the decision-making process, better decisions will result.
Accessible Social Impact Assessment Literature
Textbooks and Guides
Branch, Kristi, Douglas A. Hooper, James
Thompson and James C. Creighton. 1983. Guide
to Social Impact Assessment. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, ISBN 0-86531-717-8.
Brudge, Rabel J. 1994 A community Guide to Socal
Impact Assessment, Middleton, WI (P.O. Box 620863):
Social Ecology Press, 210 pages.
Freudenburg, William R. 1986. "Social Impact Assessment."
Annual Review of Sociology 12:451-478.
Taylor, C. Nicholas, C. Hobson Bryan and Colin C.
Goodrich. 1990. Social Assessment: Theory,
Process and Techniques. Studies in Resource Management No. 7,
Center for Resource Management, P.O. Box 56,
Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Regulations and Administrative Procedures
Atherton, Carol Coop. 1977. "Legal Requirements for
Environmental Impact Reporting." Pp. 9-64 in
James McEnvoy III and Thomas Dietz, Handbook for
Environmental Planning: The Social Consequences of
Environmental Change. New York: Wiley.
Jordan, William S. III. 1984. "Psychological Harm After
PANE: NEPA's Requirements to Consider
Psychological Damage." Harvard Environmental
Law Review 8:55-87.
Llewellyn, Lynn G. and William R. Freudenburg. 1990.
"Legal Requirements for Social Impact Assessments:
Assessing the Social Science Fallout from Three
Mile Island." Society and Natural Resources 2(3): 193-208.
Meidinger, Errol E. and William R. Freudenburg. 1983.
"The Legal Status of Social Impact Assessments:
Recent Developments." Environmental Sociology 34:30-33.
U.S. Council of Environment Quality. 1986.
Regulation of Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). Washington: Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Public Law 91-90, The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as Amended (P.L. 94-52 and P.L. 94-83) 42
U.S.C. 43321-4347.
SIA Methodology
Finsterbusch, Kurt and C. P. Wold (eds.) 1981.
Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. 2nd Edition.
Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross, ISBN 0-87933-401-0.
Finsterbusch, Kurt, Lynn G. Llewellyn, and
C.P. Wolf (eds.) 1983. Social Impact Assessment
Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, ISBN 0-8039-2142.
Finsterbusch, Kurt, J. Ingersol, and Lynn Llewellyn (Eds).
1990. Methods of Social Analysis in Developing Countries,.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Leistritz, Larry and Steven H. Murdock. 1981.
The Impact of Resource Development: Methods
of Assessment, Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
ISBN 0-89158-978-3.
Rickson, Roy E., Tor Hundloe, Geoffrey T. McDonold
and Rabel J. Brudge, (Eds.) 1990. "Social Impact of
Development: Putting Theory and Methods into Practice"
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 10: 1 & 2; 357 pages.
Stoffle, Richard W., and others, 1990, "Calculating the Cultural
Significance of American Indian Plants: Paiute and Shoshone
Ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain Neveda",
American anthropologist, 92(2), pp 416-432.
Research Findings
Elkind-Savatsky, Pamela. 1986. Differential Social Impacts of
Rural Resource Development, Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 293 pp.
Finsterbusch, Kurt. 1980. Understanding Social Impacts:
Assessing the Effects of Public Projects.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Freudenburg, William R. and Robert Gramling. 1992.
"Community Impacts of Technological Change:
Toward a Longitudinal Perspective." Social Forces 70(4): 937-55.
Freudenburg, William R. and Robert E. Jones. 1992.
"Criminal Behavior and Rapid Community
Growth: Examining the Evidence." Rural Sociology 56(4): 619-45.
Gramling, Robert and William R. Freudenburg. 1990.
"A Closer Look at 'Local Control': Communities, Commodities,
and the Collapse of the Coast."
Rural Sociology 55(4): 541-58.
Greider, Thomas and Larraine Garkovich. 1994.
"Symbolic Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature
and the Environment."
Rural Soiciology 59(2): forthcoming.
Gulliford, Andrew. 1989. Boomtown Blues:
Colorado Oil Shale, 1885-1985. Niwot, CO:
University Press of Colorado.
Llewellyn, L.G. 1981. "The Social Cost of Urban Transportation."
In I. Altman, J. Wohlwill and P. Everett (eds.),
Transportation and Behavior,
New York: Plenum Press, 169-202.
Stoffle, Richard W. and others, 1991, "Risk Perception Mapping:
Using Ethnography to Define the Locally Affected Population for
a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility in Michigan",
American Anthropologist, 93 (3): 6111-635.
Literature Reviews
Bowles, Roy T. 1981. Social Impact Assessment in Small Communities;
An integrative Review of Selected Literature.
Toronto: Butterworths, ISBN 0-409-81611-6.
Carley, Michael J. 1984. Social Impact Assessment:
A Cross-Disciplinary Guide to Literature.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, ISBN 0-86531-529-9
Leistritz, Larry and Brenda Ekstrom, 1986.
Social Impact Assessment and Management:
An Annotated Bibliography,
New York: Garland.
Conceptual Guidelines
Brudge, Rabel J. 1994. A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment:
An Edited Compilation of the writing of Rabel J. Brudge and Colleagues,
Middleton, WI (P.O. Box 620863): Social Ecology Press, 226 pages.
Freudenburg, William R. and Kenneth M. Keating. 1985,
"Applying Sociology to Policy:
Social Sciences and the Environmental Impact Statement"
Rural Sociology 50(4):578-605.
Gramling, Robert and William R. Freudenburg. 1992,
"Opportunity-Threat, Development, and Adaptation:
Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Social Impact Assessment,:
Rural Sociology, 57, (2): 216-234.
Rickson, Roy E., Rabel J. Brudge and Audrey Armour (Eds.). 1990.
"Integrating Impact Assessment into the Planning Process:
International Perspectives and Experiences,"
Impact Assessment Bulletin, 8: 1 & 2; 357 pages.
Peer-Reviewed Journals
American Anthropologist
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Human Organization
Impact Assessment (formerly Impact Assessment Bulletin)
Project Appraisal
Rural Sociology
Society and Natural Resources
Professional Associations
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA),
was organized in 1980 to bring together researchers, government
employees, practitioners, and users of all types of impact assessment.
Write IAIA, P.O.Box 70, Belhaven, NC 27810.
Acknowledgements
As members of the Committee we could not have produced this monograph alone.
We want to thank the following individuals for their efforts and contributions to the
completion of this document: Kathy Reeves, Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Illinois at Urbanna-Champaign, for typing all the drafts; Kathy Bowman,
Portland, Oregon for editing; Christine Holdgen Graphic Design for contributing
document design and desktop publishing; and Arnold Holden for technical eidting
and assuring consistency with federal regulations.