Prepared by The Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment May 1994
Contents
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. |
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 |
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 |
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:
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. |
* 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. |
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.