Challenges in meeting international standards in undertaking social impact assessment in Russia

Implementing good practice social impact assessment (SIA) that meets international standards in countries in transition is problematic. We reflect on the challenges faced when undertaking SIA in the Russian Federation. These challenges restrict meaningful SIA processes from being undertaken and limit public participation and the effective community engagement of project-affected local people. Based on the self-reflexive professional experience of two Russian-based social practitioners, and their discursive interactions with two leading academics in environmental and social impact assessment, as well as on in-depth interviews with prominent Russian and international experts, we identified the key challenges that prevent effective SIA from being implemented in Russia: a lack of understanding of the international standards; discrepancy in the determination of the social area of influence between the national requirements and international standards; difficulties in combining national and international impact assessment processes; and a tendency by companies to restrict stakeholder engagement to the minimum. We hope that by having an awareness of these limitations, improvements to SIA practice in Russia and elsewhere will be made.     

Digital archives,big data and image-based culturomics for social impact assessment: Opportunities and challenges

Social impact assessment (SIA) is well-established but uses conventional approaches that have become less effective in recent decades, particularly in relation to declining survey response rates and a lack of youth engagement. Images from digital archives and social media sources are poised to advance the research and practice of SIA by transcending text-based methods with insights into changing landscapes, and human engagement with them. This viewpoint describes progress, challenges and cautions toward the development of such tools (defined as culturomics), using hydroelectricity cases to illustrate potential approaches. These tools build on foundational work in a range of disciplines, including the humanities and computer science. We describe necessary advances in machine learning, image digitization, and data aggregation and visualization techniques, as well as ways to ensure that such tools are carefully tested, applied and interpreted. Challenges include the automation, acquisition and management of datasets, and using these tools appropriately and equitably. Critically, culturomics of any kind must not be used as a replacement for engagement with people, but as complementary to inclusive stakeholder engagement.     

The community cost of consultation: Characterising the qualitative social impacts of a wind energy development that failed to proceed in Tasmania,Australia

Energy developments affect communities in a range of ways. Impacts on communities can be caused by changes to landscape amenity and access, disruptions to community cohesion, increased or decreased income streams, effects on property values, and population changes. These changes are ideally captured in the social impact assessment (SIA) process, where proponents outline in a formal statement the balance of benefits and burdens on local communities, and measures that will be taken to minimise negative outcomes for the community. In SIA practice there is a tendency toward quantitative socio-economic impacts, such as changes to demographics, income, and land values, with some qualitative assessment of amenity impacts. While the academic literature promotes inclusion of changes to the community itself, such as impacts on community cohesion and social capital, these qualitative changes are not consistently evident in SIA practice. Additionally, SIA practice assesses the impacts of the project, i.e. how the development of wind turbines or other energy infrastructure will affect the community. Because the consultation process around a proposed project typically commences prior to the characterisation and assessment of any associated social impacts and the finalisation of the SIA process, the potential impacts of this consultation are rarely, if ever, evaluated. Here, we examine a case study of an Australian wind energy project that did not proceed to implementation. Through this case study we are able to analyse the anticipatory impacts of the proposal; those stemming from the consultative process rather than the development of the project itself. We present these qualitative social changes, and outline the pathways through which the social changes manifest in two overarching social impacts: a divided community and future development capacity. We discuss the implications of this analysis in the context of good engagement practice and energy governance.     

Ethical implications of democratic theory for U.S. public participation in environmental impact assessment

Traditional mechanisms for public participation in environmental impact assessment under U.S. federal law have been criticized as ineffective and unable to resolve conflict. As these mechanisms are modified and new approaches developed, we argue that participation should be designed and evaluated not only on practical grounds of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, but also on ethical grounds based on democratic ideals. In this paper, we review and synthesize modern democratic theory to develop and justify four ethical principles for public participation: equal opportunity to participate, equal access to information, genuine deliberation, and shared commitment. We then explore several tensions that are inherent in applying these ethical principles to public participation in EIA. We next examine traditional NEPA processes and newer collaborative approaches in light of these principles. Finally, we explore the circumstances that argue for more in-depth participatory processes. While improved EIA participatory processes do not guarantee improved outcomes in environmental management, processes informed by these four ethical principles derived from democratic theory may lead to increased public engagement and satisfaction with government agency decisions.     

Integrating community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact assessment in Nigeria

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act of 1992 aimed to make the environment a central theme in development in Nigeria. Nevertheless, the extent of engagement with local cultures in the Nigerian EIA process is not statutorily guaranteed. While most EIAs in Nigeria have been for oil and gas projects in the Niger Delta, and have focused strongly on the biophysical environment, socio-economic and cultural aspects have remained marginal. The palpable neglect of community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact assessment (SIA) in this region prone to conflict has tended to alienate the people in the decision-making process. Thus, despite claims to compliance with regulatory requirements for EIAs, and numerous purported sustainable development initiatives by international oil companies (IOCs), the region continues to face multiple sustainability challenges. This paper situates local perceptions and cultural diversity in participatory development and canvasses the integration of community perceptions and cultural diversity into SIA in the Niger Delta region. It is argued that doing this would be critical to ensuring acceptance and success of development actions within the context of local culture while also contributing to sustainable development policy in the region.     

Adapting social impact assessment to address a project's human rights impacts and risks

We address the weaknesses inherent in the social risk assessments undertaken for business, especially in the extractive industries. In contrast to the conventional approach that considers consequence to the company rather than to impacted communities, conformance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights requires that consequence to affected communities has precedence. In order for social risks to be properly assessed, we consider that: companies need to know and understand the human rights impacts of their activities; contemporary approaches to project impact and risk assessment need to be adapted to consider human rights; and environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) methods need to be adapted to give greater attention to impacts on human rights. Using an example from the mining, oil and gas sector, we provide a method that differentiates social risks from business risks, and we position impact assessment as an instrument that actively facilitates the improved identification, analysis and management of social risks. Practical adaptations to SIA activities and risk assessment processes are provided. Taking human rights impacts into account and using the dimensions of gravity, extent, vulnerability and remediability, we nominate criteria to assess the significance of negative social impacts.     

Social Impact Management Plans: Innovation in corporate and public policy

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has traditionally been practiced as a predictive study for the regulatory approval of major projects, however, in recent years the drivers and domain of focus for SIA have shifted. This paper details the emergence of Social Impact Management Plans (SIMPs) and undertakes an analysis of innovations in corporate and public policy that have put in place ongoing processes – assessment, management and monitoring – to better identify the nature and scope of the social impacts that might occur during implementation and to proactively respond to change across the lifecycle of developments. Four leading practice examples are analyzed. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards require the preparation of Environmental and Social Management Plans for all projects financed by the IFC identified as having significant environmental and social risks. Anglo American, a major resources company, has introduced a Socio-Economic Assessment Toolbox, which requires mine sites to undertake regular assessments and link these assessments with their internal management systems, monitoring activities and a Social Management Plan. In South Africa, Social and Labour Plans are submitted with an application for a mining or production right. In Queensland, Australia, Social Impact Management Plans were developed as part of an Environmental Impact Statement, which included assessment of social impacts. Collectively these initiatives, and others, are a practical realization of theoretical conceptions of SIA that include management and monitoring as core components of SIA. The paper concludes with an analysis of the implications for the practice of impact assessment including a summary of key criteria for the design and implementation of effective SIMPs.     

Social impact assessments: Developing a consolidated conceptual framework

Social Impact Assessments (SIAs) have played an increasingly important role in the conduct of planned interventions, providing proponents the capacity to assess and manage the social consequences of their activities. Whilst the SIA field has experienced significant conceptual and practical development over the last decade, efforts at consolidating this within one framework have been limited. In this paper, we incorporate this new knowledge by redeveloping and thus updating the SIA procedural framework developed by Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. In doing so, this updated procedural framework has attempted to incorporate current ‘best practice’ that focuses on participatory approaches to undertaking an SIA. This involved making adaptions to two steps, expansions to five steps, integration of a stronger participatory approach to six steps, and the development of a new step, Management and Evaluation reflecting moves towards ex-post use of SIA processes. It is hoped that this consolidation of the literature of a decade's worth of key findings in SIA research will lead to further efforts towards a meta-evaluation of SIA literature and a platform from which newer developments may be further investigated.     

A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment

An increasing focus on integrative approaches is one of the current trends in impact assessment. There is potential to combine impact assessment with various other forms of assessment, such as risk assessment, to make impact assessment and the management of social risks more effective. We identify the common features of social impact assessment (SIA) and social risk assessment (SRA), and discuss the merits of a combined approach. A hybrid model combining SIA and SRA to form a new approach called, ‘risk and social impact assessment’ (RSIA) is introduced. RSIA expands the capacity of SIA to evaluate and manage the social impacts of risky projects such as nuclear energy as well as natural hazards and disasters such as droughts and floods. We outline the three stages of RSIA, namely: impact identification, impact assessment, and impact management.     

Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: Principles,approaches and research directions

Increasing emphasis has been placed in recent years on transitioning strategic environmental assessment (SEA) away from its environmental impact assessment (EIA) roots. Scholars have argued the need to conceptualize SEA as a process designed to facilitate strategic thinking, thus enabling transitions toward sustainability. The practice of SEA, however, remains deeply rooted in the EIA tradition and scholars and practitioners often appear divided on the nature and purpose of SEA. This paper revisits the strategic principles of SEA and conceptualizes SEA as a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional assessment process. It is suggested that SEA can be conceptualized as series of approaches operating along a spectrum from less to more strategic – from impact assessment-based to strategy-based – with each approach to SEA differentiated by the specific objectives of SEA application and the extent to which strategic principles are reflected in its design and implementation. Advancing the effectiveness of SEA requires a continued research agenda focused on improving the traditional SEA approach, as a tool to assess the impacts of policies, plans and programs (PPPs). Realizing the full potential of SEA, however, requires a new research agenda — one focused on the development and testing of a deliberative governance approach to SEA that can facilitate strategic innovations in PPP formulation and drive transitions in short-term policy and initiatives based on longer-term thinking.     

SHARE IT: Co-designing a sustainability impact assessment framework for urban food sharing initiatives

Urban food systems must undergo a significant transformation if they are to avoid impeding the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goals. One reconfiguration with claimed sustainability benefits is ICT-mediated food sharing – an umbrella term used to refer to technologically-augmented collective or collaborative practices around growing, cooking, eating and redistributing food – which some argue improves environmental efficiencies by reducing waste, providing opportunities to make or save money, building social networks and generally enhancing well-being. However, most sustainability claims for food sharing have not been evidenced by systematically collected and presented data. In this paper we document our response to this mismatch between claims and evidence through the development of the SHARECITY sustainability Impact assessment Toolkit (SHARE IT); a novel Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) framework which has been co-designed with food sharing initiatives to better indicate the impact of food-sharing initiatives in urban food systems. We demonstrate that while several SIA frameworks have been developed to evaluate food systems at the urban scale, they contain few measures that specifically account for impacts of the sharing that initiatives undertake. The main body of the paper focuses on the co-design process undertaken with food sharing initiatives based in Dublin and London. Attention is paid to how two core goals were achieved: 1) the identification of a coherent SIA framework containing appropriate indicators for the activities of food sharing initiatives; and 2) the development of an open access online toolkit for in order to make SIA reporting accessible for food sharing initiatives. In conclusion, the co-design process revealed a number of technical and conceptual challenges, but it also stimulated creative responses to these challenges.     

Health impact assessment in spatial planning in England –types of application and quality of documentation

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a decision support approach which is applied in various shapes and forms throughout the world. In England, amongst a range of areas of application, HIA is applied in local (spatial) plan making and project development planning. Whilst various authors have reflected on HIA practice in England, the extent of application and its quality has remained unclear. This paper aims at addressing this gap by reporting on the results of a systematic review of HIA in planning. It is found that between 100 and 200 HIAs are likely being produced each year in England. Whilst most assessments are rapid (desk based), there are also examples of comprehensive and intermediate HIAs, where a participatory procedural approach is followed. An important finding is that those HIAs applied within the context of other assessments (integrated impact assessment -IIA, strategic environmental assessment - SEA/ sustainability appraisal -SA and environmental impact assessment – EIA) tend to be of a higher quality than standalone HIAs, mainly because of the existing comprehensive statutory procedural requirements for these other assessments into which HIA can be integrated.     

A research framework for studying social impacts: Application to the field of mining

Given the growing amount of attention shown to the social dimension of natural resources and mining governance, there is a need for more informed research-oriented approaches to studying social impacts. This article analyzes the features of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) studies from the academic research perspective and presents a framework for social impact research. By academic research, the article refers to studies on social impacts conducted purely for research purposes, not impact assessment processes.Research is always one aspect of the SIA process. At the same time, there is a lack of general methodological literature offering guidance on how assessing social impacts can contribute to social studies research. The guiding documents on SIA are largely intended for practical-level planning and management processes, which limits their applicability for academic purposes. The proposed framework draws both from traditional social science methods and existing scholarly and guiding literature on SIA. The research framework consists of four interlinked phases: 1) research preparations, 2) background studies (including proposed project, national and local context), 3) fieldwork, and 4) analysis. The framework is designed to direct attention to the relevant aspects of research methods, theory building, fieldwork implementation, and research choices for data analysis. Thus, the framework provides a flexible, but comprehensive, multi-level approach for examining social impacts, which can be adapted for a wide range of social-scientific mining research. The analysis and developed framework will help academic researchers better study the social impacts of mining and make better use of existing SIA studies in academic life.     

Advancing the practice of health impact assessment in Canada: Obstacles and opportunities

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is recognized as a useful tool that can identify potential health impacts resulting from projects or policy initiatives. Although HIA has become an established practice in some countries, it is not yet an established practice in Canada. In order to enable broader support for HIA, this study provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the peer-reviewed and gray literature on the state of HIA practice. The results of this review revealed that, although there is an abundance of publications relating to HIA, there remains a lack of transparent, consistent and reproducible approaches and methods throughout the process. Findings indicate a need for further research and development on a number of fronts, including: 1) the nature of HIA triggers; 2) consistent scoping and stakeholder engagement approaches; 3) use of evidence and transparency of decision-making; 4) reproducibility of assessment methods; 5) monitoring and evaluation protocols; and, 6) integration within existing regulatory frameworks. Addressing these issues will aid in advancing the more widespread use of HIA in Canada.     

Experiences of voluntary early participation in Environmental Impact Assessments in Chilean mining

Citizen participation should ideally occur as early as possible in a project, especially throughout the course of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study. In Chile, participation occurs after the EIA study has been completed and presented to authorities for evaluation. However, voluntary early participation has become an extended practice in large mining projects for financial and conflict-reduction reasons. The purpose of this study was to explore a variety of these early participation processes happening in large mining projects from 2001 to 2010 and analyze how well these practices measured up to standards and objectives defined in the EIA and participation literature. Beyond the legal implications of such practice, we sought to understand the role of this voluntary procedure within the EIA process and citizen engagement in projects. We found a wide range of objectives, approaches and results, primarily driven to facilitate approval and implementation of the ten projects analyzed. The underlying objective of voluntary participation processes analyzed (whether it seeks to inform, to note or to engage), determined the information presented, participants included, area of influence considered, time devoted to the process and influence of the information collected on EIA and project mitigation measures. Few of the principles for best practice in the literature were present in the ten projects examined. Moreover, given the voluntary and unregulated nature of these processes, purposes and outcomes were often mixed-up with the Indigenous Consultation required under ILO provision 169, or Corporate Social Responsibility programs. This finally revealed that contrary to expectations, an unregulated and early voluntary participation is not having a clear impact in the definition of projects mitigation measures, participants are at risk of being unsatisfied with the resulting agreements and moreover, it does not assure projects implementation or the avoidance of socio-environmental conflict.     

Deliberative assessment in complex socioecological systems: recommendations for environmental assessment in drylands

Desertification is a complex process, characterised not only by a damaged ecology but also by conflict over access to scarce resources and trade-offs between the needs of multiple stakeholders at multiple scales. As such, orthodox approaches to environmental assessment in drylands, which rely solely on ecological expertise, are gradually losing legitimacy and greater attention is being given to integrated and participatory assessment approaches, which draw on multiple sources of knowledge in order to accurately describe complex socioecological processes. Moreover, there is growing recognition that successful management of desertification requires a strategy that can accommodate the multiple and often competing needs of contemporary and future stakeholders. In light of these conceptual advances, this paper highlights seven key criteria that dryland environmental assessments must meet: (1) accurately understand complex socioecological system processes, (2) focus on slow variables, (3) integrate multiple scales of analysis, (4) integrate multiple stakeholder perspectives and values, (5) ensure that future generations are fairly represented, (6) ensure that less powerful stakeholders are fairly represented and (7) integrate local and scientific knowledge. The virtues and challenges of deliberative environmental assessments, a novel subset of participatory environmental assessment approaches which places emphasis on social learning, argumentation and critical reflection, are considered in relation to each of these requirements. We argue that deliberative approaches have the potential to achieve accurate, progressive and integrated assessment of dryland environments.     

Incorporating supra-local social structure into social impact assessment using causal network analysis

This paper discusses the incorporation of supra-local social structure (SLSS) analysis into social impact assessment (SIA) practice in order to afford a deeper and more complex understanding of the social production of the impacts of planned interventions. We define SLSS as the total set of political, economic, socio-cultural and ideological driving forces and external structural phenomena shaping the social vulnerability of affected communities. We advocate causal network analysis for effectively incorporating SLSS into SIA and we take the conflict over the HydroAysén project in Chilean Patagonia as an empirical case study. While previous applications have interpreted planned interventions as the root cause of impacts, this paper analyses the dialectical interaction of four elements: the SLSS, the local community, the planned intervention and its impacts. This application revealed two fundamental issues. First, on a theoretical-conceptual level, it showed the capacity of SLSS to mould the causal pathways of a project's impacts on the affected community. Second, on an applied level, it enabled identification of the elements that should be addressed to facilitate social management of the project.     

Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right

Major developments can result in significant impacts on biodiversity, which the mandated process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to mitigate. There has been a recent move towards the application of biodiversity offsets as a last-resort, compensatory measure when options at the earlier stages in the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation and restoration have been exhausted. Guidance on biodiversity offset planning available in different jurisdictions, however, demonstrates a lack of consensus about when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced into the EIA process, and previous research has highlighted the perceived risks associated with commencing detailed offset planning too early as well as too late. Here we explore the implications of how and when offset considerations are introduced within EIA. We do this by reviewing and synthesising best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, and then exploring how and when offsets were considered in a number of case studies that draw on documentary analysis and interviews with key role players. Our case studies are based in South Africa where regional guidance on offsets exists, supporting a body of practice. The research finds that the timing of involvement of biodiversity specialists is critical in determining whether considering offsets early will reap the combined benefits of: transparency and stakeholder engagement; guaranteeing the offset before development commences; and offset enforceability without jeopardising adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Bypassing the mitigation hierarchy was perceived as allowing proponents to ‘buy’ approvals for developments that might otherwise be found unacceptable, although there was no evidence for this in any of the case studies evaluated. Although some of our findings may be specific to the South African context, the approach taken using international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets as a benchmark can equally be applied to evaluate practice in other EIA systems. We confirm the utility of this approach by evaluating the recently released South African Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy for its potential to support best practice biodiversity offsets in EIA.     

Four conceptual issues to consider in integrating social and environmental factors in risk and impact assessments

In the last twenty years, both the increase in academic production and the expansion of professional involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) have evidenced growing scientific and business interest in risk and impact analysis. However, this growth has not brought with it parallel progress in addressing the main shortcomings of EIA/SIA, i.e. insufficient integration of environmental and social factors into development project analyses and, in cases where the social aspects are considered, technical-methodological failings in their analysis and assessment. It is clear that these weaknesses carry with them substantial threats to the sustainability (social, environmental and economic) of projects which impact on the environment, and consequently to the local contexts where they are carried out and to the delicate balance of the global ecosystem. This paper argues that, in a sociological context of complexity and dynamism, four conceptual elements should underpin approaches to socio-environmental risk and impact assessment in development projects: a theoretical base in actor–network theory; an ethical grounding in values which are internationally recognized (though not always fulfilled in practice); a (new) epistemological-scientific base; and a methodological foundation in social participation.     

Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: Discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development

There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of impact assessment tools, which matters both because of the threat to future practice of the tools which are frequently perceived to be ineffective, and because of the disillusionment that can ensue, and controversy generated, amongst stakeholders in a decision context where opportunities for meaningful debate have not been provided. In this article we regard debate about the meaning of effectiveness in impact assessment as an inevitable consequence of increased participation in environmental decision-making, and therefore frame effectiveness based on an inclusive democracy role to mean the extent to which impact assessment can accommodate civil society discourse. Our aim is to investigate effectiveness based on this framing by looking at one type of impact assessment – environmental impact assessment (EIA) – in two controversial project proposals: the HS2 rail network in England; and the A4DS motorway in the Netherlands. Documentary analysis and interviews held with key civil society stakeholders have been deployed to identify discourses that were mobilised in the cases. EIA was found to be able to accommodate only one out of four discourses that were identified; for the other three it did not provide the space for the arguments that characterised opposition. The conclusion in relation to debate on framings of effectiveness is that EIA will not be considered effective by the majority of stakeholders. EIA was established to support decision-making through a better understanding of impacts, so its ineffectiveness is unsurprising when its role is perceived to be broader. However, there remains a need to map discourses in different decision contexts and to analyse the extent to which the range of discourses are accommodated throughout the decision process, and the role of impact assessment in those processes, before recommendations can be made to either improve impact assessment effectiveness, or whether it is simply perceptions of effectiveness that need to be improved.