Social impact assessments: Developing a consolidated conceptual framework

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Social impact assessments: Developing a consolidated conceptual framework Antonio Arce-Gomez, Jerome D. Donovan ⁎, Rowan E. Bedggood Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 3 April 2013 Received in revised form 20 July 2014 Accepted 1 August 2014 Available online 3 September 2014

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. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Social impact assessment Framework

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . Approaches to conducting SIAs Consolidating the SIA framework Discussion/conclusion . . . . References . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Introduction In addressing the social aspects of sustainable development, Social Impact Assessments (SIAs) first emerged as a component within Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), used to gauge, moderate and invariably mitigate the impact of planned interventions (Esteves et al., 2012; Mahmoudi et al., 2013). SIAs have since developed into a distinct discipline within the impact assessment field, capable of providing mechanisms in which human and social ecosystems are integrated into decision making (Ahmadvand et al., 2009). Along-side this development, the impact of projects, programmes, plans and policies (planned interventions) on the social well-being of communities has become an area of increasing concern, which explains the accelerated ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Arce-Gomez), [email protected] (J.D. Donovan), [email protected] (R.E. Bedggood).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.006 0195-9255/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

85 86 87 93 94

development and practice of SIAs in recent years (Esteves et al., 2012; Lord, 2011; Momtaz, 2005; Suopajärvi, 2013; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). SIAs have increasingly been used across a variety of different countries, such as Finland (Suopajärvi, 2013), Iran (Ahmadvand et al., 2009) and Bangladesh (Momtaz, 2005), reflecting the recognition of SIAs as a key element in the planning process for planned interventions (Ahmadvand et al., 2009; du Pisani and Sandham, 2006; Momtaz, 2005; Suopajärvi, 2013). These efforts have led to a variety of ways to conduct an SIA, allowing for the unique aspects of each case and community to be embraced so that specific and individual needs are addressed (Esteves et al., 2012). As part of its theoretical and practical development, it has been recognised that the SIA process should be designed as a non-prescriptive process that enables flexibility in practical application (Suopajärvi, 2013). Despite the importance of flexibility in the practical application of SIA processes, the development and codification of the SIA process

86

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

and associated procedures remain important in providing guidance on appropriate approaches to be adopted by practitioners. This has been recently highlighted by Suopajärvi (2013) and Mahmoudi et al. (2013), who claim that more improvements are needed on the theoretical, practical and methodological aspects of SIAs. Likewise, in the recent ‘State of the Art’ article by Esteves et al. (2012, p. 40), emphasis was placed on further understanding the core concepts of SIAs, including “the theoretical bases for participatory approaches”. Esteves et al. (2012, p. 37) suggest public participation within the SIA process “continues to be an issue” with efforts to include the community “at worst … being little more than a feeble attempt at project legitimization”. The lack of understanding and continued calls for further theoretical development is somewhat surprising, particularly with regard to participatory approaches, given the formalisation of the core values and principles to guide SIAs. This was developed by an official project from the International Association for Impact Assessments (IAIA), which resulted in the International Principles for Social Impact Assessment (Vanclay, 2003a,b). Current ‘good practice’ within SIAs has also recently been reinforced by Esteves et al. (2012, p. 35), who highlight that the SIA process should be “proponent-led or community-led”, with participatory processes enabling community discussions and a negotiated agreement for proposed interventions. Over the last decade, this has been paralleled by efforts to develop guidelines on how to conduct an SIA within a range of books (Becker and Vanclay, 2003; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011; Ziller, 2012) and articles (i.e. Asselin and Parkins, 2009; O'Faircheallaigh, 2009; Rossouw and Malan, 2007; Rowan, 2009). We believe that the continued issues regarding the integration and utilisation of participatory approaches, as well as the ongoing calls for further theoretical development within SIAs, arise in part from the sheer magnitude of research and development that has been undertaken in the field. Suopajärvi (2013): 25 laments on this point, suggesting that “there seems to be quite a wide gap between academic recommendations and the SIA case studies, suggesting that a metaevaluation of SIAs is called for if we are to improve SIA practices”. To address such concerns it is argued that the guidelines produced from theoretical and empirical work over the last decade need to be consolidated and incorporated into a new procedural framework. This may serve to provide a basis from which other developments within the SIA field may be incorporated more effectively. This includes recent efforts around free, prior and informed consent; human rights; social performance standards; governance standards and local content requirements, amongst others (Esteves et al., 2012). This consolidation of new knowledge into a procedural framework will thus provide practitioners a platform from which to understand other advances in SIA techniques and approaches. In this paper, we draw upon two particularly important works produced by the Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles (ICGP) for Social Impact Assessment aimed at codifying SIA practice (Esteves et al., 2012). The first was produced in 1995, with the Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, and then, subsequently, in 2003 with an updated document, Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment in the USA. Even though the second document received significant critique from notable scholars in the field, such as Vanclay (2006), who highlighted the failure of the updated document to engage sufficiently with the extant literature, these two documents have, nevertheless, contributed towards the development of the SIA field. This is particularly so with regard to the first document, which codified “the core procedures and understanding of SIA at the time” (Esteves et al., 2012; p. 35). Accordingly, in this paper, we attempt to modify the framework developed by ICGP so that it incorporates and thus reflects current knowledge, and particularly ‘best practice’ as articulated through the International Principles for Social Impact Assessment (Vanclay, 2003a,b) and Social Impact Assessment: the state of the art (Esteves et al., 2012). This will be achieved by first incorporating new findings into the relevant steps throughout the framework, and second, by considering (wherever possible) how technical and participatory approaches can complement

and enhance the SIA process when operating in conjunction. It is not our aim to integrate all knowledge that has been discovered about SIAs. Rather, we seek to engage with a range of key studies that have offered specific and relevant insights that we believe, if incorporated, will contribute significantly to improving the existing framework and providing an important step towards theoretical consolidation and meta-evaluation within the field. With this endeavour in mind, we now turn to the following activities. First, a critique will be undertaken on the most common approaches (technical and participatory) to an SIA within the extant literature. Next, we will design a newly proposed framework, building from the ICGP framework, which will reflect the key innovations appearing from recent scholarly endeavours. This may then be used to inform how each step may evolve in practice. Lastly, we will discuss the significance, value and efficacy of this new, consolidated framework as a mechanism for guiding future research endeavours that seek to unravel the complexity of SIAs. Approaches to conducting SIAs The ICGP (1995) developed a procedural framework that contributed towards the early codification of SIA procedures and arguably paved the way for research within the SIA field. Both the 1995 and 2003 publications provide an overview of an adaptable SIA procedural framework developed with the intent of standardising SIA practice (ICGP, 1995, 2003). This framework proposes a list of sequential steps that should be followed in the SIA process, drawn primarily from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) steps put forward by the ‘Council on Environmental Quality’ (1986). The framework is characterised by its technical approach, which means that it relies upon the expertise and knowledge of social scientists to determine the prediction and assessment of social impacts caused by planned interventions (Ziller, 2012). This approach is invariably perceived as being “objective” and “systematic” due to the rigour of having “social scientists” involved, and their use of objective assessment methods and quantifiable indicators which are based on their “expert” determination (Asselin and Parkins, 2009). Ziller (2012) details the importance of technical approaches due to the expertise required to understand and predict patterns associated with social trends, which is vital to contextualise social impacts. However, we identify three key shortfalls to this approach. First, whilst we acknowledge the importance of “objectivity” in technical approaches, SIAs are also considered ill-equipped to deal with the diverse beliefs, values and interests of various stakeholders who are typically present in the societal context in which the assessment takes place (Lockie, 2001). Second, the use of quantifiable variables shifts the focus of SIA results towards easily identifiable and measurable consequences, such as economic and employment growth (Ahmadvand et al., 2009). This means there is a risk that the “softer” social impacts which should also be considered, such as any detrimental impacts on the culture of the community, are overlooked (Lockie, 2001; Rowan, 2009). We draw our third point of criticism of the technical approach from the ICGP (1995) itself, who suggest that invariably, the social or community issues which are included in SIAs are not necessarily the most appropriate ones, but rather those which are the easiest to account for, quantify, or to measure. Based on an international project by IAIA that captured the ideas and comments of experts in the field, a list of 17 key activities was developed underlying the SIA process (prepared by Vanclay, 2003a,b), known as the International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. As later explained by Vanclay (2006), these activities were not intended to reflect sequential ordering of SIA processes, nor to form an implementation guide for practitioners, but rather to expound the importance of considering a broad range of activities when conducting SIAs. In this way, SIA processes would be sure to draw upon the local community's knowledge and understanding and to ensure that any impacts are assessed in a way that is contextually relevant to them (Asselin and Parkins, 2009; Ziller, 2012). This “participatory” approach, reflects the

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

importance of considering and incorporating, where necessary, the specific characteristics and views of communities into adapted SIA procedures and decisions (Becker et al., 2003). Even though participatory approaches have received widespread support (e.g., Buchan, 2003; Lane et al., 2003; O'Faircheallaigh, 1999; Ross, 1990; Vanclay, 2003a,b, 2006), certain drawbacks have been identified. For example, Esteves et al. (2012) argue that participatory approaches still require clarification and development so that they move beyond simply recommending a ‘space’ for public comments and information gathering. This delineation between public participation and SIA processes may have emerged from practice where the two have been treated as distinct processes, thereby creating a disconnection in the use of participatory approaches to inform decision making (Lockie, 2001). There are also significant difficulties in managing the input of diverse stakeholders, where a tendency may emerge for them to express fears, wants and needs that may not reflect a realistic set of potential social impacts, compounding the difficulty of determining the extent of impacts associated with a planned intervention (Becker et al., 2004; Ziller, 2012). This could serve to convolute, rather than facilitate, the ability of impact assessors to determine appropriate mitigation or enhancement strategies. Thus, it can be seen that both technical and participatory approaches carry benefits as well as costs. One solution emerging from the literature is incorporating both technical and participatory approaches. We advocate for a full integration and thus aim to capture how recent findings demonstrate the utility of greater participatory techniques within the SIA process. Lane et al. (1997) proposed that an integrated approach would increase the predictive capacity of SIAs and provide more relevant information for decision makers, whilst also empowering communities to control their own development. Support for these suggested benefits is evident in the work of Becker et al. (2004), who ran parallel studies on the same planned intervention (the construction of a hydroelectric dam); one followed a technical approach, and the other a participatory approach. The results of this comparison showed that both approaches together yielded a greater number of relevant impacts than either one alone, which provides a positive indication that a merging of these approaches will yield more favourable development outcomes in the future. Building from this point, the following section will now move to consolidating the SIA framework, based on a consideration of the procedural framework proposed by the ICGP, and recent theoretical and empirical studies from both approaches (technical and participatory). Consolidating the SIA framework Whilst recent research on SIA suggests a level of international agreement regarding the components required to reflect “good practice” (Esteves et al., 2012), there still remains significant work to be done in integrating recent findings into the framework. Previous work has served to expand, rather than consolidate, our understanding of SIAs across different industries and countries, through theoretical developments on individual steps, and by combining SIA processes with other tools and methodologies. Alternatively, and as aspired to by Ross and McGee (2006), we attempt to modify the framework by upgrading each step with these recent findings. Leveraging from current knowledge, we identify eight key steps that comprise the SIA process. These include; 1) Screening planned interventions to identify if an SIA is necessary (Ahmadvand et al., 2009; Momtaz, 2005; Suopajärvi, 2013); 2) Developing profiles of the communities which may be impacted (Harris et al., 2003; Rowan, 2009); 3) Scoping the potential impacts that might be caused by a planned intervention (Momtaz, 2003; Rowan, 2009); 4) Assessing the significance of the predicted impacts (Asselin and Parkins, 2009; Becker et al., 2003, 2004; Franks et al., 2009); 5) Formulating alternatives for the planned intervention (Égré and Senécal, 2003; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011); 6) Creating mitigation and enhancement strategies and developing a plan to manage social impacts (João et al., 2011; Loxton, et al., 2013; QDIP, 2010);

87

7) Monitoring of social impacts (QDIP, 2010; Rossouw and Malan, 2007); and 8) Management plans and evaluation (Franks and Vanclay, 2013). The steps that we propose to adjust or update are depicted in the highlighted boxes in Fig. 1. A shaded box indicates that we have incorporated a participatory approach to this step, double lined boxes indicate an extension to the ICGP and a triple lined box highlights a new step. Fig. 2 depicts the ICGP framework with parentheses indicating difference from the 1995 model. Step 1 Screening (adapted and expanded) The ICGP framework identifies public involvement and a description of the planned intervention as the first two steps in their sequential SIA process, and we propose that they are

1. Screening • • • •

Describe planned intervenon Invite public involvement Understand issues and impacts Determine whether SIA is required

• • • •

Gather exisng data Determine spaal domain Delineate areas of impacts Solicit community engagement

2. Community Profiling

3. Scoping • Technical idenficaon • Community engagement - refinement

4. Assessing Impacts • Comparave diachronic model • Conduct an ICF • Measure cumulave impacts

5. Developing Alternatives • Technical and engineering aspects • Social, economic and environmental criteria

6. Mitigation • Idenfy and priorise impacts • Develop migaon strategies • Implement migaon strategies

7. Monitoring • List key impacts • Compare with targets • Develop monitoring plan • Grievance handling process

8. Management & Evaluation • • • •

Manage social impacts Evaluate migaon strategies Correcve acon plans Report on progress (publicly available)

Fig. 1. A consolidated SIA framework.

88

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

Fig. 2. The ICGP framework. Source: adapted from ICGP, 2003, 1995.

so vital, they should form part of the initial Screening step of an SIA. Public involvement relates to developing a plan to involve public groups who are potentially affected by the planned intervention. According to the ICGP, to properly involve the public, they must be identified during the initial steps of the planning activities for the proposed intervention, and encouraged to participate in public discussion forums, and so on. The public involves groups of people who may be directly impacted by the proposed intervention, i.e., they can see, smell or hear a development; they may need to relocate due to the development; or are affected by the location of the development. Alternatively, people in these groups may have an interest in the planned intervention, i.e., they may be in a neighbouring community, or have some financial involvement with, or derivative from, the project. Engagement strategies need to be considered cognisant of cultural, language and literacy issues and to utilise a full range of engagement techniques to collect public responses. The second step proposed by the ICGP, which requires the assessor to describe the planned intervention, requires not only a description, but should also provide a range of alternative options to various aspects of the project (e.g., alternative site locations), with sufficient details to inform a preliminary assessment. This should include the possible SIA variables that should be considered in guiding data collection by proponents.

The development of these steps was contextualised by the ICGP within the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. This means that, unfortunately, the SIA process is typically wedged firmly within Environmental Assessment processes. Screening within this context is thus still heavily informed by EIA screening, despite the long-standing arguments in the literature that social impacts can and do occur independently from biophysical or environmental factors (Ahmadvand et al., 2009; Beckwith, 2012; Carrington and Pereira, 2011; Momtaz, 2005). Despite this assertion, SIAs are often conducted within the context of EIA regulatory frameworks, as is the case in countries like Finland (Suopajärvi, 2013), Colombia (Toro et al., 2010), Iran (Ahmadvand et al., 2009), South Africa (du Pisani and Sandham, 2006) and Bangladesh (Momtaz, 2005). Instead of SIA practice beginning with public involvement and a description of the planned intervention, practice seems to indicate that it starts with a screening process through the identification of social issues; impacts associated with a planned intervention; and determining whether a full SIA is needed. Esteves et al. (2012) describe conducting SIAs within existing EIA regulations as emerging from the ‘narrowest conceptualisation’ of an SIA, hindering the emancipation of SIAs as a standalone process. Notwithstanding this criticism, a range of examples indicates the predominance of this practice internationally. In the Colombian context, for example, sixteen different types of planned interventions and activities require an “environmental licence”. This can only be acquired once an EIA, including certain social considerations (containing the SIA), is submitted for review and approval by the national Local Planning Authority (LPA) (Toro et al., 2010). Another example of this situation is presented by Ahmadvand et al. (2009), who examined SIA regulation for agricultural development in Iran. They demonstrate that SIAs are only conducted when planned interventions require an EIA for approval. This means that current SIA practice in Iran is orientated around a static list of seventeen types of planned interventions determined by EIA legislation, thus constraining the likely utility of SIAs to a limited number of planned interventions with relevant biophysical issues (Ahmadvand et al., 2009). Public involvement within this initial phase of the SIA appears to be either omitted or flawed in practice — despite the prominence given in the ICGP framework. For example, in the case of SIAs undertaken on mining planned interventions in Northern Finland, Suopajärvi (2013) demonstrated that although a range of methods were utilised to engage with, and collect data from, public groups (such as questionnaires, interviews and focus groups), the typical respondents tended to be middle-aged or elderly men. Women, young or uneducated people, and people from diverse occupations, were largely overlooked, with a lack of consideration and thus representation given for vulnerable groups. This, Suopajärvi (2013) argues, may be associated with problems in “describing the diversity of local communities” (Suopajärvi, 2013; p. 29). Similarly, from the planned intervention in Iran cited earlier, Ahmadvand et al. (2009) also reflect on the lack of public participation for SIAs, with only one out of five agricultural planned interventions conducting any substantive public participation exercises. Public involvement has, however, been well demonstrated in a study by Youngkin et al. (2003), where more active public engagement and involvement were evident in the SIA process as part of an infrastructure development project within the USA. This study demonstrated how minority groups and lowincome groups (considered to be particularly vulnerable communities affected by the proposed development) were proactively engaged at the beginning of the planned intervention. Public information meetings, face-to-face discussions and one-on-one

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

meetings were organised. Involvement in these forums was encouraged by promoting them in local newspapers, in signs erected in the vicinity of the proposed development, and by the notifications made by local public officials, church leaders and community members. Issues, impacts and alternatives were identified by relevant public groups to inform the development decisions. This case aligns with many of the guidelines identified by the ICGP for the initial steps of the SIA process, and these activities are directed by the local and national regulations within the USA. So although public involvement is a critical aspect of a well framed and contextually relevant SIA, practices remain disparate. Recommendation: Building from this base, we thus propose that the first step of an SIA should begin with Screening, similar to EIA regulatory frameworks, but should contain some additional components reflective of the ICGP framework. Intuitively, this would first entail describing the planned intervention, inviting public involvement, identifying and understanding the associated issues and impacts, and determining whether an SIA is required. We therefore argue that the SIA process will be improved when it contains a Screening step that entails the best elements from SIA and EIA screening research and practices to date, and contains all four aspects (see Fig. 1). Step 2 Community profile (integrated) The ICGP identify creating a Community Profile as a fundamental step in SIAs, as it is here that a more accurate gauge can be formed of how the planned intervention may impact local communities, ensuring the SIA yields results that are significant and relevant (O'Faircheallaigh, 2009; Vanclay, 2003a,b, 2006; Ziller, 2012). It is during this step that the baseline aspects of the intervention are articulated, which geographically (and otherwise) identify the communities who may be affected. The ICGP offer direction in developing this step, which considers people's existing way of life, culture, community characteristics, health and wellbeing, personal and property rights, fears and aspirations, and include the broader aspects of environment and political systems. Furthermore, in identifying the communities that are potentially affected by the planned intervention, consideration of the geographic location, sociocultural foundations, economic or business relationships or administrative boundaries defined by government can be incorporated (Rowan, 2009). Whilst the coverage within this step is seemingly comprehensive, we argue that it suffers from a fundamental flaw inhibiting its usefulness in application: the ICGP framework essentially adopts a technical approach to this step recommending that experts, or social researchers, are best positioned to manage all the aspects. This may, at first, appear to be a viable approach, as these “experts” have knowledge and training around social issues and assessing the social impacts of planned interventions. Indeed, such an approach has been reflected in the research of Rowan (2009), for example, who stresses the need to understand and define the spatial parameters, key social receptors and community resources by a social or community development specialist. In so doing, Rowan (2009) adopts a technical-based approach, with the orientation around specialists setting the context for ‘who’ and ‘what’ needs to be considered when developing this profile. Another example can be found in the work of Youngkin et al. (2003), who identified how an “assessor” of a planned intervention drew upon census data to identify the different racial and socioeconomic groups that could be affected. They also note the use of observations from field visits to determine the scope of communities that may be impacted and the potential informants who could be involved in the SIA process. Alternatively, some SIA scholars have embraced a more participatory-based approach to this step. For example, Harris et al. (2003) offer a pathway forward from the technical approach commonly adopted, exploring how an Interactive

89

Community Forum (ICF) can be used as a participatory method to analyse baseline conditions, determine impacts and evaluate alternatives for a planned intervention. This demonstrates an important shift in perspective: here, community residents are the ones who are considered the ‘experts’ for identifying potential issues and impacts that might affect them. In the Harris et al. (2003) study, participants of these forums were asked to assess their community's current situation across four dimensions: the people, the place, the economy and the community's vision and vitality. We argue that such a participatory-driven approach is more amendable to local communities and has a stronger and more directed opportunity for their needs to be met. However, we also argue that having experts involved in the process adds rigour and knowledge that might be unavailable solely within community groups. In examining the study by Harris et al. (2003) further, it is evident that aspects of a technical approach were also evident. For example, the forums were conducted by social researchers who, as issues were raised, were able to guide respondents through their reflection of their historical and current situation — highlighting the importance of technical experts to facilitate this process. Participants were also presented the different alternatives generated by planned intervention proponents, and asked to forecast likely changes to their community situation for the next 20 years. Recommendation: The benefits of a technical approach are numerous; so, too, are the benefits of adopting a participatory approach. Hence, the combined benefits can be realised when both participatory and technical approaches are adopted during the Community Profile step of SIAs. We acknowledge that this involves a longer and more challenging process to achieve. For example, in the Harris et al. (2003) study, 27 key communities, involving 1154 participants, were engaged. However, we argue that the benefits will outweigh the costs for such an approach, particularly if the planned intervention is likely to have considerable community impact (Esteves et al., 2012). Specifically, we recommend that during the Community Profile step, the following components should be incorporated: • Exploring existing data: this should include relevant data on community dynamics, both past and present, and issues and impacts associated with the planned intervention. • Determine the spatial domain of the area potentially affected by the planned intervention (Rowan, 2009). • Delineate the key social receptors and community resources that may be affected by the intervention (Rowan, 2009). • Community engagement: this could be achieved, for example, through ICFs (Harris et al., 2003) whereby affected communities are able to provide descriptive data regarding their historical, current and future perceived position as a result of the planned intervention, guided by social researchers Step 3 Scoping (integrated) Scoping involves identifying the breadth of potential social impacts, or issues, associated with a planned intervention in order to identify the areas that require further and detailed assessment (ICGP, 2003). Firstly, the ICGP suggests a range of aspects about the impact to consider when selecting the most significant social impacts: duration, probability of occurring, duration, benefits/costs, reversibility, likelihood of cumulative or secondary impacts, relevance to policy decisions, uncertainty of effects, and any controversy associated with the issue. Whilst these aspects are broad, we believe that they can be embellished by incorporating the work of Rowan (2009), who suggests people's well-being should also be considered, which more comprehensively captures how an impact is likely to influence people's lives. Furthermore, Rowan (2009) suggests the use of “sensitivity criteria” reflective of a range of social receptors (such as individuals, socio-cultural groups, community organisations,

90

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

service users, employees, and so on). Sensitivity criteria enable the determination of how the well-being of different social receptors, especially those who were considered to be the most vulnerable, is affected by a planned intervention. Secondly, the ICGP identifies two particular methods for selecting which impacts require further assessment: 1) public engagement, involving public participation techniques (like a participatory approach), or 2) drawing upon existing social science literature (a technical approach). This is also reflected in previous research, which highlights the dominance of these two approaches to Scoping (Becker et al., 2004; Lockie, 2001; Ziller, 2012). Whilst it appears that these two methods reflect both approaches, upon closer examination it is evident that the first method is also highly technical, because, as outlined in the ICGP (2003): a) it is usually up to the assessor to determine the method, and b) the assessor, not the public, determines the nature of the impacts to be discussed. The advantages and application of both approaches in Scoping are evident in some recent studies. In the Rowan (2009) study, for example, a technical approach is advocated wherein social experts were used to assess impacts, albeit with public inclusion. However, adopting a technical approach during this step is likely to be heavily criticised due to the inclination towards focusing mostly (on the “easier”) quantifiable socioeconomic issues, and the glaring omission of “softer” social issues (Lockie, 2001; Webler and Lord, 2010). These “softer” issues include (but are not limited to): culture; fears and aspirations of the community (Vanclay, 2003a,b); protection and involvement of indigenous communities, including their knowledge, traditions and values (Bond et al., 1999; King, 1998; O'Faircheallaigh, 1999); and gender roles and equality (Lahiri-Dutt and Ahmad, 2011). Although “vulnerability level” can be considered a “softer” social issue (see Rowan, 2009), we propose that they may be more thoroughly and appropriately addressed by adopting a participatory approach that allows for exploratory and qualitative research to be conducted to uncover any community concerns (Esteves et al., 2012; Vanclay, 2003a,b; Ziller, 2012). An example of a participatory approach to Scoping can be found in the work of Momtaz (2003), where a team of EIA/SIA assessors in Bangladesh heavily involved public participation to predict (scope) the impacts of a planned intervention. The benefits of this approach were evident as communities were provided with opportunities (or “spaces” such as those in ICFs) where they were able to contribute to discussions and decision making, helping them to achieve their desired outcomes. Scholars have consistently emphasised the value of applying participatory approaches in SIAs (see for example Vanclay, 2003a,b; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011; Becker et al., 2003, 2004; Lane et al., 2003). Adopting this approach is successful during Scoping largely because it allows communities to voice their concerns and also to articulate their own distinct set of social roles, relations and values that can characterise and shape the importance of relative social issues and impacts (Lockie, 2001; Vanclay, 2003a,b). Recommendation: Even though these two approaches are often portrayed as opposing views (Becker et al., 2004), we advocate for an integration of both approaches within Scoping to capture the “best of both worlds”. This integration is expected to enrich the diversity of social impacts as determined by both experts and the community. This could be achieved through the cyclical process of first having technical experts analyse the potential impacts, and then engaging the broader community for further contribution, and then feedback, on the importance of these impacts. We argue that this mixed approach will yield a greater number of impacts that are significant to all social receptors, with the added benefit of ensuring scientific rigour and justification.

Step 4 Assessing impacts (expanded and integrated) After identifying the most significant impacts, the next step requires the assessment of each impact in order to understand the implications and effects each may have on a community. The ICGP (2003) captures this with three interdependent steps: investigating probable impacts (direct and associated); estimating responses to impacts; and determining secondary and cumulative impacts. We aggregate these steps to form the Assessing Impacts step because, collectively, they aim to achieve the same thing: to measure the future significance of the probable impacts identified in the Scoping step. Previous studies have adopted either a technical or participatory approach for any steps associated with assessing impacts. In drawing upon these empirical studies, we highlight the most effective tools that have emerged, and in encapsulating new trends into this step, we extend the existing ICGP model. We also suggest some potential avenues that may be explored to empirically validate the assessment of cumulative impacts, a concept which requires further development. Starting first from the technical standpoint, it is evident that Assessing Impact involves the impact assessor determining the significance of the impacts associated with the planned intervention. This is reflected in the range of techniques identified by the ICGP (2003) for analysing social impacts, including: the comparative model, straight-line trend projections, population multiplier methods, statistical significance, scenarios, export judgement and calculation of “futures forgone”. There have been a dearth of studies adding to this list since the contribution by Asselin and Parkins (2009), who empirically tested a comparative case study of two northern communities (Inuvik, Canada and Valdez, Alaska). The use of a comparative case study approach allows for the extrapolation of past social impacts caused by a proposed intervention, from a different community, into another community facing a similar proposed intervention. The authors found this approach to be an important technical tool within SIAs due to the way it incorporates the broader context of the impacts, and highlights the differences between communities. Turning next to participatory methods to Assessing Impacts, much less has been developed within the SIA literature, with the exception of the enduring emphasis about the methods best adopted to engage with those affected by an intervention. As Esteves et al. (2012) lament “the adequacy of public participation continues to be an issue” (p. 37). Although the ICGP (2003) identifies the importance of collecting the “opinions of the various publics” (p. 246) during this step, including the use of surveys or public meetings, it constrains this activity by specifying it should be done where “time and funding permits” (p. 246). So whilst there appears to be great benefit in garnering public participation for determining how the specified impacts will affect them, manifesting such participation remains highly uncertain. However, the Interactive Community Forum (ICF), as proposed in step 2, is perhaps the clearest example of a participatory technique, and which is also readily applicable to the Assessing Impacts step (see, for example, Becker et al., 2003, 2004). The ICF provides a platform for the community to voice their opinions about the types of impacts coming from a planned intervention (steps 1 and 2), as well as what effects they think the identified impacts will have on their community (steps 3 and 4). This method seeks to move beyond simply capturing the attitudes of affected public groups, to engaging and empowering participants through “using their knowledge and local expertise to identify community-level impacts” (Becker et al., 2003: p. 369). Lastly, we turn to the newer area emerging in the SIA field around assessing cumulative impacts, including their prediction, measurement and management. Whilst the ICGP (2003) and others (such as, Franks et al., 2010 and Lockie et al., 2008) point to the importance of considering the impacts resulting from primary or

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

direct impacts, very little guidance has been provided on the methods for measuring these cumulative effects. A noteworthy example is provided by Franks et al. (2010) who highlight several potential methods for assessing cumulative impacts, including: scenarios, modelling, forecasting, impact pathway analysis and collaborative research. Whilst some progress has been made on validating these approaches within the broader impact assessment literature (e.g. Moran et al., 2013; Sonter et al., 2013), they still require empirical testing and validation within the SIA context. Hence, as argued by Esteves et al. (2012), understanding, measuring and managing cumulative impacts thus remain to be areas that require greater development in the SIA literature. Recommendation: From this analysis, we therefore propose that Assessing Impacts is best represented by merging the three steps suggested by the ICGP (2003) into one. Furthermore, we suggest that this step should adopt both a technical and participatory approach by: i) using a comparative method (technical approach), namely the comparative diachronic model, as it has been identified as a particularly useful tool for this stage (Asselin and Parkins, 2009), and ii) conduct an ICF, as this method will ensure greater public involvement and also allow a participatory-led approach to hold equal reign. Finally, we recommend a framework for further developing and validating ways to measure and manage cumulative impacts, which have the potential to trigger “major changes in environmental, social and economic system” (Franks et al., 2010; p. 300). We recommend the systematic testing of the efficacy of the following methods, as raised by Franks et al. (2010) within an SIA context: scenario development, modelling of possible outcomes, forecasting, and impact pathway analysis. Step 5 Developing alternatives (integrated) It is important in any SIA to explore alternative ways of carrying out a planned intervention as a mechanism to avoid any unavoidable impacts identified in earlier steps (ICGP, 2003). These alternatives to the planned intervention should be designed and assessed separately to determine their consequences on the issues and impacts identified in the previous step. This step is basically a ‘redesign step’ where the proponent provides options to reduce or remove negative impacts. The ICGP recommend that this is conducted as a separate analysis (ICGP, 1995, 2003), and emphasise the importance of time, the magnitude of the project and the financing that is required, in determining the number of alternatives proposed, and their combined effect. This emphasis is supported by recent scholarly investigations which have highlighted the importance of “resources” in developing alternatives. Vanclay and Esteves (2011), for example, suggest that the formulation of alternatives needs to be sensitive to the realities of a proponent, regardless of whether it is a private, public or third sector organisation. This means that the number of alternatives, and assessment loops that a proponent might suggest, will depend on the capacity, resources and specific characteristics of the proponent in comparison with the expected benefits from the planned intervention that is being considered. We believe there are now more aspects to consider when Developing Alternatives to an SIA process. Specifically, we believe a more balanced approach can be adopted, and thus corroborate the views of Égré and Senécal (2003) who, whilst conforming to the limitations of resources and capacity of the proponent, argue for the inclusion of community input at this stage too. For example, they highlight the importance of including: i) technical and engineering aspects, and ii) social, economic and environmental criteria, when considering alternatives. Moreover, the authors particularly stress the importance of adopting a participatory approach so that “an optimal balance of societal needs is reached” (p. 223). The final outcome of the Developing Alternatives step should thus be the analysis of the

91

most viable option that is feasible both from a technical and financial perspective, as well as one that minimises social impacts (Égré and Senécal, 2003). Recommendation: We thus build beyond the ICGP by arguing for broader considerations when developing alternatives, and which are not solely driven by the resource constraints of project proponents. In so doing, it is critical for the proponent to engage with the community, and to do so regardless of financial capacity, because developing alternatives that are feasible and socially responsible need to occur with the acceptance or preference of key stakeholders affected (Égré and Senécal, 2003). We thus extend the ICGP framework by recognising not only the resource constraints associated with the proponent, but by also incorporating the central role of communities in designing alternatives that are optimal for both the proponent and communities they operate within. Step 6 Mitigation (enhancement) In an ideal situation, any negative impacts of a planned intervention should be avoided. However, when this is not possible, mitigation strategies are needed (ICGP, 2003). Mitigation involves minimising or reducing any negative impacts, and where this is not possible, to provide compensation to affected parties. This could be, for example, in the form of money, employment, relocation of infrastructure or an option deemed of equivalent “value”. The ICGP suggests that a sequencing strategy should be adopted for this step which involves incorporating the most ideal methods of mitigation, which involves first avoiding impacts, before moving through a sequence of less attractive outcomes, of minimising and then compensating. This is largely a technical process, orientated around the assessor ranking “the level of importance of each significant SIA variable” (p. 247), and then determining whether the proponent can modify the planned intervention to avoid, minimise or compensate for adverse impacts. Recent scholarly work has pointed to a more discerning range of considerations, providing a detailed approach to Mitigation, which we believe warrants inclusion in this step. In taking a broad perspective for the proponent of a planned intervention, Loxton et al. (2013) highlight the importance of the proponent's goals within this step which can direct the assessor towards developing particular types of mitigation strategies. These goals include reducing, mitigating or compensating for negative impacts; to potentially enhance positive impacts; or to enable the proponent to achieve their particular objectives within the planned intervention. This directs the proponent towards more clearly specifying what they seek to achieve within this step, and reflects the reality that different proponents will have different goals when undertaking an SIA. Building from the specification of the goals of the proponent, three key components are identified as important for the Mitigation step: i) the identification and prioritisation of impacts identified during the Assessing Impacts step; ii) the implementation of mitigation or minimisation strategies for these impacts; iii) the possibility of integrating enhancement strategies (Franks, 2012; Loxton et al., 2013; QDIP, 2010). This moves beyond the ICGP in that it first advocates for a weighting of which impacts should be prioritised and focused upon initially. It also more explicitly integrates the idea of enhancing positive impacts through the intervention, reflecting more recent scholarly debates on the importance of enhancement strategies being incorporated. When examining the first component, given the wide range of impacts that might have been identified and analysed during the Assessing Impacts step, it is important to first classify and prioritise them. The assessor will be then able to direct their attention towards those impacts that are most significant or that are immediate or closer to the start of the planned intervention (QDIP, 2010). However, this does not imply that these impacts

92

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

are the only ones that should be addressed. Rather, such prioritisation allows for more effective allocation of the proponent's resources and time, enabling them to better manage the most significant impacts caused by the proposed intervention (QDIP, 2010). Once this prioritisation of social impacts has taken place, the assessor then proceeds to the second component where strategies to mitigate the impacts are developed. Mitigation strategies ought to be developed with the help of the relevant stakeholders, which suggests that a participatory approach is the best here (Loxton et al., 2013; QDIP, 2010). One such method that, once again, appears to have utility is the ICF, which places emphasis on drawing upon citizen knowledge and judgments to examine the possible impacts and alternatives associated with a planned intervention. This is invariably achieved through a structured, small-group technique, which allows for information to be shared and considered by relevant community actors. Becker et al. (2003) suggest that this method “…can lead to more adaptive strategies for addressing the negative consequences of proposed actions” (p. 368). With regard to the third component (increasing positive impacts) of the Mitigation step, the creation of “enhancement strategies” has been highlighted as an important component to be considered. Enhancement is defined as the “deliberate attempts taken in the design and subsequent phases of projects, policies, plans and programmes to ensure the success of a wider range of direct and indirect benefits that could possibly flow from the project or policy” (João et al., 2011: 171). Enhancement can benefit both the community where the planned intervention is to take place (Esteves and Barclay, 2011; Rowan and Streather, 2011), as well as the proponent (Esteves and Barclay, 2011). This dual benefit appears to fit well with the second two goals identified by Loxton et al. (2013): to enhance positive impacts and achieve the proponent's objectives. Recommendation: We argue that Mitigation should first begin with the clear articulation of the proponent's goals of whether to reduce, mitigate or compensate potential impacts, thus incorporating recent scholarly debate which points to the critical role that goal identification plays in framing the mitigation activities of the assessor. Ideally, the proponent would want to achieve the potential enhancement of their positive impacts upon the community they are operating within. With this goal in mind, we advocate for integrating positive impacts into the Mitigation step, reflecting a move within the broader literature to consider enhancement strategies within the SIA process. The work of Loxton et al. (2013) and the QDIP (2010) offer a platform from which mitigation and enhancement strategies can be developed and integrated into the SIA process. This three-component process of identifying and prioritising impacts, developing and implementing mitigation or minimisation strategies, and considering enhancement strategies, appears to offer a more systemic basis for working through this step. With the additional context of considering the goals of the proponent, this enhancement angle may offer a platform from which greater benefits can be derived from the SIA for local communities. Step 7 Monitoring According to the ICGP (2003), the final step in the SIA process is establishing a Monitoring programme. This step involves designing a system that will allow the proponent to keep track of social impacts and to determine the accuracy of the impacts according to initial predictions. Also, any additional activities should be monitored to determine their effectiveness at mitigating these impacts. It is during this step that unanticipated impacts may arise, and thus it is imperative at this stage to compare what was projected with what is occurring (ICGP, 2003). Monitoring is particularly important for planned interventions that are likely

to experience high degrees of uncertainty or variability, or which lack detailed information. Despite this importance, very little guidance is provided within the ICGP on how this step should be implemented. Thus, we turn to a range of studies to guide our understanding of how this step should occur, with the aim of developing a clearer pathway forward for practitioners. Once again, we believe this step is best managed by adopting both a technical and participatory approach. Shortfalls in adopting a solely technical approach are evident from the work of Rossouw and Malan (2007) who demonstrated that tools used in this step, such as “checklists”, fail to account for social impacts that may have greater significance to affected communities, and instead, tend to examine only those impacts which are easily quantifiable. A combined approach may overcome these obstacles. In their study, Rossouw and Malan (2007) examined the effects of adopting a combined technical–participatory approach that specifically dealt with social sustainability. They found an improvement in the outcomes of activities undertaken as part of the environmental management plans (of which social impacts were a component), and argue for a reflective approach to Monitoring based on a stronger theoretical framework. Thus, both community views and previous knowledge can allow for a greater understanding of the social environment. This shifted the social assessor towards a greater consideration of the “way that social, productive and human capital are accessed by the local population” (p. 298), exploring the views of the community in a more in-depth manner reflective of an integrated technical–participatory approach. In practice, the involvement of different stakeholder groups, such as the community and government agencies, is becoming increasingly common when monitoring issues arising from planned interventions (QDIP, 2010; Rossouw and Malan, 2007). The QDIP (2010) argues that the stakeholders involved need to share responsibilities in the Monitoring process, and reports the progress of mitigation activities to the proponent following agreed reporting standards (technical approach). According to the QDIP (2010), the monitoring plan should clearly state: • The list of prioritised social impacts with targets and outcomes expected • How these social impacts will be monitored • Who will be responsible for monitoring these impacts • How often and when the impacts are monitored • Key performance indicators that allow effective and informative measurement for the social impact The information resulting from Monitoring should be clear and easily understandable for all stakeholder groups, enabling them to keep track of impacts throughout the planned intervention (QDIP, 2010). Recommendation: We extend the Monitoring step from that specified by the ICGP, and recommend that it embraces a strong participatory approach in combination with working with key experts in the field (technical approach). By embracing all stakeholders in this step, communities will have greater buy-in to the process of managing the impacts of planned interventions. Communities would thus have an emphasised role in the process of developing systems and mechanisms to manage impacts, by integrating their views, opinions and local knowledge into the process. With this increased role, we also recommend that a clear theoretical foundation is put in place that articulates the methods to be utilised, including how these enable clear communication of issues and impacts between proponents and all stakeholders. The components of a Monitoring step would thus entail a list of the key impacts, delineation of targets against which performance can be measured or tracked, and a plan for who will do what, and when. Step 8 Management and Evaluation (new step) Extending from the ICGP framework, we propose a new and final step in the SIA process: Management and Evaluation. This

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

has been prompted by the concerns raised by Franks and Vanclay (2013), who highlight that the “historical absence of a governance framework for managing social and economic impacts has left many developments ill-prepared to meet community expectations” (p. 40–41). Management is based on the actual implementation of the planned intervention, ensuring that the project proceeds as designed according to the outcomes of the previous SIA steps. This ensures that the agreed actions to address impacts are implemented correctly. To complement this, Evaluation is needed to understand how well the SIA process has been implemented, the areas that need improvement, and to design improvement plans for the identified areas (Franks, 2012). We draw upon the work of Franks (2012) and Franks and Vanclay (2013) in proposing the use of a Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) as the basis for the Management and Evaluation step within the SIA. A SIMP is essentially “a management tool for addressing social impacts during the implementation of planned interventions (projects, plans, policies and programs)” (Franks and Vanclay, 2013: 41). SIMPs provide a method for operationalising the outcomes from the predictive assessment that was undertaken earlier within the SIA, and outlining the necessary strategies, processes, and activities to be enacted by the proponents of the planned intervention in implementing their activities. This includes detailing the priorities that need to be considered during implementation, the commitment of resources to avoid, mitigate or compensate for negative impacts associated with the planned intervention, as well as the methods and activities required to enhance positive impacts. Thus, SIMPs have been positioned to be the bridge between the ex-ante (or front-loaded) assessments of a planned intervention, and assist in translating the inclusion of social impacts into its broader related activities. In a review of recent SIA literature Esteves et al. (2012) highlight that to improve SIA practice, a higher level of reporting is necessary. It is argued that taking a broad overview, on aspects such as the methodology used for the SIA and its effectiveness, will provide essential information that can be reported to stakeholders on current interventions, and which will also help inform improvements for future ones. This could culminate in a final SIA report summarising key milestones, accomplishments and issues experienced throughout the planned intervention. Recommendation: We introduce a new and iterative step to the SIA process, Management and Evaluation, thus extending the SIA framework originally developed by the ICGP (2003). This step has become increasingly important to include in SIAs because ideally, social impacts should be managed until they no longer represent any negative consequences to the affected communities, or until positive impacts have reached their maximum potential. Hence, the SIA can be a constant process that continues throughout the duration of a planned intervention (Franks and Vanclay, 2013; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). We propose the SIMP model as a basis for integrating the Management and Evaluation step within the SIA. Including this Management and Evaluation (iterative) step will ensure that the SIA endures for the life of the planned intervention, and is not something that is done beforehand and forgotten, and that both proponents and stakeholders are accountable to their agreements. As part of this step, we also recommend transparent reporting on SIA outcomes so that all stakeholders, including the general public, are fully aware of what was planned, agreed upon, and conducted. To again embrace a participatory approach, the final report should include inputs from all stakeholders involved. Further, by allowing such a report to be available for public review stakeholders would be empowered to ensure that planned interventions realise their objectives whilst also fulfilling their obligations to all.

93

Discussion/conclusion The consolidation of the SIA process since the early work of the ICGP (1995, 2003) has served as a solid guide for the development and practice of SIAs. However, recent practical and theoretical developments in the field provide a unique opportunity to update and invigorate this procedural framework. By infusing this SIA process with recent innovations, scholarly findings, current discourse, and practices in the field, we have extended and updated the SIA framework to reflect developments over the last decade. Previous attempts at making improvements have generally focussed on ways to gain greater efficiency (e.g., du Pisani and Sandham, 2006; Mahmoudi et al., 2013), clarifying the process further (e.g., Ahmadvand et al., 2009; Schirmer, 2011; Suopajärvi, 2013), or shifting from assessing social impacts that are easily quantifiable to assessing more abstract social considerations, which are harder to express in number but are, nonetheless, of critical importance to local communities (e.g., Becker et al., 2003; Rowan, 2009). We have attempted to add to this body of knowledge, this time by extending and expanding upon the entire SIA framework. Accordingly, we have not only recognised and incorporated the recent theoretical and methodological developments in the SIA field, but have also captured the current ‘best practice’ foundations in participatory techniques in an attempt to break the shackles of the conventional and predominantly technically-driven SIA presented by the ICGP. We are not without support in this endeavour as incorporating a stronger participatory approach is advocated by others and enshrined in ‘best practice’ principles (e.g., Esteves et al., 2012; Vanclay, 2003a,b; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). It is also necessary, given that the ICGP framework more clearly aligns with a technical perspective and emphasises the central role of the impact assessor “expert” in developing the profile of relevant issues and potential impacts for the given community, and thus does not currently reflect new insights. Whilst these two approaches are not viewed as mutually exclusive by the ICGP framework (for example, within the scoping step the ICGP delineates two potential methods each reflecting the two approaches), scholars have tended to view them as opposing. In contrast, we advocate for the integration of the two approaches, outlining how the technical criteria identified by the ICGP could be potentially aligned with more participatory approaches. We thus advocate for a structured process leveraging from the technical expertise of the assessor with the inclusion of a participatory approach to ensure best practice (Esteves et al., 2012). Accordingly, we have reviewed existing platforms and new endeavours to develop the consolidated SIA process that has 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. Significant progress has been made over the last decade in the development of efficient management systems for addressing social impacts (e.g., Franks, 2012; Franks and Vanclay, 2013; QDIP, 2010). In this paper, we have highlighted the utility of extending the SIA process to making it cyclical, so that it moves beyond simply an ex-ante approval process (Franks and Vanclay, 2013; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). We have advocated for the use of Social Impact Management Plans (SIMPs) as a key method for creating an SIA capable of managing ongoing social impacts associated within an actual intervention (Franks and Vanclay, 2013) throughout its duration. We believe that in order to further inform and improve the use of management systems in SIA, a comparison of the different alternative management systems currently available around the world would be beneficial for future studies. Although we have witnessed the proliferation of EIA regulation across many jurisdictions, SIAs have not achieved the same recognition globally (Pope et al., 2013). This can be attributed to the position of SIA as subordinate to EIA as well as the continuous struggle of making SIAs relevant to decision makers, even though the processes of SIA have been well established (Esteves et al., 2012). Furthermore, the wide range and availability of SIA guides can potentially hinder its usage for SIA

94

A. Arce-Gomez et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015) 85–94

practitioners that would have to face different procedural framework sources. We hope that the consolidated SIA framework presented here, which includes some of the latest developments in the SIA field, may serve as a platform for further discussion on SIA methodology. The updated SIA process also provides a common set of steps for practitioners to follow which may help to bridge the gap between assessment policies and the practice of impact assessments, as well as potentially accelerating the adoption of SIAs into planning and investment policies around the world. References [ICGP] Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995;15(1):11–43. [ICGP] The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment. Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA: the Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(3):231–50. [QDIP]. Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Social impact assessment: guideline to preparing a social impact management plan; 2010 [Brisbane]. Ahmadvand M, Karami E, Zamani GH, Vanclay F. Evaluating the use of social impact assessment in the context of agricultural development projects in Iran. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009;29(6):399–407. Asselin J, Parkins J. Comparative case study as social impact assessment: possibilities and limitations for anticipating social change in the far north. Social Indicators Research 2009;94:483–97. Becker HA, Vanclay F. The international handbook of social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Edward Elgar; 2003. Becker DR, Harris CC, McLaughlin WJ, Nielsen EA. A participatory approach to social impact assessment: the interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2003;23(3):367–82. Becker DR, Harris CC, Nielsen EA, McLaughlin WJ. A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2004; 22(3):177–89. Beckwith JA. A social impact perspective on the Browse LNG Precinct strategic assessment in Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2012;30(3):189–94. Bond AJ, Sene A, Scullion J, Matty F. Identifying an appropriate methodological approach for considering social, economic and environmental problems caused by development in Sénégal. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 1999;17(2):157–63. Buchan D. Buy-in and social capital: by-products of social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(3):168–72. Carrington K, Pereira M. Assessing the social impacts of the resources boom on rural communities. Rural Soc 2011;21(1):2–20. Council on Environmental Quality. Regulations for implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1986. du Pisani JA, Sandham LA. Assessing the performance of SIA in the EIA context: a case study of South Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(8):707–24. Égré D, Senécal P. Social impact assessments of large dams throughout the world: lessons learned over two decades. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(3):215–24. Esteves AM, Barclay M-A. Enhancing the benefits of local content: integrating social and economic impact assessment into procurement strategies. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2011;29(3):205–15. Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2012;30(1):34–42. Franks D. Social impact assessment of resource projects. Mining for development: guide to Australian practice. Crawley (WA): International Mining for Development Centre; 2012. Franks DM, Vanclay F. Social impact management plans: innovation in corporate and public policy. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;43:40–8. Franks D, Fidler C, Brereton D, Vanclay F, Clark P. (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland). Leading practice strategies for addressing the social impacts of resource developments. Briefing paper for the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Queensland Government; 2009. Franks DM, Brereton D, Moran CJ. Managing the cumulative impacts of coal mining on regional communities and environments in Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2010;28(4):299–312. Harris CC, Nielsen EA, McLaughlin WJ, Becker DR. Community-based social impact assessment: the case of salmon-recovery on the lower Snake River. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(2):109–18. João E, Vanclay F, den Broeder L. Emphasising enhancement in all forms of impact assessment: introduction to a special issue. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2011;29(3):170–80. King TF. How the archeologists stole culture: a gap in american environmental impact assessment practice and how to fill it. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1998;18(2):117–33. Lahiri-Dutt K, Ahmad N. Considering gender in social impact assessment. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated; 2011. p. 117–37. Lane M, Ross H, Dale A. Social impact research: integrating the technical, political, and planning paradigms. Hum Organ 1997;56(3):302–10. Lane MB, Ross H, Dale AP, Rickson RE. Sacred land, mineral wealth, and biodiversity at

Coronation Hill, Northern Australia: indigenous knowledge and SIA. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(2):89–98. Lockie S. SIA in review: setting the agenda for impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19(4):277–87. Lockie S, Franetovich M, Sharma S, Rolfe J. Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin, Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2008;26(3):177–87. Lord F. Understanding social impacts by using new variables and a causal model diagram in New England fisheries. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2011;29(1):59–68. Loxton EA, Schirmer J, Kanowski P. Designing, implementing and monitoring social impact mitigation strategies: lessons from Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Packages. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;42:105–15. Mahmoudi H, Renn O, Vanclay F, Hoffmann V, Karami E. A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;43:1–8. Momtaz S. The practice of social impact assessment in a developing country: the case of environmental and social impact assessment of Khulna–Jessore Drainage Rehabilitation Project in Bangladesh. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(2):125–32. Momtaz S. Institutionalizing social impact assessment in Bangladesh resource management: limitations and opportunities. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2005;25(1):33–45. Moran CJ, Franks DM, Sonter LJ. Using the multiple capitals framework to connect indicators of regional cumulative impacts of mining and pastoralism in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. Resour Policy 2013;38(4):733–44. O'Faircheallaigh C. Making social impact assessment count: a negotiation-based approach for indigenous peoples. Soc Nat Resour 1999;12(1):63–80. O'Faircheallaigh C. Effectiveness in social impact assessment: aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2009;27(2):95–110. Pope J, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;41:1–9. Ross H. Community social impact assessment: a framework for indigenous peoples. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1990;10(1–2):185–93. Ross H, McGee TK. Conceptual frameworks for SIA revisited: a cumulative effects study on lead contamination and economic change. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2006;24(2):139–49. Rossouw N, Malan S. The importance of theory in shaping social impact monitoring: lessons from the Berg River Dam, South Africa. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2007;25(4):291–9. Rowan M. Refining the attribution of significance in social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2009;27(3):185–91. Rowan M, Streather T. Converting project risks to development opportunities through SIA enhancement measures: a practitioner perspective. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2011; 29(3):217–30. Schirmer J. Scaling up: assessing social impacts at the macro-scale. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2011;31(3):382–91. Sonter LJ, Moran CJ, Barrett DJ. Modeling the impact of revegetation on regional water quality: a collective approach to manage the cumulative impacts of mining in the Bowen Basin, Australia. Resour Policy 2013;38(4):670–7. Suopajärvi L. Social impact assessment in mining projects in Northern Finland: comparing practice to theory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;42:25–30. Toro J, Requena I, Zamorano M. Environmental impact assessment in Colombia: critical analysis and proposals for improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010;30(4):247–61. Vanclay F. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003a;21(1):5–12. Vanclay F. International principles for social impact assessment: their evolution. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003b;21(1):3–4. Vanclay F. Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison between the international and US documents. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(1):3–14. Vanclay F, Esteves AM. Current issues and trends in social impact assessment. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated; 2011. p. 3–19. Webler T, Lord F. Planning for the human dimensions of oil spills and spill response. Environ Manage 2010;45(4):723–38. Youngkin D, Dawood L, Kennedy L, Davis B. The place of social impacts in the iterative assessment process: a case study of a highway project in the US State of Georgia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(3):173–7. Ziller A. The new social impact assessment handbook: a practice guide. Australia Street Company; 2012. Antonio Arce-Gomez is currently a research associate working with Swinburne University of Technology. His research interests include social impact assessments and integrated impact assessments from a business perspective. He is currently working on an Australian Government funded project investigating integrated impact assessments within ASEAN. Dr. Jerome Donovan is a Senior Lecturer in International Business, specialising in the integration of impact assessments into investment decision making processes. He is currently working with six national governments across ASEAN in developing a ‘best practice’ model for integrated impact assessments, in a project funded by the Australian government. Dr. Rowan Bedggood is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing, with research interests in corporate social responsibility, social marketing, environmental and social impact assessments and business education. She is currently involved with a large project on innovation in the Australian manufacturing sector, and leading another research project with an indigenous organisation working on strategic planning and governance for a remote Aboriginal corporation.