Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T22:28:16.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Assessing the Social Consequences of Planned Interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Frank Vanclay
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Robert White
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access

Summary

Communities experience continual change. Much of that change is deliberate, the result of planned interventions (policies, plans, programs or projects) that have been initiated and/or implemented by government, at local, state and national levels, by the private sector, or by community groups. While planned interventions are undertaken to achieve desired objectives, there are always unplanned adverse impacts on the environment and on people. In order to consider the appropriateness of a specific intervention, such as whether regulatory approval should be given for a project, and/or what conditions should be imposed, assessment of the likely consequences, both positive and negative, is required.

Projects have many obvious negative consequences on people who live near the site. They also have less obvious impacts that only emerge over time or with careful analysis. Policies, plans and programs also have adverse impacts. Consideration of impacts in the design phase can lead to a reduction in the adverse consequences and to an increase in the benefits of the planned intervention. Planning should be a dynamic process that uses adaptive management principles to iteratively consider the outcomes (positive and negative) of the intervention.

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the process of ‘analysing, monitoring and managing the social consequences of development’ (IAIA 2003: 1). SIA, in its ideal form at least, is a powerful approach that can lead to many benefits. Communities benefit by having more say in decisions; they become revitalised through participation; social capital is built; harmful impacts are avoided; and benefits for communities are maximised.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnstein, S. R. 1969, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, American Institute of Planning Journal 35(4): 216–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australia 1999, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (No. 91, 1999)
Australia 2000a, Gene Technology Act 2000 (No. 169, 2000)
Australia 2000b, Gene Technology Bill 2000 Explanatory Memorandum
Becker, H. 1997, Social Impact Assessment: Method and Experience in Europe, North America and the Developing World, London: University College London Press
Becker, H., and F. Vanclay (eds) 2003, The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Boothroyd, P. 1995, ‘Policy assessment’. In Vanclay and Bronstein, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, pp. 83–126
Boothroyd, P. 1998, Social Policy Assessment Research: The establishment, the underground, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre Working Series Paper #5. http://www.idrc.ca/socdev/pub/documents/spar.html (accessed 20 January 2004)
Burdge, R. J., and F. Vanclay 1995, ‘Social Impact Assessment’. In Vanclay and Bronstein, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, pp. 31–66
Council of Australian Governments (Council of Australian Governments) 1997, Principles and Guidelines for National Standard Setting and Regulatory Action by Ministerial Councils and Standard-Setting Bodies, Canberra: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. http://www.dpmc.gov.au/pdfs/coagpg.pdf (accessed 20 January 2004)
Dale, A., C. N. Taylor and M. Lane (eds) 2001, Social Assessment in Natural Resource Management Institutions, Melbourne: CSIRO
Egre, D., and Senecal, P. 2003, ‘Social impact assessments of large dams throughout the world’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(3): 215–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M. 2001, ‘Hastening the evolution of Australian rural industry policy’. In Dale et al., Social Assessment in Natural Resource Management Institutions, pp. 231–41
Harvey, N. 1998, Environmental Impact Assessment: Procedures, practice and prospects in Australia, Melbourne: Oxford University Press
International Association for Impact Assessment (International Association for Impact Assessment) 2003, International Principles for Social Impact Assessment, Fargo ND: International Association for Impact Assessment. www.iaia.org/Publications/SP2.pdf (accessed 20 January 2004). Also published as F. Vanclay 2003, ‘International Principles for Social Impact Assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(1): 5–11
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment 1994, ‘Guidelines and principles for Social Impact Assessment’, Impact Assessment 12(2): 107–52CrossRef
Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment 2003, ‘Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment in the USA’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(3): 231–50CrossRef
Lane, M., A. Dale and N. Taylor 2001, ‘Social assessment in natural resource management’. In Dale et al. Social Assessment in Natural Resource Management Institutions, pp. 3–12
Lockie, S. 2001, ‘Social Impact Assessment in Review’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19(4): 277–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partidário, M. 1999, ‘Strategic environmental assessment: principles and potential’. In J. Petts (ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, London: Blackwell, pp. 12–32
Partidário, M. 2000, ‘Elements of an strategic environmental assessment framework’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(6): 647–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queensland 1990, Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990
Roberts, R. 2003, ‘Involving the public’. In Becker and Vanclay, International Handbook, pp. 258–77
Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F. and Schooten, M. 2001, ‘Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19(1): 19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, B., and L. Mehta 2003, ‘Assessing gender impacts’. In Becker and Vanclay, International Handbook, pp. 161–78
Taylor, C. N., C. H. Bryan and C. G. Goodrich 1995, Social Assessment: Theory, process and techniques, 2nd edn, Christchurch, NZ: Taylor Baines & Associates
United States Agency for International Development (United States Agency for International Development) n.d., Social Soundness Analysis (ADS Supplementary Reference 202). http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/2026s7.pdf (accessed 20 January 2004)
United States Agency for International Development 2004, About United States Agency for International Development. http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/index.html (accessed 20 January 2004)
Vanclay, F. 1999, ‘Social Impact Assessment’. In J. Petts (ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 1, Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 301–26
Vanclay, F. 2002a, ‘Social Impact Assessment’. In M. Tolba (ed.) Responding to Global Environmental Change, Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 387–93
Vanclay, F. 2002b, ‘Conceptualising social impacts’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22(3): 183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanclay, F. 2003a, ‘Conceptual and methodological advances in Social Impact Assessment’. In Becker and Vanclay, International Handbook, pp. 1–10
Vanclay, F. 2003b, ‘Experiences from the field of Social Impact Assessment: where do TBL, Environmental Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment fit in relation to each other?’. In B. Pritchard, A. Curtis, J. Spriggs and R. Le Heron (eds) Social Dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line in Rural Australia, Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences, pp. 61–80
Vanclay, F., and D. Bronstein (eds) 1995, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Chichester, UK: Wiley
Verheem, R., and Tonk, J. 2000, ‘Strategic environmental assessment: one concept, multiple forms’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3): 177–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×