Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Consulting
Group
Inc.
Prepared for
Contact:
jgturnley@aol.com
Voice 505.889.3927
Fax 505.889.3929
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
SUMMARY......................................................................................................................16
LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................18
List of Figures
Figure 1: Preliminary SIA process __________________________________________ 5
Figure 2: The CERCLA process ____________________________________________ 5
Figure 3: SIA impacts and associated indicators ______________________________ 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Principles of approach ____________________________________________ 4
Table 2: Methodological principles _________________________________________ 6
Table 3: Principles for selecting impact indicators __________________________ 8
Table 4: Significant attributes of social indicators ___________________________ 8
Table 5: Social impact indicators __________________________________________ 11
Table 6: EIS prepared by federal agencies, 1979-1994 _________________________ 13
Social, Cultural, Economic Impact Assessments
A literature review
Research literature
Engage experts
Analyze data
Project the estimated impacts, including
indirect and cumulative impacts
Predict responses to the impacts
(Note: the process for the scoping SIA is the same as that for the full SIA. The difference lies in
the depth to which the analysis is taken, and the associated resource requirements.)
step to the operation and maintenance of This underscores the importance of the
the site after remediation will have some involvement of a specialist or expert
impact on the community in which it is lo skilled in this type of analysis, who will be
cated. Therefore, an SIA should be per- familiar with these types of methodolo
formed at all steps in the process. Most gies. Impacts are rarely evenly felt
steps will only warrant a scoping SIA. throughout a community. The data collec
Others, particularly the RI/FS step, will tion methodology, particularly the public
require a full impact assessment. involvement plan, should be sure to ac
count for and analyze impact (in)equities.
When implementing any impact assess Finally, the analyst and project manager
ment, it is important to keep some basic should plan for gaps in data that are ei
principles in mind. As with any analysis ther too expensive or too time-consuming
methodology, analytical rigor is critical to to fill. Again, an experienced social sci
assessment replicability and consequent ence prac titioner will know how to account
credibility. Therefore, the analyst should for these gaps in ways that least compro
be sure to clearly focus the assessment, mise the assessment.
primarily through a clear statement of
the problem, and explicit definition of the The methodological principles are summa
targeted community. Methods and rized in Table 2.
assumptions should be clearly spelled out.
Choosing the impacts to address tions can also have an impact on any com
Social impacts are measurable changes in munity.
a variety of dimensions in human communi
ties resulting from some sort of interven Impacts are caused by changes in a vari
tion (see Interorganizational Committee ety of indicators (or variables, in social
1995:23), whether it be a project or a science parlance) that are present in hu
policy. Note, again, that since the impact man communities. Social science theory
can come simply through the introduction and methodology has identified the rela
of new information, proposed interven tionships between these indicators and a
As with the methodology, there are some Interorganizational Committee (1995) put
principles that can be followed when se it, SIA variables [indicators] do not re
lecting indicators for study. First, of fer to the total social environment, they
course, only those indicators are chosen explain only the consequences of the pro -
to study that generate an impact. As the posed impact event (Interorganizational
indicators. These principles for selection categories: social, cultural, and economic
of indicators are summa rized in Table 3. (Na tional Research Council 2001:106-110).
Table 3: Principles for selecting impact We give a brief definition of each cate
Only those whose change will generate an impact tant to note, however, that these are not
Indicators must be measurable (not just quantifiable) mutually exclusive categories. Some im
relevant for the study. Second and third Social impacts are the broadest category.
order impacts should be included based These impacts are generally reflected in
impact will have a duration that must be patterns, the ethnic composition of a
assessed, that is, a length of time that the neighborhood, or the number and types of
change is felt, i.e. the impact may cause community organizations which are active
with conflicting social, economic and cul nomic theory. Trade-offs among the lar
tural needs. ger social communities, the business com
munity and the more singularly focused
Costanza et al (1995) point out two impor environmental community may not be pos
tant areas in the definition of this rela sible. Many political theorists believe and
tionship. One is that individual choices feel that the search for universal, prag
need to be emphasized in order to ensure matic moral principles is destined to be
a sustainable economy and that education fruitless.
as to the environmental consequences of
such choices needs to be undertaken both This wider body of economic thought en -
for the sake of socio-economic sustain- compasses social needs (welfare is the
ability and environmental preservation and term of art) with pure economic advan
enhancement (Costanza et. al. 1995:242). tage of any given action (Nicholson 1985).
Both of these outcomes are products of There will always be winners and losers in
the participatory nature of the data col any decision process undertaken for eco
lection phase of an SIA. Costanza also nomic, and for that matter, ecological
postulates a differing tax structure from purposes. The question becomes then one
that currently in place for both individu of balance. For example, the presence of
als and corporations, one which would re funds available through the CERCLA proc
sult in higher taxes for some. These tax ess to communities with Superfund sites
disincentives could potentially be offset can, in itself, have an economic impact on
with a series of credits offered for de a community. The deep pockets of
sirable behaviors vis- -vis the environ Superfund may cause a community to
ment. These credits could be bought and make certain decisions supporting list of a
sold among affected parties. (Costanza site that will have other, adverse eco
et.al., 1995:220-21). This would seem to nomic impacts (such as a drop in property
be beyond the scope of any SIA process, values).
as it would involve major tax policy altera
tions. Impact indicators
The Interorganizational Committee (1995)
Environmental economics as the discipline identified 26 SIA indicators, drawing on
now exists may not offer value in our cur- the work of Bowles (1981), Branch et al
rent discussion because 1) it is an emerg (1983), Carley and Bustelo (1985), Burdge
ing discipline (Armsworth and Roughgar (1994), Finsterbush (1980), and Leistritz
den 2001, Sagoff 2000:1426-1432) and 2) and Ekstrom (1986). Our review of more
it does not address social and cultural as recent work, such as Burdge (1998),
pects of Superfund decision making in any shows these types of indicators to hold
formal way. The existing litera ture in the reasonable consistent. A somewhat modi
field seems not to include social or cul fied presentation of the Interorganiza
tural thought in its focus or in its prac tional Committee indicators is shown in
tice. Table 5, along with their relationship to
our three major categories of impacts.
A more trustworthy tool for this particu
lar effort may exist in more classical eco
.
Table 6: EIS prepared by federal agencies, 1979-1994
ment (referring to activities that cross (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May
many of the other categories), and oth 2002b) and cultural resources manage
ers. Many of the categories request the ment to archeological and historic sites
same or similar information, and specific (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May 2002).
guidance on data collection and analysis is
not given. However, a good SIA practitio The remainder of the agencies on the list
ner would ultimately gather information each do a small percentage of the total
on most, if not all, the indicators identi EISs filed. However, the General Ser
fied in Table 5. vices Administrations (GSA) Fact Sheet
on conduct of an SIA is worthy of note
The Departments of Agriculture and In (U.S. General Services Administration
terior and the Army Corps of Engineers n.d.). The Fact Sheet gives a general de
all conduct more or less the same number scription of an SIA, details the enabling
of EISs. The Department of Agricul language (including the NEPA and CEQ
tures Forest Service has developed some requirements, as well as some GSA-
of the most comprehensive materials re specific Executive Orders), gives typical
lated to the conduct of SIAs. The Forest steps in conducting an SIA, general indi
Service offers a training course in social cators to consider, and outlines a sample
impact assessment for forest and district statement of work. Most of the language
level employees with responsibility for is from the Interorganizational Commi t-
conducting SIAs and has prepared formal tees report (1995). Also of note is the
guidelines for the conduct of SIAs (U.S. material issued by the Na tional Marine
Department of Agriculture n.d.; U.S. De Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National
partment of Agriculture 1998). Both the Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration
guidelines and the training closely follow (NOAA), Department of Commerce. The
ing the principles and outline of the In NMFS has developed an extensive re
terorganizational Committees findings quirements description for assessing the
(1995). The Forest Service also has held social impact of fishery management ac
many national workshop and sy mposia on tions (U.S. Department of Commerce
the social dimensions of forest manage 2001)3 . This guidance takes the practi
ment. The Department of Interior, on tioner through much of the same material
the other hand, focuses its NEPA work on as does the GSA Fact Sheet, but at much
the preparation of EIS, as seen in the greater depth and tailored to NMFS and
Bureau of Recla mations NEPA compliance NOAA policies and enabling legislation.
handbook (U.S. Department of Interior
2000). Finally, the Army Corps of Engi The role of the EPA as the setter of
neers includes in its Environmental Oper standards in the NEPA compliance arena
ating Principles statements that it will is important to note. Many of the agency
build and share an integrated scientific, NEPA web sites have links to the EPA
economic, and social knowledge base that site. Others reference EPA guidance and
supports a greater understanding of the documents in their own guidance and pol-
environment and impacts of our work icy statements. However, of course, EPA
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2002).
However, elsewhere it limits risk assess
3
Recall that the NOAA and the NMFS were the
ment to human health and the ecosystem lead agencies on the Interorganizational Commit-
tee.
at this time does not formally address nor training in the social sciences (see Burdge
offer guidance on the social impacts of and Johnson 1998:13).
proposed actions in the same way as it
does human health and ecological impacts. This methodological confusion has been
The default guidance for many of these exacerbated by the absence of a single
agencies has been the Inte rorganizational approach or guidelines accepted by the
Committees report. We assume that SIA community. The Interorganizational
many of the other agencies which conduct Committee pointed this out in 1995 (In
EISs have ei ther not addressed the social terorganizational Committee 1995:12), and
dimensions of proposed actions at all, or Burdge reinforced it as late as 1998
have included them tangentially under ac (Burdge 1998b:8). This absence of ac
tivities other than NEPA compliance such cepted methodology has had several con-
as environmental justice or general com sequences. First, it has allowed unskilled
munity involvement. practitioners to conduct assessments in
which assumptions were not made clear,
Implementation across agencies methodologies were imprecise, data col
Attention has been paid to the social di lection was poorly handled, and analysis
mensions of proposed actions in some was undocumented. This has led to ques
large, cross-agency, ecoregional environ tions about the replicability of the work,
mental management projects. These in raising issues about its scientific validity
clude the Forest Ecosystem Management and general credibility. Equally important,
Assessment Team (FEMAT) Report on the the absence of methodological rigor cre
forests of the Pacific northwest (FEMAT ated opportunities for the introduction of
Report 1993), the Interior Columbia Basin bias into the analysis. There are many
Ecosystem Management Project (U.S. De ways in which such bias can enter an SIA.
partment of Agriculture 1996), the South The simple association of the researcher
Florida Everglades Restoration Project with the sponsoring agency casts the ef
(Harwell et al. 1996), and the Southern fort in a particular political position that
Appalachian Assessment (Southern Appa must be countered during the public in
lachian Man and Biosphere Cooperative volvement and information elicitation
1996). However, we find that there was process. The design of the community
wide variation in the delimitation of the involvement process as well as the selec
units of analysis in these projects (i.e. the tion of SIA indicators to include can be
community), and in the social impact indi highly political and must be carefully man -
cators selected for analysis (see Endter- aged and rigorously controlled to exclude
Wada et al 1998:896). any bias. As Goldman and Baum put it,
[SIAs] are never politically neu
Issues and concerns tral endeavorsas such, they in
An SIA is a hybrid beast. It combines voke for the investigator pro-
anthropological and sociological models of found ethical issues concerning
human society and culture with socio their commission, their conduct,
psychological concepts. It uses data that their communication, and judg
generally have been collected for other ments about their efficacy for
purposes, and which ultimately must be the community about which, if not
used by individuals with little or no formal
List of References
Branch, Kristi, Hooper, Douglas A., Thompson, James and Creighton, James C. Guide
to Social Impact Assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983 .
Branch, Kristi M. and Ross, Helen Scoping for Social Impact Assessment in Social
Impact Analysis: An Applied Anthropology Manual edited by Laurence R. Goldman.
New York, NY: Berg, 2000, 93-126
Burdge, Rabel .J. "A Brief History and Major Trends in the Field of Social Impact
Assessment" in A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment (revised edi
tion): Collection of writings by Rabel J. Burdge and colleagues, edited by Rabel J.
Burdge, Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press 1998b, 3-12 .
Burdge, Rabel J. and Johnson, Sue Social Impact Assessment: Developing the Ba
sic Model in A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment (revised edi
tion): Collection of writings by Rabel J. Burdge and colleagues, edited by Rabel J.
Burdge, Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press 1998, 13-29
Burdge, Rabel .J. and Robertson, Robert .A. "Social Impact Assessment and The
Public Involvement Process" in A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment
(revised edition): Collection of writings by Rabel J. Burdge and colleagues, edited by
Rabel J. Burdge, Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press 1998, 183-192.
Burdge, Rabel .J. and Vanclay, Frank. "Future of Social Impact Assessment" in A
Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment (revised edition): Collection of
Carley, Michael J. and Bustelo, Eduardo S. Social Impact Assessment and Monitor
Constanza, Robert, Cumberland, John, Daly, Herman, Goodland, Robert and Nor
gaard, Richard An Introduction to Ecological Economics. St. Lucie Press, 1995
Endter-Wada, Joanna, Blahana, Dale, Krannich, Richard and Brunson, Mark "A
Framework for Understanding Social Science Contributions to Ecosystem Manage
ment." Ecological Applications 8:3 (1998): 891-904.
Harwell, M.A., Long, J.F., Bartuska, A.M., Gentile, J.H., Harwell, C.C., Myers, V. and
Ogden, J.C. Ecosystem management to achieve ecological sustainability: the case
of South Florida Ecosystem Management 20(1996):497-521
King, Thomas F. "How the Archeologists Stole Culture: A Gap in American Environ
mental Impact Assessment Practice and How to Fill It." Environmental Impact As
sessment Review 18 (1998): 117-133.
Leistrite, Larry and Ekstrom, Brend Social Impact Assessment & Management: An
Annotated Bibliography. New York, NY: Garland, 1986 .
Nicholson, Walter Intermediate Economics and its Application. Hinsdale, IL: Drydan
Press, 1985
Reich, R.B. "Policy Making in a Democracy" In The Power of Public Ideas, edited by
Robert B. Reich, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1988 123-156.
Sagoff, Mark Environmental Economics and the Conflation of Value and Benefit.
College Park, MD: Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, School of Public Af
fairs, University of Maryland, 2000
Stahl, R, Bachman, R., Barton, A., Clark, J., deFur, P., Ells, S., Pittinger, C., Slimak,
M. and Wentsel, R. Risk Management: Ecological Risk-Based Decision-Making. Pensa
cola, FL: Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2001 .
Stokey, Edith and Zeckhauser, Richard A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York, NY:
W. W. Norton, 1978 .
Summary of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report. Wildland Resources Cen
ter Report No. 39, Davis, CA: University of California, 1996 .
Turnley, J.G. "Risk Assessment in Its Social Context" In Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment: Theory and Practice, edited by Dennis J. Paustenbach, 1359-1375,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2002 .
Western, J. and Lynch, M. "Overview of the SIA Process" in Social Impact Analy
sis: An Applied Anthropology Manual edited by Laurence R. Goldman. New York, NY:
Berg, 2000: 35-62.