A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment Hossein Mahmoudi a,b,⁎, Ortwin Renn c, Frank Vanclay d, Volker Hoffmann a, Ezatollah Karami e a

Department of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Germany Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., Iran Department of Technology and Environmental Sociology (and DIALOGIK), University of Stuttgart, Germany d Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands e College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 March 2013 Received in revised form 7 May 2013 Accepted 13 May 2013 Available online xxxx Keywords: Unanticipated impacts Risk management Cumulative effects Concern assessment Social amplification of risk Socio-political ambiguity

a b s t r a c t An increasing focus on integrative approaches is one of the current trends in impact assessment. There is potential to combine impact assessment with various other forms of assessment, such as risk assessment, to make impact assessment and the management of social risks more effective. We identify the common features of social impact assessment (SIA) and social risk assessment (SRA), and discuss the merits of a combined approach. A hybrid model combining SIA and SRA to form a new approach called, ‘risk and social impact assessment’ (RSIA) is introduced. RSIA expands the capacity of SIA to evaluate and manage the social impacts of risky projects such as nuclear energy as well as natural hazards and disasters such as droughts and floods. We outline the three stages of RSIA, namely: impact identification, impact assessment, and impact management. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Sustainable development requires more than technical changes and economic analyses (Giddings et al., 2002) and social sustainability should not be ignored. Indisputably, in development projects the assessment of social impacts is as important, if not more, than the assessment of the biophysical and economic aspects of these projects (Ahmadvand et al., 2009). Among different kinds of assessment, social impact assessment (SIA) is recognized as a useful and increasingly popular method. Vanclay (1999) identified three primary reasons for undertaking SIA: (1) SIA is a part of the democratic process that can assist in ensuring equity and transparency of decision-making; (2) SIA is a form of assessment whereby the identification of the likely impact of development is assessed to ensure that future benefits will outweigh the costs of a proposed project; and (3) by using a participatory process, SIA can lead to better decision-making by accessing and incorporating local knowledge. There are also other reasons to use SIA. It assists in giving social aspects equal weight in sustainable development and renders development more socially sound (Barrow, 2000). A review of the literature reveals a strong belief that SIA needs to be integrated with other methods of assessment to be more effective. ⁎ Corresponding author at: Im Chaussefeld 1-70599, Stuttgart, Germany. Tel.: +49 17641496780. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Mahmoudi). 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.003

For example, it has long been argued that the mainstream of SIA is too isolated from other impact assessment fields, especially regarding the long-term but localized problems such as toxic waste and short-term but broadly-distributed impacts (Fischer, 1999; Freudenburg, 1986). Vanclay (2004) suggested that an increasing focus on integrative approaches was one of the current trends in impact assessment. Without a good exchange of information between the various forms of impact assessment, SIA and other forms will be less effective, and sustainable development will be more difficult to achieve. In fact, SIA runs parallel with, overlaps, or is used by: EIA (Slootweg et al., 2001); risk and hazard assessment (Dreyer et al., 2010); technology assessment (Russell et al., 2010); project programming and policy monitoring and evaluation; triple bottom line assessment (Vanclay, 2004); as well as a number of other subfields within planning and management (Barrow, 2000). However, the potential disadvantages of integration should also be considered. Rattle and Kwiatkowski (2003) reviewed some main challenges of integrating health and social impact assessment. They found the disciplinary challenge to be very serious. “Each discipline and its practitioners became ever more committed to and dependent on its specific ideologies and methodologies. As a result, thought within each disciplinary field was effectively biased by its abstractions and assumptions. Practitioners established vested interests in maintaining their worldviews” (Rattle and Kwiatkowski, 2003 p: 101). Scientific reductionism, disciplinary worldviews and similar institutional barriers can marginalize

2

H. Mahmoudi et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

social factors, and thus SIA can be inhibited by bias towards other fields. Various papers have provided a conceptual framework to integrate SIA and EIA (e.g. Fischer, 1999; Slootweg et al., 2001) and several attempts have been made to integrate SIA and health impact assessment (HIA) (Kauppinen, 2011; Rattle and Kwiatkowski, 2003). While it is essential to integrate SIA with EIA, HIA and other kinds of IA to ensure better impact assessment and to develop a holistic approach, improving SIA itself by combining it with a similar and synergic assessment like SRA is also desirable for addressing the problems confronting SIA. Despite considerable progress in SIA since the 1970s, the methodology, techniques and approach still need to improve (Barrow, 2000; Kemp, 2011) and some conceptual and procedural difficulties remain (Burdge and Vanclay, 1995; Vanclay, 2004). Problems related to the theoretical foundations of SIA and methodological challenges are some of important issues faced by SIA (Barrow, 2000; Burdge and Vanclay, 1996; Lockie, 2001; Vanclay, 2012). Although combining SIA and SRA will not solve all theoretical and methodological problems, it can improve the process of SIA. Considering the fact that SIA is a form of risk assessment (Esteves and Vanclay, 2009; Esteves et al., 2012; Vanclay, 1999), combining these approaches could provide an improved framework for understanding and managing the impacts of development. Surprisingly, there has been little serious work regarding the combination of SIA with other types of assessment, particularly SRA. The aim of this paper is to improve the assessment and management of projects by developing a hybrid model combining social risk assessment and social impact assessment to form ‘Risk and Social Impact Assessment’ (RSIA). The paper is divided into five parts. The first part gives a brief overview of the concept of SIA. The second part addresses risk concepts and SRA. The third part identifies the common features of the two forms of assessment. The fourth part explores the need for combining SIA and SRA, and finally an innovative integrated framework (RSIA) is presented in the fifth part. 2. Social impact assessment SIA is now conceived as being the process of analyzing, monitoring and managing the social aspects and consequences of development (Esteves et al., 2012; Vanclay, 2003). SIA can be seen as the result of sociologists' attempts over a long time to make social science more practical (Carley and Walkey, 1981; Carter, 1981; Torgerson, 1981). Carter (1981 p: 5) called SIA “old wine in new bottles” and Freudenburg (1986 p: 452) considered that “its lineage is ancient, but its emergence is recent”. SIA originated with the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act of the USA and – as an important part of planning and implementation for projects, plans, programs and policies – SIA is a process that is now used worldwide, albeit to varying degrees and in varying ways (Esteves et al., 2012). Becker (2001 p: 312) defined SIA as “the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action, which are related to individuals, organizations and social macro-systems”. This definition implies that SIA is generally considered to be ex-ante or forward-looking in nature (Goldman and Baum, 2000). However, it is also considered to be applicable as an ex-post assessment (Ahmadvand et al., 2009; Western and Lynch, 2000). Vanclay (2006) is critical of the narrow, limited approach of traditional project-based SIA and argued that strict ex-ante understandings exclude the follow-up assessment of impacts of past developments, which surely must inform SIA practice and therefore be desirable if not essential. He broadened the conventional understanding of SIA which, in his opinion, was not conducive to engaging communities or to achieving the best outcomes for society in terms of sustainable development, or even good project design. Vanclay (2006) concluded that SIA should not merely be ex-ante, but also needed to be goal-oriented and proactive rather than just reactive. This revised understanding of

SIA seems to be the emerging contemporary approach (Esteves et al., 2012). Finsterbusch (1977) identified the two main goals of SIA as being: 1) assisting decision making by determining the full range of costs and benefits of a proposed action; and 2) improving the design and administration of policies in order to mitigate disadvantages and increase benefits. The main objective is to assist policy makers and societal stakeholders to identify development goals, and to ensure that positive outcomes are maximized while minimizing the negative impacts (Vanclay, 2003). SIA applies to both the ex-ante and ex-post assessments of planned interventions. As shown in Fig. 1, it is important to assess both positive and negative impacts, as well as intended and unintended impacts, equally. 3. Social risk assessment While the concept of risk assessment has been a well-established part of the natural sciences since the 1970s, using the concept in the social sciences is rather new (Goldman and Baum, 2000; Krimsky and Golding, 1992). Technological progress in the 1980s had a strong impact on the establishment and expansion of interdisciplinary risk research and the social science contribution to it (Zinn, 2008). The prevailing definition of risk in the social sciences is uncertainty about and severity of the events and consequences of an activity with respect to something that human value (Aven and Renn, 2009). According to Renn and Walker (2008), there is basic agreement on three core components of risk assessment: • Identification of risks: establishing its cause–effect link; • Assessment of exposure and/or vulnerability: modeling diffusion, exposure and effects on risk targets; • Estimation of risk: determining the strength of a cause–effect link. Different disciplines within the natural and social sciences have formed their own concepts of risk (Renn, 2008). It is important to appreciate that human behavior is primarily driven by perception and not by facts or by what is understood as facts by risk analysts and scientists. All risk concepts of the social sciences have in common the principle that the causes and consequences of risks are mediated through social processes (Renn, 2008). The primary task of risk assessment is the identification and exploration of the types, intensities and likelihoods of the consequences related to risks (Renn and Sellke, 2011). Once risk identification is undertaken, it is the task of risk management to prevent and reduce

Assessment of planned intervention

Ex-ante

Ex-post Social Impact Positive

Negative

Intended

Unintended

Impact Management Fig. 1. A simple schema of SIA.

H. Mahmoudi et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

these consequences by choosing appropriate actions. Fig. 2 illustrates the main features of SRA. 4. Common features of SIA and SRA, social impacts and social risks Burdge and Vanclay (1995, p. 32) consider that social impacts are “all social and cultural consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs, and generally cope as members of society”, including “changes to the norms, values, and beliefs of individuals that guide and rationalize their cognition of themselves and their society.” Slootweg et al. (2001, p. 25) consider that “an ‘impact’ has to be experienced or felt in a corporeal (physical) or cognitive (perceptual) sense, whether at the level of individual, household, or society/community.” In the field of SIA, social impacts include anticipated as well as unanticipated impacts, positive as well as negative (Esteves et al., 2012; Vanclay, 2003). Social risk refers to the uncertain outcomes of actions (i.e. planned interventions) and events (i.e. natural hazards) regardless of whether they are positive or negative (Rosa, 1998; Zinn, 2008). However, categorizing risk into negative and positive, or good and bad (Lupton, 1999), is controversial. The general perception of the term ‘risk’ is that it has a negative connotation in everyday English language. Descriptions of risk are typically stated in terms of the likelihood of harm or loss from a hazard (Denney, 2005). Nevertheless, in some references (Bammer and Smithson, 2008; Denney, 2005; Pechan et al., 2011; Short, 1984; Zinn, 2008; Zinn and Taylor-Gooby, 2006), risk has a positive as well as a negative dimension. Denney (2005) mentioned that, although most people appear to experience risk in negative terms, risk can be presented from a positive position. Renn (2008) argued that outcomes can, in principle, be positive or negative, depending upon the values that people associate with them. Pechan et al. (2011 p: 3) also see risk as potentially having positive and negative outcomes: “If we think, for example, of climate change as a risk, the possible consequences like global warming might be perceived differently by different people. Northern Europeans might have a more positive view as they would profit from minor temperature increases as they could increase agricultural productivity and tourism, while people from Africa or Asia are already suffering from

Assessment of planned intervention / natural disasters and hazards

3

lower agricultural productivity and an increase in natural disasters like droughts and floods”. Taken altogether, there is no consensus regarding this issue. While risk is generally used to relate only to negative or undesirable outcomes in vernacular language and traditional scientific risk discourse, more recent developments in the risk literature have a different view of the key elements and conclude that in all economic, political, and social life, risks have a positive as well as a negative side (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn, 2006). If we accept the first view, social risks only focus on negative consequences, while social impacts include both negative and positive consequences. When we accept the second view, social risk and social impacts are the same in this regard. Consistent with the contemporary risk discourse, we advocate that this latter view should prevail. Social risk is understood as a specific way to manage uncertainty of outcomes. Risks always refer to a combination of two components: the likelihood of potential consequences and the strength of them (IRGC, 2005; Rosa, 1998; Zinn, 2008). The societal perspective of risk includes events that are socially defined and considers that social risks are always mediated through social interpretation and linked with group values and interests (Renn, 1998). In some ways, social risks are much the same as social impacts in terms of what they are, but the concept of risk refers only to the uncertain social consequences of an activity or event, whereas social impact also refers to the certain or expected outcomes. Both social risk and social impact include all social and cultural consequences relating to the activity or event (Renn, 2008; Vanclay, 2002). Majority of the SIA literature (for example: Burdge and Vanclay, 1995; Becker, 2001; Vanclay, 2003), focus on planned interventions (i.e. public or private actions), while the focus of SRA is not only on interventions but also on natural hazards and disasters. Comparing Figs. 1 and 2 reveals many similarities and congruencies between SIA and SRA. Comparing the definitions of Renn (1992) and Vanclay (2003) below also establishes the similarity between SRA and SIA: “All concepts of risk have one element in common: the distinction between possible and chosen action. At any time, an individual, an organization or a society, as a whole, faces several options for taking action, each of which is associated with potential positive or negative consequences”. [Renn, 1992 p:56, 2008 p:1]

“Social Impact Assessment includes the processes of analyzing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment”. [Vanclay, 2003 p: 6]

Ex-ante Social Consequence Uncertain risk

Benefits

Adverse effects

Favorable effects

Risk Management Fig. 2. A simple schema of SRA.

The main focus of these methods of assessment is to provide knowledge and information about the consequences of a planned intervention in order to manage the social issues. SIA is a hybrid of science and political process (Freudenburg, 1986) and provides advice to assist in designing mitigation and enhancement measures (João et al., 2011). SRA has a similar task. Another important similarity is that both methods are closely associated with the management of an impact and its consequences, rather than just estimation and prediction. This feature makes them comprehensive and, in fact, in both assessments, management is a core element of the process. The mitigation phase in SIA and management part of SRA is a desirable characteristic that unites the two approaches. As mentioned by Vanclay (2006), SIA is goal-oriented and proactive; hence both SIA and SRA should be used for problem solving. Management processes that employ SIA and SRA sometimes have a role to play in conflict

4

H. Mahmoudi et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

management. For instance, in recent years some researchers (e.g. Barrow, 2010; Sairinen et al., 2010) have tried to highlight the role of SIA in environmental conflict management. Both assessments use various social research methods including the quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods commonly used in the social sciences. Furthermore, they tend to use a multi-stakeholder approach in their methodology. As Spök (2010) mentioned, in both forms of assessment, data, analysis and interpretation are under close scrutiny by a broad range of stakeholders and can trigger much controversy. The main features of SIA and SRA are compared in Table 1. 5. The need to combine SIA and SRA into RSIA We categorized social impacts in SIA and social risks in SRA according to the way they are commonly considered in order to develop a combined typology of SIA and SRA (see Table 2). This typology will be used to explain the desirability of combining these methods into a integrated approach we call ‘Risk and Social Impact Assessment’ (RSIA). 5.1. Categorization of impacts in SIA Vanclay (2002) outlined a large number of potential impacts, highlighting that negative and positive impacts as well as intended and unintended impacts are equally important. We can categorize four groups of impacts: I) intended positive; II) intended negative III) unintended positive and, IV) unintended negative. 5.2. Categorisation of risks in SRA The concept of risk focuses on the probability of events and the magnitude of specific consequences (Kasperson et al., 2005). Probability and risk impact can be described in qualitative terms within a matrix. The size of matrix can vary (e.g. 2 × 2, 4 × 4 etc.). We use a 2 × 2 impact-probability matrix for heuristic purposes, even though typical applications have more cells. In our example, SRA has four categories of risk: I) low probability, high impact; II) low probability, low impact; III) high probability, high impact; and IV) high probability, low impact. Table 2 is a matrix that illustrates our perceived necessity of combining SIA and SRA. For each cell, a three point rating scale of high (++), medium (+), and no necessity (0) was used. Scoring was based on our expert judgment. As Table 2 reveals, the rating for ‘low-probability, high-impact’ cases was scored as ‘high necessity’. Low-probability, high-impact risks are usually more threatening than more probable risks with low or medium consequences (Renn, 2008). Technological risk such as accidents associated with the use of nuclear energy and natural hazards like floods are typical examples of low-probability, high impact events. The score for the desirability of combination for this category is high because anticipating the Table 1 Comparative features of SIA and SRA.

Orientation Impacts Scope

Managerial approach Target groups

SIA

SRA

Ex-ante and ex-post Positive and negative Predominant focus on planned interventions (i.e. programs, plans, policies and projects) Limited focus on natural hazards and disasters

Ex-ante Risks and benefits Strong focus on planned interventions

Mitigation and enhancement; Improvement of interventions More selective: primary focus on all potentially-affected stakeholders

Also strong focus on natural disasters and ‘man-made’ hazard (e.g. climate change) Risk prevention and reduction; Decision making Less selective: focuses on all probable affected groups

Table 2 The desirability of combining SIA and SRA. SRA

SIA Ex-ante/ex-post

Ex-ante

Low probability, high impact Low probability, low impact High probability, high impact High probability, low impact

Intended positive

Intended negative

Unintended positive

Unintended negative

++

++

++

++

0

0

0

0

+

+

++

++

0

0

+

+

Note: (++) high necessity; (+) medium necessity; (0) no necessity.

social risks by SRA and assessing the unintended impacts by SIA is necessary for management. A combined approach could use the capacity of both assessments in this regard. In ‘low-probability, low-impact’ cases, the score is 0, i.e. combining is not particularly necessary but potentially might still be desirable. In the two other cases, i.e. ‘high-probability, high-impact’ and ‘high-probability, low-impact’, it is necessary to distinguish between intended and unintended impacts. It is important to emphasize that the identification and management of unintended/unforeseen social impacts are more complex than is the case with intended/foreseen impacts. Managing unforeseen impacts requires an improved theoretical and methodological approach, such as a combination of approaches might provide. A combined approach therefore is most useful when assessments have to address unanticipated and unintended impacts because an integrated assessment enables a more in-depth exploration of these consequences. In RSIA, SIA is supported by risk analysis that identifies the different kinds of risks arising from their intended and unintended consequences, and designs adequate risk management strategies (Dani and Beddies, 2011). Accordingly, the score for ‘high probability, high impact’ cases is ‘high necessity’ for unintended impacts, but ‘low necessity’ for intended impacts. The score given to ‘high probability, low impact’ cases is similar, with 0 being assigned for intended impacts because low impacts risks and intended impacts don't particularly need a combined approach. However, for unintended consequences, the assigned score is low necessity. In ‘high necessity’ situations, an ex-ante RSIA is needed before the event or intervention, as well as an ex-post RSIA after implementation for assessing the predicted and actual impacts, and especially as a monitoring process to ensure good management. This combination of ex-ante and ex-post also provides a basis for establishing a combined approach (see Fig. 3). Because SIA should avoid providing only a static snapshot (or demographic profile) and should become an ongoing process of adaptive management (Esteves et al., 2012), a better assessment approach would link pre-intervention assessment, impact assessment during implementation, and ongoing monitoring (Barrow, 2000; Geisler, 1993). In this combined approach, an ex-post assessment can be applied in order to discover the unwanted and actual impacts in more detail after the project, including the unanticipated consequences, second and higher order impacts and cumulative effects. We believe that despite the focus on ex-ante assessment in the mainstream

(Pre)

RSIA

T1 (Ex-ante)

Intervention / event

T2

RSIA

(Post)

T3 (Ex-post)

Fig. 3. A simple schema for a comprehensive analysis, RSIA.

H. Mahmoudi et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

literature on impact assessment, ex-post assessment and monitoring should receive more attention. In addition to a monitoring and adaptive management function, the ex-post assessment of impacts can help explore the limitations of predicting the consequences of actions and events. Ex-post assessment can examine the discrepancies between predictions, forecasts and observed trends, and thereby assist in the improvement of prediction methods (Becker, 1997). Thus, as Fig. 3 reveals, the output of ex-ante RSIA can be considered as the input to ex-post RSIA.

6. Demonstrating the value of combining SIA and SRA There is no evidence in the literature of cases where both SIA and SRA have been carried out together. However, the two examples presented below reveal the potential value of RSIA. Case 1. SIA and the Biosafety Protocol (based on Stabinsky, 2000). The central element of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (an international agreement on biosafety) is a procedure called ‘advance informed agreement’ (AIA). Under the AIA procedure, importing countries must explicitly agree to the importation of living modified organisms (LMOs) (another word for ‘genetically modified organism’) before export can proceed. The decisions taken under an AIA are based on information provided to, or generated by, the importing country, including the results of a risk assessment of the potential harm from the imported LMO. One of the most contentious issues in the negotiation process to finalize the protocol was the inclusion of socioeconomic considerations in the evaluation of an LMO for importation. Many countries wanted the protocol to include provisions that would enable an import ban or other trade-related measures to be taken if negative impacts were predicted that would have economic or social consequences. The proposals of some countries provided clear examples of how SIA might be included in the language and procedures of the protocol. Their proposals had two primary mechanisms for incorporating socioeconomic considerations into a review of the risks posed by an LMO: 1) mandatory inclusion of SIA during the risk assessment, and 2) mandatory risk management of any socioeconomic risks. These mechanisms were detailed in several places throughout the protocol: specifically in the risk assessment article (Article 15) and in the stand-alone article on socioeconomic considerations (Article 26). The main question of Stabinsky's (2000) study was: how could SIA be integrated into a protocol on biosafety? To find a solution, she reviewed the proposals and submissions of different countries. Most options for including SIA into the protocol related to being integrated in the risk assessment. For example, the Malaysian submission mentioned: “the intending country shall ensure that the risk assessment shall incorporate specific assessments on the socio-economic effects and impacts of the transfer, handling or use of the LMO” (Stabinsky, 2000 p: 272). While this example argued for the incorporation of risk assessment and SIA, there is no proper framework to use SIA and risk assessment in a unified way. Thus, the case of biosafety is a good example of ‘high necessity’ for RSIA. Considering the demand for including SIA along with risk assessment in the procedures for implementing the protocol, RSIA is likely to be very helpful. Case 2. SIA and psychosocial monitoring of a solid waste incinerator in the North of Portugal (based on Lima and Marques, 2005). The waste management system of Porto (Portugal) includes an incinerator located close to residential communities. At the time of its commissioning in 1998, it was a new and controversial technology. Therefore, a SIA was requested as part of the EIA and was undertaken using a psychosocial model of SIA. The main characteristic of this

5

model is the mediating role of the way people perceive objective situations by using risk perception. The psychosocial discussion in the EIA revealed that there was little knowledge about the incinerator and some worry regarding risks associated with the incinerator among those living nearby. Residents near the hazardous waste site showed greater levels of concern than those living further away. This situation would act as a chronic stressor and constituted a constant threat. Because of this, risk perception was considered to be the main mediating variable. The risks from the incinerator were perceived as unknown, and the wide media coverage amplified risk perceptions. There was uncertainty about the consequences of the facility. This example implicitly supports our idea that RSIA can be used to address risk-related issues into SIA. Using RSIA would improve the framework of the study for assessing and managing the social impacts and risks of new technology related to waste management. 7. RSIA: A proposed framework to combine SIA and SRA Table 2 demonstrated that there was a case for combining SIA and SRA. Fig. 3 provided a schema demonstrating how RSIA provides something more than SIA or SRA on their own. In Fig. 4, we provide an outline of what RSIA could look like. The various models of the SIA process (e.g. Barrow, 2000; Burdge, 1994; Esteves and Vanclay, 2009; Finsterbusch et al., 1983; Goldman, 2000; ICPGSIA, 2003; Slootweg et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2004), are generally similar in content and process, and a number of common steps can be identified, which can be represented as a process of five steps organized across three sequential stages, namely impact identification, impact assessment and impact management (Fig. 4). These steps structure our proposed RSIA model. 7.1. Stage 1. Impact identification Step 1 Preliminary framing (risk screening). In the preliminary framing step, the focus is on clarifying the issue or issues. This step should identify in general terms what happened, or is planned to happen (Western and Lynch, 2000). Other terminology for this first step includes ‘preliminary identification of problem’ and ‘problem analysis’ (Becker, 1997). Esteves and Vanclay (2009) describe the first step as ‘understanding the issues and opportunities’. They consider that this step typically involves consulting stakeholders about social development risks as well as opportunities. This first step employs a risk screening process in order to identify the hazards and threats. It is worth noting that ‘screening’ in risk assessment has a different meaning than in EIA. In EIA, screening is the process to determine whether a proposal requires an EIA or not (Lawrence, 2003). In risk assessment, screening is the process of sifting and selecting information about risk in order to collect what is already known about the source of the threat under consideration and what characterizes the main hazard properties (Ely et al., 2009; Renn, 2008). The extent of ‘socio-political ambiguity’ is one of several appropriate considerations for the preliminary framing. Socio-political ambiguity is the result of divergent or contested perspectives on the justification, severity or wider meanings associated with a proposed intervention or natural disaster (Dreyer et al., 2010). It focuses on the degree to which a given threat may be subject to strongly divergent cultural attitudes, political perspectives, or socio-economic interests. Socio-political ambiguity applies at three levels (Ely and Stirling, 2009): • Individual level: e.g. at the level of individual constituencies, is there a perceived threat of harm at a catastrophic scale? • Institutional level: e.g. is there disagreement between regulatory agencies and member states? (institutional conflicts). • Societal level: e.g. are social justice concerns or distributional issues?

6

H. Mahmoudi et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

RSIA of Interventions / Natural disasters Step 1

Step 2

Screening: Preliminary framing

Scoping: Concern assessment

Impact Identification

Risk-benefit perception Identification of probable social impacts

Step 3

Stage 1

Socio-political ambiguity: 1. Individual level 2. Institutional level 3. Societal level

Step 4

Determine stakeholder response

Impact Assessment

Socio-economic

Socio-political

Stage 2

Predicting probable impacts

Socio-cultural

Impact management

Intolerable situation

Tolerable situation

Stage 3

Step 5

Mitigation and risk management

Acceptable situation

Fig. 4. The proposed framework for RSIA.

In addition to considering socio-political ambiguity, the possibility of social amplification of the risk should be considered (Kasperson et al., 2005). Especially with regard to the news media, it should be considered whether there are any signs that the threat in question or the sources of this threat are subject to a pronounced degree of amplification. Step 2 Scoping. Concern assessment is a systematic process of gathering knowledge about: the perceptions of risk of individuals and groups; the likely socio-economic, political and cultural impacts associated with the risk; and other information related to the threat source (Dreyer et al., 2010; Ely and Stirling, 2009; Renn, 2008). It is equivalent to what is called stakeholder analysis in SIA but its focus is more on risk-related concerns and the degree to which a given threat may be subject to strongly-divergent cultural attitudes, political perspectives, or economic interests. The results of the concern assessment are used as a trigger mechanism for scoping (Dreyer et al., 2010). In Step 2, the preliminary framing in Step 1 is further reviewed, analyzed in detail, and refined. If Step 1 finds any ambiguity in any of the levels of socio-political ambiguity, a ‘concern assessment’ should be conducted during the scoping step. The knowledge gathered from Step 2 can be used to assess the likelihood of wider socio-economic, socio-political and socio-cultural impacts related to the source of a risk. The aim of the social concern assessment is to provide a comprehensive diagnosis of concerns, expectations and worries that, individuals and groups may link to the hazards. In this step, risk perceptions, social concerns and potential social impacts should be identified. Scoping identifies the specific concerns and key issues to be addressed for a particular project (Paliwal, 2006; Taylor et al., 2003). Together with the information gathered from the preliminary

framing step, it is possible to select the key variables for social analysis (Taylor et al., 2004). 7.2. Stage 2. Impact assessment Two central components are important at the impact assessment stage: 1) to determine the significance of the likely impacts; and 2) to obtain stakeholders' reactions and feedback (Barrow, 2000; Burdge, 1994; Esteves and Vanclay, 2009; ICPGSIA, 2003). Step 3 Predicting probable impacts. After identifying the full range of possible social impacts through scoping methods, this step is a detailed examination of the potential impacts. It includes the determination of the scale as well as the importance and probability of the impacts (Taylor et al., 2003). In this step, the assessors try to determine the magnitude of impacts and what impacts are most significant (Barrow, 2000). Various methods can be useful for this step, for example scenarios (Becker, 1997; Finsterbusch et al., 1983). In ex-post RSIA situations, a causal comparative approach is one of several possible approaches (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009). Step 4 Determine stakeholder response. After estimating the direct impacts, the assessor must then estimate how people may be affected and what responses may be expected in terms of attitudes as well as possible actions. There are increasing data that suggest that fears are often exaggerated, and also that expected benefits often fail to meet expectations (ICPGSIA, 2003; Vanclay, 2012). Albrecht and Thompson (1988) highlighted that the study of attitudes should have a central place in SIA. The evidence reviewed by them demonstrates the importance of attitudes

H. Mahmoudi et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

and perceptions in affecting the responses of residents to a proposed project. 7.3. Stage 3. Impact management Step 5 Mitigation and risk management. Mitigation involves measures taken to counter unwanted impacts, including risk prevention and mitigation strategies (Barrow, 2000; João et al., 2011). Mitigation and monitoring should be undertaken for all activities and projects. Impact avoidance should be the first priority, impact reduction or minimization needs to be undertaken only where avoidance is not possible. Offsetting or compensation for adverse impacts should be used only when other options are not available (ICPGSIA, 2003; João et al., 2011). Risk management in a broader sense seeks to organize appropriate strategies to deal with the risks. According to Aven and Renn (2010), risk management has three potential outcomes: an intolerable situation, a tolerable situation, and an acceptable situation. In intolerable situations, either the risk source (such as a technology) needs to be replaced or, in the case of natural hazards, vulnerabilities need to be reduced and exposure restricted. In tolerable situations, the risks need to be reduced or managed. In acceptable situations, the risks are usually small – perhaps even negligible – that risk reduction efforts are not necessary. However, there still needs to be attention to ensure that the benefits are realized.

7

hybrid model presents a superior means of risk assessment for these complicated and sensitive cases. A key advantage of RSIA is its holistic approach. RSIA is the process of managing the social impacts of development. Its output not only explores both positive and negative impacts, but deals with the management and mitigation of such impacts. Ideally, RSIA would be an essential part of any process for the management of planned interventions and natural hazards. It can help improve the management process by using risk management strategies. Development projects often generate uncertainty or fear, and sometimes the impacts perceived in anticipation of the planned intervention can be greater than the actual impact of an intervention (Vanclay, 2002, 2012). Accordingly, identifying the actual impacts calls for ex-post SIA. While in conventional SIA ‘in advance assessment’ is the focus, RSIA can play the role of ex-post as well as ex-ante assessment. Thus expanding the field of SIA to integrate related means of assessment is desirable in order to increase effectiveness in decision-making and to promote sustainable development (Kirkpatrick and Lee, 1999). Last but not least, it is worth noting that, in some development projects or programs, SIA and SRA are undertaken separately. This may waste money and resources, so integrating these methods would be a more effective approach. Acknowledgements H. M. thanks the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology of Iran (MSRT) for a PhD fellowship.

8. Conclusion: Considering the merits of Integration References The relation between risk assessment, risk management and social impact assessment is the central issue of this paper. All types of assessment face the common need for integration and the complexities it presents (Burdge and Vanclay, 1995; Vanclay, 2004). There has long been a demand for SIA to be better integrated into other means of assessment. Rather than remain as the poor cousin of EIA (Lockie, 2001) or the orphan of the assessment family (Burdge, 2002), SIA arguably needs to combine with a similar but synergic assessment. We have demonstrated that SIA and SRA can be combined to provide a comprehensive assessment process, which we term ‘risk and social impact assessment’ (RSIA). We presented two examples of situations that reveal the potential value of RSIA. They show that assessing the social impacts and social risks together can provide more insight into the social aspects of development. Considering the theoretical and methodological problems of conventional SIA, we demonstrate that RSIA is a complementary approach that can significantly improve the process and outcomes of SIA. One of the primary justifications for RSIA is that there is a clear need to better anticipate the consequences of natural hazards for communities in order to become more prepared (Cottrell and King, 2011). In this respect, SIA could play a pivotal and clear role in disaster impact assessment and planning (Cottrell and King, 2010). However SIA has been developed in the context of planned interventions. RSIA would enable it to widen its scope to assess the impacts of natural disasters. Incorporating a risk concept into SIA can help to design a better framework and model which would have the potential to consider the social impacts of events like disasters in order to organize recovery programs and be used in pre-disaster preparation. RSIA can provide the proper mechanism and has a wider application than SIA because, by being combined with RSA, natural hazards and disasters, such as drought and floods, can also be addressed. Furthermore, for some programs and cases that carry potential risks like nuclear energy and GM crop production, conducting a conventional SIA to assess social impacts is not enough. In these cases, there is a demand for deep risk analysis (Venables et al., 2012). The

Ahmadvand M, Karami E. A social impact assessment of the floodwater spreading project on the Gareh–Bygone plain in Iran: a causal comparative approach. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29:126–36. Ahmadvand M, Karami E, Zamani G, Vanclay F. Evaluating the use of Social Impact Assessment in the context of agricultural development projects in Iran. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29:399–407. Albrecht SL, Thompson JG. The place of attitudes and perceptions in social impact assessment. Soc Nat Resour 1988;1:69–80. Aven T, Renn O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J Risk Res 2009;12:1–11. Aven T, Renn O. Risk management and governance, concepts, guidelines and applications. Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. Bammer G, Smithson M. Uncertainty and risk, multidisciplinary perspectives. London: Earthscan; 2008. Barrow CJ. Social impact assessment: an introduction. London: Edward Arnold; 2000. Barrow CJ. How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA? Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010;30:293–301. Becker HA. Social impact assessment: method and experience in Europe, North America and the developing world. London: UCL Press; 1997. Becker HA. Social impact assessment. Eur J Oper Res 2001;128:311–21. Burdge R. A conceptual approach to social impact assessment. Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press; 1994. Burdge R. Why is social impact assessment the orphan of the assessment process? Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2002;20(1):3–9. Burdge R, Vanclay F. Social impact assessment. In: Vanclay F, Bronstein D, editors. Environmental and social impact assessment. Chichester: Wiley; 1995. p. 31–65. Burdge R, Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assess 1996;14(1):59–86. Carley M, Walkey A. Exploring some key elements in SIA. In: Tester F, Mykes W, editors. Social impact assessment: theory, method & practice. Calgary: Detselig; 1981. p. 13–22. Carter N. SIA: New wine in old bottles. In: Tester F, Mykes W, editors. Social impact assessment: theory, method & practice. Calgary: Detselig; 1981. p. 5–12. Cottrell A, King D. Social assessment as a complementary tool to hazard risk assessment and disaster planning. Australas J Disaster Trauma Stud 2010;1. [Available from: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2010-1/cottrell.htm. (Retrieved July 24, 2012)]. Cottrell A, King D. Disasters and climate change. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2011. p. 154–70. Dani A, Beddies S. The World Bank's poverty and social impact analysis. In: Vanclay F, Esteves MA, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2011. p. 306–22. Denney D. Risk and society. London: Sage; 2005. Dreyer M, Renn O, Cope S, Frewer LJ. Including social impact assessment in food safety governance. Food Control 2010;21:1620–8.

8

H. Mahmoudi et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 1–8

Ely A, Stirling A. The process of assessment. In: Dreyer M, Renn O, editors. Food safety governance: integrating science, precaution and public involvement. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p. 57–69. Ely A, Stirling A, Dreyer M, Renn O, Vos E, Wendler F. Overview of the general framework. In: Dreyer M, Renn O, editors. Food safety governance: integrating science, precaution and public involvement. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p. 29–46. Esteves AM, Vanclay F. Social development needs analysis as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community investment: applications in the minerals industry. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29:137–45. Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2012;30(1):35–44. Finsterbusch K. The potential role of social impact assessment in instituting public policies. In: Finsterbusch K, Wolf CP, editors. Methodology of social impact assessment. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross; 1977. p. 2–12. Finsterbusch K, Llewellyn LG, Wolf CP. Social impact assessment methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1983. Fischer TB. Comprehensive analysis of environmental and socioeconomic impacts in SEA for transport related policies, plans and programmes. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1999;19(3):275–303. Freudenburg WR. Social impact assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 1986;12:451–78. Geisler CC. Rethinking SIA: why ex ante research isn't enough. Soc Nat Resour 1993;6: 327–38. Giddings B, Hopwood B, O'Brien G. Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain Dev 2002;10:187–96. Goldman LR, editor. Social impact analysis: an applied anthropology manual. Oxford: Berg; 2000. Goldman L, Baum S. Introduction. In: Goldman L, editor. Social impact analysis: an applied anthropology manual. Oxford: Berg; 2000. p. 1–31. ICPGSIA (Interorganizational Committee on Principles, Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment). Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(3):231–50. IRGC. White paper on risk governance: toward an integrative approach. Geneva: The International Risk Governance Council; 2005. João E, Vanclay F, den Broeder L. Emphasising enhancement in all forms of impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2011;29(3):170–80. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. In: Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, editors. The social contours of risk (V1): publics, risk communication and the social amplification of risk. Earthscan; 2005. p. 99–104. Kauppinen T. Human impact assessment as a framework for integration. In: Vanclay F, Esteves MA, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2011. p. 341–54. Kemp D. Understanding the organizational context. In: Vanclay F, Esteves MA, editors. New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2011. p. 20–37. Kirkpatrick C, Lee N. Special issue: integrated appraisal and decision-making. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1999;19:227–32. Krimsky S, Golding D. Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1992. Lawrence D. Environmental impact assessment: practical solutions to recurrent problems. New York: Wiley; 2003. Lima ML, Marques S. Towards successful social impact assessment follow-up: a case study of psychosocial monitoring of a solid waste incinerator in the North of Portugal. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2005;23(3):227–33. Lockie S. SIA in review: setting the agenda for impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19(4):277–87. Lupton D. Introduction: risk and sociocultural theory. In: Lupton D, editor. Risk and sociocultural theory: new directions and perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University press; 1999. p. 1–12. Paliwal R. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26:492–510. Pechan P, Renn O, Watt A, Pongratz I. Safe or not safe: deciding what risks to accept in our environment and food. Heidelberg and New York: Springer; 2011. Rattle R, Kwiatkowski RE. Integrating health and social impact Assessment. In: Becker HA, Vanclay F, editors. The international handbook of social impact assessment. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar; 2003. p. 92–107. Renn O. Concepts of risk: A classification. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1992. p. 53–79. Renn O. Three decades of risk research, accomplishments and new challenges. J Risk Res 1998;1(1):49–71. Renn O. Risk governance, coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan; 2008. Renn O, Sellke P. Risk, society and policy making: risk governance in a complex world. Int J Perform Eng 2011;7(4):349–66. Renn O, Walker KD. Global risk governance, concept and practice using the IRGC framework. Netherlands: Springer; 2008.

Rosa EA. Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. J Risk Res 1998;1:15–44. Russell AW, Vanclay F, Aslin H. Technology assessment in social context: the case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2010;28(2):109–16. Sairinen R, Barrow CJ, Karjalaine TP. Environmental conflict mediation and social impact assessment: approaches for enhanced environmental governance? Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010;30:289–92. Short J. The social fabric at risk: toward the social transformation of risk analysis. Am Sociol Rev 1984;49:711–25. Slootweg R, Vanclay F, van Schooten M. Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19(1):19–28. Spök A. Assessing socio-economic impacts of GMOs. Issues to Consider for Policy Development. Vienna: Final Report. Forschungsberichte der Sektion, IV. 2010. Stabinsky D. Bringing social analysis into a multilateral environmental agreement: social impact assessment and the Biosafety protocol. J Environ Dev 2000;9(3):260–83. Taylor N, McClinton W, Buckenham B. Social impacts of out of centre shopping centres on town centres: a New Zealand case study. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(2): 147–53. Taylor CN, Bryan CH, Goodrich C. Social assessment: theory, process and techniques. Christchurch, New Zealand: Taylor Baines & Associates; 2004. Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn JO. The current significance of risk. In: Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn JO, editors. Risk in social science. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 1–19. Torgerson D. SIA as a social phenomenon: the problem of contextuality. In: Tester F, Mykes W, editors. Social impact assessment: theory, method & practice. Calgary: Detselig; 1981. p. 68–92. Vanclay F. Social impact assessment. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1999. p. 301–26. Vanclay F. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2002;22(3): 183–211. Vanclay F. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(1):5–11. Vanclay F. The triple bottom line and impact assessment: how do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS relate to each other? J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2004;6(3):265–88. Vanclay F. Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison between the international and US documents. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26:3–14. Vanclay F. The potential application of social impact assessment in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast Manag 2012;68:149–56. Venables D, Pidgeon NF, Parkhill KA, Henwood KL, Simmons P. Living with nuclear power: sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. J Environ Psychol 2012;32(4):371–83. Western J, Lynch M. Overview of the social impact assessment process. In: Goldman L, editor. Social impact analysis: an applied anthropology manual. Oxford: Berg; 2000. p. 35–62. Zinn JO. Introduction: the contribution of sociology to the discourse on risk and uncertainty. In: Zinn OJ, editor. Social theories of risk and uncertainty: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell; 2008. p. 1–17. Zinn JO, Taylor-Gooby P. The challenge of (managing) new risks. In: Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn JO, editors. Risk in social science. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 54–75. Hossein Mahmoudi is PhD student in Department of Social Sciences in Agriculture at University of Hohenheim, Germany. His interests and experience have been concentrated on social impact assessment and social risk assessment. Ortwin Renn is professor and Chair of Environmental Sociology and Technology Assessment at the University of Stuttgart (Germany). He directs the Stuttgart Research Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies at the University of Stuttgart (ZIRIUS) and the non-profit company DIALOGIK, a research institute for the investigation of communication and participation processes in environmental policy making. He is primarily interested in risk governance, political participation and technology assessment. Frank Vanclay is professor and Head of the Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. His expertise covers the topics of social impact assessment (SIA), place, and social aspects of natural resource management. He is editor of several books on SIA, he is the author of the International Principles for SIA published in 2003. Volker Hoffmann is professor and former Head of Department of Social Sciences in Agriculture at University of Hohenheim, Germany. Ezatollah Karami is professor of agricultural development and extension at Shiraz University, Iran. He is a specialist in social research in agriculture and water scarcity.