Social Impact Assessment: Exploring Key Issues and Frameworks

This essay provides an in-depth exploration of Social Impact Assessment (SIA), defining it as impactful changes in people's lives due to specific actions. It highlights the importance of considering both positive and negative impacts, emphasizing the diverse perspectives of stakeholders, including developers, community members, and governments. The essay examines common SIA practices, including community participation, data collection, and impact forecasting. It also reviews existing SIA frameworks and ethical considerations. Furthermore, it discusses the application of SIA in the context of indigenous communities, particularly in Australia, and addresses the challenges and improvements in SIA practices over time. The essay concludes by emphasizing the goal of creating win-win situations through negotiation and the integration of technical and political considerations.

Running head: SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Social Impact Assessment
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Social Impact Assessment can be defined as impactful and long-lasting changes that
might be brought about in the lives of people through certain action or actions (Barrow,
2000). In Social Impact Assessment or SIA, the practice has been to highlight the negative
impacts rather than the positive. Many argue that impact and outcomes are different when it
comes to SIA and rightly so. In many ventures, the impact might be minimal, be it positive or
negative while it is certain that it will have some outcomes, mostly positive ones that will
teach the individuals important aspects about the venture and future course of action
(Vanclay et al., 2015). The implication of SIA varies according to people and depends largely
on their own perspective of the matter. One developer might think that the need of SIA is
limited to overcoming the barriers to a project while another may believe that it will give
them opportunity to connect to the community and ensure that everybody involved can get
the best possible outcome. For a community member, the practice of SIA might mean that
they will be able to reach their voices far beyond and that their communal as well as personal
interests are achieved. The practice of SIA has been concentrated in the field of development
and thus, developers have come up with various processes and methods to satisfy the
expectations of SIA. The be best practices regarding SIA has not been prescribed as it varies
greatly across locations, culture, community beliefs and ideals as well as governmental laws
and policies (Craig, 1990). In this essay, the key issues regarding SIA have been explored.
Esteves, Franks & Vanclay, (2012) outlines the common practices of SIA for both
Proponent-led and community led activities. The main directives are community participation
and inputs in order to ensure a negotiation that both the parties have agreed to, the
understanding of the communities that will be affected by the change of policy and the needs
of the stakeholders, understanding the needs and aspirations of the community, the existing
social and cultural issues of the community, data collection, forecasting of the impacts on
society and their significance, identifying the threats to the community and mitigating those

2SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
threats and so on. The SIA framework that Arce-Gomez, Donovan & Bedggood, (2015) has
developed is similar to the former one and takes into consideration monitoring and scoping
before any action is taken. A similar structural framework is also suggested by Vanclay et al.,
(2015) where the authors describe the ethical considerations related to SIA. These
considerations are respect for the participants, informed consent, permission for recording
any information, freedom form coercion, right of the participants to withdraw, complete
disclosure of the sources of funding, a guarantee of no harm, no deception and the
preservation of anonymity if so desired. The author identifies the key strengths and
weaknesses in the current practice of SIA along with the factors that influence the current
practices. The aspects like, Free and Informed agreement, Human Rights, social standards,
resource management and participation of the locals are significant to SIA. The idea and
impact of SIA is largely felt while working with the indigenous people of Australia (Howitt,
1993). For example, mining projects Yirrkala in Northeast Arnhem Land in Australia have
impacted the lives of many aboriginal people negatively. Later on, many such projects were
conducted that posed a challenge for the aboriginals. Thus, the government has now made it
mandatory to assess the social impact of any project before it is being approved. This has
given new opportunities to the Geographers to ensure empowerment, participation and
intervention while assessing social impact.
The main challenge that SIA faced earlier was that it was used as ‘stock-take’ which
means it was prepared after the process was completed to inform the authorities on what has
already taken place. In short, it was not of much use as the possible negative impacts could
neither be evaluated nor mitigated when there was still time. Though the practices have
improved ever since, still, needs more improvements in order to ensure better success. The
changes that have been suggested are more development in the concepts, integration with

3SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EIA, technological assessment, integration with recent developments in social theories along
with better implementation of SIA in policy levels.
The main goal of a good SIA practice is to create a win-win situation. The developers
will want to secure the maximum profit. The communities that they are working with have
different values. It is difficult for them to comply with all of them at all times. According to
Craig (1990), the problem with SIA is that practitioners tend to look at environmental issue at
a technical point of views while it has both technical and political considerations. In most
cases, the indigenous people of Australia are part of the political aspects. They have faced the
brunt of technology and development for a long time and have lost much of their land and
culture due to rapid development post-colonial era. This is the reason for which they have
become one of the most integral considerations in SIA. While it is true that the technical and
political issues regarding SIA cannot be separated completely, still, through participation and
negotiation an agreement can be made where the interests of both the parties are being met
(Ross 1990).
O'Faircheallaigh, (1999) too, proposes a negotiation based approach for the
indigenous people. The people residing in Cape York Peninsula have faced much difficulties
regarding the development. The area has few numbers of indigenous people residing. The
problem started with Silica mining by Mitsubishi Corporation. The corporation did not
conduct an SIA, neither were the local people consulted. Later when government introduced
Queensland’s mineral resource act the aboriginals could negotiate with the corporation. In
another study O’Faircheallaigh (2009), assesses the impacts of SIA and the sustainability
aspect of it. Through a questionnaire that addresses the issues of aboriginals, similar to the
one that the author proposes, a best practice method can be developed.

4SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
From the above discussion, it can be understood that SIA has seen much development
in the recent years. Practitioners have implemented changes that are slowly leading to a best
practices method. Still, much work has to be done and more community support will lead to
overall good for all parties included, the developers, the communities and the government.

5SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
References
Arce-Gomez, Antonio, Jerome D. Donovan, and Rowan E. Bedggood. (2015) Social impact
assessments: Developing a consolidated conceptual framework. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 50: 85-94.
Barrow, CJ (2000) Social Impact Assessment: An Introduction. Arnold, London: Chapters 1-
2.
Craig, D. (1990) Social Impact Assessment: politically oriented approaches and applications.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 10: 37-54.
Esteves, Ana Maria, Franks, Daniel and Vanclay, Frank. (2012) Social impact assessment:
the state of the art, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30: 1, 35-44
Howitt, R. (1993) Social Impact Assessment as ‘applied peoples' geography’. Australian
Geographical Studies 31(2): 127-140.
Lane, M. B., H. Ross and A. Dale (1997) Social Impact Research: integrating the social,
political and planning paradigms. Human Organization 56(3): 302-310.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2009) Effectiveness in Social Impact Assessment: Aboriginal Peoples
and Resource Development in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
27 (2): 95-110
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2011) ‘Social impact assessment and indigenous social development’ in
Vanclay F. & Esteves M.A. (eds) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment:
Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar Press, Cheltenham: 138-153

6SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
O'Faircheallaigh, C. (1999). “Making Social Impact Assessment Count: A Negotiation-Based
Approach for Indigenous Peoples.” Society and Natural Resources 12: 63-80.
Ross, H. (1990) Community social impact assessment: a framework for indigenous peoples.
Environment Impact Assessment Review 10: 185-193.
Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., Aucamp, I. & Franks, D. (2015) Social Impact Assessment:
Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. International
Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo ND: 2-8, 16-19.