Conceptualising social impacts

By F. Vanclay. 2002

521 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract The conceptual framework based on environmental function evaluation of Slootweg et al. [Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 19 (2001) 19–28.] is used as the basis for conceptualising social impacts. Existing lists of social impact variables, such as those of the Interorganizational Committee for Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, are examined and found to be inadequate and contradictory. A new listing of some 80-odd indicative social impacts is developed reflecting a change from project-based thinking to inclusion of the impacts of policies and programs, from thinking only about negative impacts to including positive benefits, and from thinking about unintended consequences to including intended consequences. The importance of differentiating between social impacts and social change processes is highlighted. Many of the variables typically measured in social impact assessment (SIA) studies are not in themselves impacts, but rather represent the measurable outcomes of social change processes, which may or may not cause impacts depending on the situation. Caution is expressed in the use of the list of impacts as a checklist.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5fe2b4d7040ca9f11d021088ba65d8a3050bfc1d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. F. Vanclay
2. E. Smyth
3. Michael Kühnen
4. D. Kemp
5. Rüdiger Hahn
6. A. Lehmann
7. D. Franks
8. A. Esteves

Citations in the corpus

• Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs (2013, background): “Social impacts (Vanclay, 2002) are caused by changes (e.g., setting up a new facility), which entail effects (more traffic).”
• Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks, Theories, and Empirical Experience (2017, background): “Subjective impacts describe how stakeholders actually experience (in a cognitive, or perceptual, sense) the social features described by the SLCA subcategories (Slootweg et al. 2001; Vanclay 2002).”
• Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA) (2013, background): “Following the concept of Vanclay (2002), in this paper, social impacts refer only to impacts that can be experienced by humans. Otherwise, the terms social aspects or social issues are used, which—when they undergo a change—may lead to impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1581–1592 1583”
• The Social Framework for Projects: a conceptual but practical model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects (2017, methodology): “Available from: http:// www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_Document_IAIA.pdf WCED.”
• Assessing the sustainability performances of industries (2005, background): “(g) Classifications of social impacts according to Vanclay [34].”
• Identifying social innovations in European local rural development initiatives (2016, background): “There are many authors who judge any (rural) development programme and project as social, because in the end it is always about peoples’ way of life and well-being (Lowe et al. 1998; Vanclay 2002).”
• Human rights and impact assessment: clarifying the connections in practice (2013, background): “This tends not to be the case for NGO/civil society-driven SIAs, as demonstrated by Watson et al. (2013), where the HRIA was explicitly used as a campaign tool and a strategic lever to prompt industry change.”
• Social impact assessment: the state of the art (2012, background): “There is strong consensus on what ‘good’ SIA practice looks like – it is participatory; supports affected peoples, proponents, regulatory and support agencies; increases their understanding of how change comes about and increases their capacities to respond to change; and has a broad understanding o”
• Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? (2017, background): “Indigenous people typically have sacred sites of such deep significance that disturbance to these sites is desecration or sacrilege (Vanclay 2002).”