QUANTIFYING SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

home page | contact us |  partners  |  clients |  papers

CONTENTS:

Background

Context

What is SIA?

Indicators

Quantification

Example

References

Background

Community Solutions has recently completed a Social Impact Assessment project for the Sutherland Shire Council (SSC). The Sutherland Shire Council has, for some time, had a strong commitment to the development of a Local Agenda 21. Based on the Agenda 21 Action Plan negotiated at the UN Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, the Action Plan seeks to integrate the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) into all aspects of Council's work. Council is seeking, in particular, to develop sustainable planning approaches and to incorporate environmental management into its works and business activities.

After consultation with residents, Sutherland Shire Council has defined Ecologically Sustainable Development as

• "Conservation of the Ecosystem to protect water, air, land and biodiversity, enabling the present generation to achieve its needs and visions, without compromising those of future generations". (SSC, 1997)

In developing a Local Agenda 21 action plan, the Sutherland Shire Council has focused on the key environmental elements of

• Water quality

• Air quality

• Biodiversity

• Changing land use

These are seen to be four fundamental indicators of environmental health in Sutherland Shire. Staff in the Shire's Environmental Science and Policy Unit have researched the major environmental factors affecting the quality of each of these aspects of the environment, briefly identified the risks associated with these factors, and developed various strategies for addressing each of the risks. In general, the scenarios proposed provide options for

• allowing current declines in environmental quality to continue

• retaining the status quo, or

• improving the situation to various degrees

Community Solutions was contracted to assist Sutherland Shire Council's Environmental Science and Policy Unit by defining, as precisely as possible based on existing information, the social and cultural impacts of various planning strategies for environmental protection. This work builds upon a preliminary risk assessment performed by Council.

Context of this study

The State Government has recently amended the Local Government Act to incorporate the principles of ESD into the Act, requiring modification of annual State of Environment reporting to include reporting on environmental improvement programs, and the inclusion of sustainability indicators in reports to ratepayers. Commonwealth, State and Local Governments have all agreed that ESD is based on three under-pinning principles of

• enhancing individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations,

• providing for equity within and between generations, and

• protecting biological diversity and maintaining essential ecological processes and life-support systems. (Comm. of Aust., 1992)

The strong relationships between environmental, social and economic aspects of community life, whether in Sutherland or elsewhere, are encapsulated in the following diagram from the Australian Local Government Association (1993).

What is Social Impact Assessment?

Although precise definitions of 'social impact assessment' differ among those working in the field, the concept of social impact assessment is well summed up by Burdge and Vanclay (see Vanclay and Bronstein, 1995) who note that "Social impacts include 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, organise to meet their needs, and generally cope as members of society. Cultural impacts involve changes to the norms, values, and beliefs of individuals that guide and rationalise their cognition of themselves and their society" (p.32). Social impact assessment thus relates to people's values, attitudes and preferences with regard to the use of resources and to their capacity to respond to, accept or absorb change (Municipal Conservation Association, Victoria, 1994).

Defining the Indicators for Social Impact Assessment

In determining social impacts, Community Solutions has based its findings on both Australian and international research. The steps in social impact assessment are generally well defined (see, for instance Wildman & Baker, 1985; Syme, 1994; Inter organizational Committee, 1995) and highlight the role of local communities as part of the process of defining appropriate indicators of social impact within a given situation. However, in a complex situation such as that of major policy development, the benefits of providing some starting points for discussion in the community are also recognised (Boothroyd, 1995). Thus, this project has taken as a starting point, the broad framework agreed by the Inter organizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment (1995). Within that framework, benchmark areas for indicators of good citizenship, developed by Swinburne University of Technology (see Office of Social Policy, 1995), have been used to measure the social impact of each of the proposed scenarios in managing air and water quality, land use and biodiversity conservation.

The resulting headings under which social impacts have been considered are shown in the Table below.

Possible social impact considerations for
Local Agenda 21 initiatives

Population characteristics

• Present population and expected change

• Ethnic and racial diversity

• Demographic mix

• Fluxes in temporary residents, seasonal and leisure visitors

Community and institutional structures

• Local government and links to the larger political system

• Patterns of employment and industrial diversification

• Voluntary organisations

• Religious and other interest groups

Political and Social resources

• Distribution of power and authority - participation, discrimination

• Income and wealth distribution

• Legal and civil rights

Individual and family change

• Health

• Education

• Personal safety

• Family and friendship networks

Community resources

• Natural resources and land use

• Physical environment

• Recreation

• Availability of housing and community services

• Viability of community life

• Historical and cultural resources - indigenous and NESB

Quantification of social impacts

The extensive literature search conducted as part of this project has not uncovered an existing quantification system for the social impacts of such broad policy directions as those under consideration by Sutherland Shire Council. Most of the social impact research literature is focused on one-off developments, rather than comprehensive social and environmental change. The NSW EPA (1997) notes, there is a need to "promote the precautionary principle by providing qualitative information on impacts and pressures even where data is not available and more clearly identifying areas where information is lacking" (pp.11-12).

It is also recognised in the literature that SIA methodology is an area which requires considerable work - "SIA is at a crossroads in its development. It must develop methodologies that can integrate the multidimensional, functional impacts of large-scale socio-economic change" (Wildman, 1990; p. 69). Wildman contends that an SIA methodology should "clarify the basic purpose of the analysis as clearly describing equity impacts and outlining a strategy to maximize positive and minimize negative developmental impacts" (p.70).

However, it is Community Solutions' view that attempting quantification for the Sutherland Shire's strategies in this project allows the development of a more accurate comparison of the social impacts of various strategies. Quantification is not a goal in and of itself - rather it is a process which allows comparisons to be made between different factors, based on a clearly understood framework.

As a way of measuring the social impacts on individuals and communities, Community Solutions has developed a simple ranking system to assess and scale the impacts of the environmental strategies. The basis of the ranking system is identifying the number of people who will impacted upon - both positively and negatively - by any particular strategy.

Table showing the Community Solutions' ranking system to assess social impact of a particular environmental strategy

To assess social costs - rank 0-4

0 = no or minimal disadvantage to individuals or communities

1 = significant disadvantage to a small group of individuals or minimal disadvantage to <5% of population

2 = disadvantage to 5-20% of population

3 = disadvantage to 20-50% of population

4 = disadvantage to >50% of population

To assess social benefits - rank 0-4

0 = minimal or no advantage to individuals or communities

1 = significant advantage to a small group of individuals or minimal advantage to <5% of population

2 = advantage to 5-20% of population

3 = advantage to 20-50% of population

4 = advantage to >50% of population

For the purposes of the Community Solutions' ranking system, the social impacts on individuals and on communities are ranked separately. This recognises that for most strategies, there will be individuals directly affected, and that the community as a whole may also be affected. The scores for the social benefits to individuals and to communities are then added together, and the social costs are subtracted. This leads to an overall "score" for each strategy, which allows preliminary comparison of the different strategies for social impact across the Shire. It also provides a rudimentary method of comparing the cumulative impacts of implementing different combinations of strategies by summing their varying scores.

Because of the degree of subjectivity associated with many social impacts, no attempt has been made to quantify the severity of various impacts. However, there is a need to build in an identifier which marks a strategy which has low social costs but for which a small group of individuals is so disadvantaged that it will have indirect impacts throughout the whole community. Where the end outcomes of a social impact are irreversible and of substantial significance, then no matter how small the group affected, these impacts should be highlighted and avoided.

Among the research material, there is considerable variation in views as to the integration of social, economic and environmental impacts. Wildman (1990, for example) states that "SIA as a form of planning should take cognizance of the various functional subsystems of society and related multi functional impacts relevant for the particular project under assessment" and that these subsystems include the economic, political, sociocultural and environmental".

In undertaking this work for Sutherland Shire, Community Solutions took the view that the environmental impacts are the core consideration and therefore take the place of "the particular project under assessment". Therefore the rankings below are of social costs and benefits, as distinct from environmental costs and benefits. It may be, for example, that weed control in National Parks and other nature reserves will be of enormous environmental benefit to the community, but in terms of social benefit, it will only impact (predominantly visually) on those whose properties abut natural reserves, or those who visit natural reserves. So the community social benefits will be quite restricted. In comparison, strategies that aim to improve swimming water quality will provide community benefit to a much higher percentage of the population.

An attempt has been made to differentiate between social and economic costs, in the sense that where financial hardship (large or small) has resulted, that has been included as a social cost. Similarly, where impacts on tourism and visitation to the Shire are likely to be affected by changing environmental conditions, this has been treated primarily as an economic impact and has generally not been included this in social impact assessment.

Where additional resources may need to be forthcoming from Council to enact strategies, which may result in a re-allocation of resources within Council's budget, these impacts have not been considered to be primarily social, but rather economic.

Example

The following table shows the Community Solutions methodology as applied to one Strategy for addressing the problem of polluted swimming water, and has been included with the agreement of Dr Garry Smith from the SSC. For the remainder of the report, please contact Dr Smith directly on (02) 9710 0547, or e-mail gsmith@ssc.nsw.gov.au.

Swimming water

Strategy A: Make the use of pumpout facilities mandatory and ban vehicles with through-hull discharge

	Actions	Who will have to change their behaviour	What will they have to do	Social impacts - benefits to individuals	Rank	Social impacts - benefits to Shire community	Rank	Social costs - costs to individuals	Rank	Social impacts - costs to community	Rank
Option 1 - Current situation where very few boat owners use pump-out facility	None	No-one	Continue to pump raw sewerage directly into waterways	Boat owners are free to go where they like don't have to plan their days around a pumpout	1	None	0	Doctor's fees and costs associated with time off work for those made ill by high levels of enterococci - estimated to be 5% of swimmers pa (ie a maximum of 2.5% of population)	1	Ongoing decreasing quality of swimming water, impacts on all those using swimming water, including for fishing and other recreation - assume 20-50% of population	3
Option 2 - 60% of boat owners using pumpout facilities	Installation of 2 extra pumpout facilities in the Shire   Retro-fitting of existing boats with through-hull discharge to storage tanks Council to implement an education campaign	2 Marina owners       6,000 boat owners	Will have to pay out $50,000 each to install pumpout facility   Will have to pay $100 each (yacht) and $3000 (large cruisers)	60% of Marina users will have access across the shire to pumpout facilities Improved value of yacht??	1	Decreased pollution of swimming water by 1-2% (or 20% of pollution other than that caused by STP) - assume 20-50% of population swims	0	Marina owners will have to pay $50,000 - may be re-couped from marina fees? Boat owners who currently pump sewage directly into ocean will have to pay small amount ($100 - $3000) for refitting Boatowners will have to go to marinas to pump out sewage - inconvenient and time consuming	1	None	0
Option 3 - 100% of boat owners using pumpout facilities	Installation of 2 extra pumpout facilities in the Shire   Retro-fitting of existing through-hull discharge to storage tanks Council to regulate compliance through pink slip system and mandatory dye tablet in storage tank	2 Marina owners       9,900 boat owners       Council   Boat owners	Will have to pay out $50,000 each to install pumpout facility   Will have to pay $100 each (yacht) and $3000 (large cruisers)   Develop and implement regulations Abide by regulations or face fines	Marina users will have access across the shire to pumpout facilities Improved value of yacht??	1	Decreased pollution of swimming water by 3% (or 20% of pollution other than that caused by STP) - assume 20-50% of population swims	3	Marina owners will have to pay $50,000 - may be re-couped from marina fees? Boat owners who current pump sewage directly into ocean will have to pay small amount ($100 - $3000) for refitting. Boatowners will have to go to marinas to pump out sewage - inconvenient and time consuming	1	None	0

References

Australian Local Government Association (July 1993). Ideas for local area planning. Prepared for the ALGA by Graham Sansom, Canberra.

Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council (ANZECC) (1992). Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. ANZECC, Canberra.

Boothroyd P (1995). Policy assessment. In: Vanclay F & Bronstein DA (Eds). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK, pp.83-126.

Burdge RJ & Vanclay F (1995). Social Impact Assessment. In: Vanclay F & Bronstein DA (Eds). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK, pp.31-65.

Commonwealth of Australia (1992). National strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Aust. Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment (1995). Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Envir. Impact Assessment Rev. 15, pp.11-43.

Hundloe T (1990). Cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment. In: Environ Impact Assess Rev 10: pp55-68

Municipal Conservation Association, Victoria (1994). Managing for the Future: A Local Government Guide. Local Agenda 21. Edited by Greene D, Cotter B, Westcott W & Williams S. MCA Vic, Melbourne.

National Health & Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) (1990). Australian Guidelines for Recreational Use of Water. NH&MRC, Canberra.

New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (1997). State of the Environment Report. EPA, Chatswood.

Office of Social Policy (1995). Techniques for effective Social Impact Assessment: A practical guide. NSW Government Social Policy Directorate, Sydney.

Sutherland Shire Council (1991). Sutherland Shire at a Glance. Producer by Environmental Services Unit, Sutherland Shire Council.

Sutherland Shire Council (1996). Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 1993. Government Gazette 124, 12 November 1993. Reprinted 1996. Sutherland Shire Council, Sutherland NSW.

Sutherland Shire Council (1996). State of the Environment Report. Sutherland Shire Council Administration Centre, Sutherland NSW.

Sutherland Shire Council (1997). Developing a Blueprint for High Quality of Life: Sutherland Shire's Local Agenda 21. 2^nd Draft. SSC; Oct 1997.

Sutherland Shire Council (1997). Shape the Shire: Strategic Planning for the Sutherland Shire, Oct 1997.

Sutherland Shire Council (1997). Erosion and Sediment Control Compliance Study, Sutherland Shire, Autumn-Winter, 1997.

Sutherland Shire Council (1997). Guidelines: Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban Development, June 1996 (leaflet).

Syme G (1994). Evaluation of public involvement and social impact assessment. Consultancy report prepared for the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

United Nations (1992). Agenda 21. Action Plan from UN Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, June 1992.

Vanclay F & Bronstein DA (Eds) (1995). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK.

Wildman P & Baker G (1985). The social impact assessment handbook: How to assess and evaluate social impacts of resource development on local communities. Social Impact Publications, Armidale.

Wildman P. Methodological and social policy issues in social impact assessment. In: Envir. Impact Assessment Rev. 15, pp.11-43 Envir. Impact Assessment Rev. 15, pp.69-79.