SCOPE 5 - Environmental Impact Assessment
6
|
How can Socio-Economic Methods be Used?
|
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Socio-economic methods may be used during the preparation
of an EIA:
- To estimate socio-economic effects such as changes in employment,
transportation or recreation, or changes in the aesthetic value
of a landscape;
- To estimate the impacts on society not only of these socio-economic
changes but also of the various biophysical effects caused by
the proposed action.
The use of such methods in EIAs is the subject of this chapter.
At the outset, however, it should be emphasized that the socio-economic
environment is difficult to quantify. In fact, this is one reason
why socio-economic impacts are not considered in some jurisdictions;
and why they are included in some other cases mainly to satisfy
agency requirements, rather than because the assessor feels that
a socio-economic assessment would be helpful to the decision-maker.
Examination of EIAs reveals many examples of superficial socio-economic
content.
The chapter provides information on current methods without
endorsing particular ones. However, the recommendation is made
that the assessor should at least try to derive a short list
of social impact indicators, and to estimate, using whatever
means are available, their relative magnitudes in terms of the
major special interest groups that will be affected. Impact indicators
might include, for example, employment rates, rural depopulation
rates, etc.
Section 6.2 sets out the broad areas of
'socio-economic effects and impacts, and discusses the limitations
involved in attempting to 'reduce a long list of possible effects
to a short list of probable ones. Section 6.3
examines the process of estimating the socio-economic environment,
while Section 6.4 discusses various methods
for predicting socio-economic effects. Section
6.5 returns to a topic already considered in Section
4.4.3, the derivation of impacts from a knowledge of effects.
Finally, some general remarks are made in Section
6.6 about future prospects.
*First draft prepared by J. Handmer, Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
6.2 WHAT ARE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC
EFFECTS AND IMPACTS?
The social environment is a composite of numerous interrelated
factors. Although these items may be identified from checklists,
interviews, etc., the inter-relationships are generally poorly
understood and have largely been ignored in project planning.
In part, this problem is caused by a failure to recognize that
social processes have feedback (IWR, 1975). For example, the
construction of a highway through open countryside may cause
residential and industrial areas to develop along the road, making
the highway more necessary than before (IWR, 1975; Wolf, 1975).
As another example, tentative population projections may become
a reality as a result of actions undertaken on the basis of these
projections (Hollis and McEvoy, 1973).
Some general areas of human concern that should be considered
within an EIA were listed in Chapter
3 in Table 3.3. The concerns
are related to various kinds of effects and impacts, many of
which are socio-economic. From several published lists, a short
set of impact categories is given in Table
6.1 (Shields, 1975) and a long set in Appendix
6 (Olsen and Merwin, 1977). Other lists are to be found in
Canter (1977) and Finsterbusch and Wolf (1977). Most of the categories
have been designed for use in North America, and their applicability
in other parts of the world has not been tested.
Many of the possible sociological effects and impacts are
project- or process- specific, the relevant set for a flood-control
development being quite different from that for a nuclear power
station. With some forethought, therefore, the assessor should
be able to prepare a short list of effects that need to be investigated
in his particular case. How large are the effects? What impacts
will they have on the community? An example of a process-specific
set of socio-economic indicators is given in Table
6.2, which was developed at the 1977 Nairobi Seminar on Desertification
(Reining, 1977).
Table 6.1 A General List
of Socio-Economic Impact Categories (after Shields, 1975)
1. Demographic impacts: rural depopulation; suburban growth;
etc.
2. Economic impacts: income, employment, and taxes; the affected
parties; impacts on business and large property owners; increased
short-term and long-term employment; the 'boom and bust' pattern
of project construction; problems of local inflation and short-term
changes in supply and demand patterns;
3. Impacts on social values and attitudes:
- Community cohesion; the social integration of the community
and the mechanisms by which individuals and groups within a defined
area maintain functional ties with one another;
- Life style, a perceptual and behavioural dimension, referring
to accepted values and day-to-day behaviour in the affected communities,
as well as to outsiders' views of these values and behaviour
.
Table 6.2 Socio-Economic
Indicator Categories for Desertification (Reining, 1977)
1. Land use
- Irrigated agriculture
- Dryland agriculture
- Pastoralism
- Cutting and removal of vegetation for fuel and construction
- Mining
- Tourism and recreational use
2. Settlement pattern, especially in rural populations and
in relation to energy sources
- New settlement
- Expansion of settlement
- Diversification of settlement
- Abandonment of settlement
3. Human biological parameters
- Population structure and rates
- Measures of nutritional status
- Public health indices
4. Social process parameters
- Conflict
- Migration
- Redistribution patterns
- >Marginalization
- Cash vs. subsistence
The selected short list should be consistent with relevant
community or national goals. The goals may be drawn from the
community itself or may be specified by a government on the basis
of national aims, e.g., through legal standards for environ mental
quality.
6.3 ESTIMATION OF THE CURRENT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
6.3.1 Social Profiling
In order to make a useful prediction of the socio-economic
effects of an action and to develop indicators for this purpose,
an assessment team should be assembled, and should be given the
task of learning a great deal about the community or communities
likely to be affected. The process of gathering the required
socio-economic information has been called social profiling.
Generally, only communities in the immediate area and in adjacent
regions need to be profiled (see Table 6.3).
Those most affected by the proposed development include people
who would be displaced or whose communities would undergo profound
change, such as that caused by an influx of construction workers,
or by the closure of a major local industry. Groups of affected
people living in adjacent regions will be identified when the
assessment team begins to study trade and transportation routes,
as well as the recreational, cultural, and ethnic linkages between
regions (IWR, 1975). Within a community or region, there will
of course be sub-groups of people who are affected in different
ways by the development. Some will benefit directly from the
economic stimulus given to the community; others will be affected
adversely. In this connection, a basic problem is the selection
of criteria for stratifying the public into sub-sets. For example,
should the population be sampled according to ethnic origin,
socio-economic state, or geographical location? No firm recommendation
can be given except that, as far as possible, no group should
be ignored. If public involvement is contemplated, it should
come at the beginning of the planning process and should be seen
to be meaningful.
Table 6.3 The Spatial Dimensions
of a Socio-Economic Assessment
| Zone |
Socially Impacted Groups |
|
| Immediate surroundings |
-displaced people; 'right-of-way effects'
-people left near the action area; 'proximity effects' |
| The region |
-regional effects, e.g., 'trans-boundary problems' |
| The continent and the world |
-as applicable |
Information on socio-economic states may be required for the
time frames:
- before the public is aware of the proposed action;
- after the news of the proposed action has been widely disseminated,
but before a decision has been taken;
- during implementation of the action (e.g., during the construction
stage);
- after the action has been completed (the post-audit).
Social perceptions and attitudes may change substantially
with time, and the environmental assessment may contribute to
this change.
Socio-economic data are of two kinds: objective and subjective.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the main methods and
the degrees of respondent and community involvement used in community
profiling. Initially, profiling will be based on demographic
data obtained from various accounting and record-keeping agencies.
Additional information may be acquired through interviews, questionnaires,
or public hearings, in some cases, these data may be all that
is required. According to Campbell (1976), however, such demographic
and economic indicators together account for no more than 17%
of the variance in a person's perception of his own well-being.
Hence it is desirable to complement traditional, external data
bases by attempting to provide systematic estimates of the ways
in which various groups perceive their socio-economic environment.
6.3.2 The Broad Categories
of Socio-Economic Data-Collection Methods
(a) Using existing data: Examples of existing data include
statistics on age, sex, and income distributions, ethnic origin,
mortality, housing type and occupancy, and education.
 |
| Figure 6.1 Socio-economic data collection
methods (after Whyte, 1977). |
*Oral histories - events are described to interviewers
by persons who directly experienced them. The technique is of
great value where no documentary material exists.
Participant observation - the investigator becomes a member of
the community being studied during the survey period.
Self-survey - some members of the community being studied are
trained to make observations of their own perceptions and behaviour.
(b) Asking questions; Survey techniques range from highly
structured, randomized pre-coded questionnaires to informal,
unstandardized interviews. A distinction between the two ends
of the spectrum is that the latter sometimes employs specific
key informants, the rationale being that some people are better
informed on the interview topic. A scale of knowledge ability
is often included in questionnaires on technical issues.
Information about attitudes, feelings, and beliefs cannot
be easily obtained except by asking questions. The less structured
the interview, the more likely it is that the interviewer can
probe more deeply if he receives an unexpected reply or comment.
On the other hand, the responses will appear less systematic
and may be harder to interpret.
There are many different techniques that have been developed
for asking questions. (See Whyte (1977) for a detailed review.)
Two particular methods deserve special mention here, however:
public hearings and the Delphi technique. At their
best, public hearings may reveal aspects of the local socio-economic
environment previously unrecognized by researchers, may inform
and reassure the citizens about government or industry proposals,
and may act as a safety-valve for pent-up feelings (Canter, 1977).
As an additional benefit, much of the planning process becomes
open to the public, and this exerts pressure on administrators
to adhere to the specified decision-making procedures.
At its worst, a poorly organized public hearing can be counter
productive, leading to polarization of views, or to unfounded
fears about the socio-economic impacts of the project.
From time to time, an opinion is expressed that the input
to public hearings is mainly by special interest groups and is
unrepresentative of the general population. However, Grima and
Wilson-Hodges (1977) dispute this view, citing evidence that
in cases where both public hearings and opinion polls have been
held, there have been no significant differences in the results.
The other application, the Delphi technique, is used
to achieve consensus amongst a small group of people, preferably
'key actors', on such questions as:
- How do you define the phrase 'environmental quality'?
- How important is environmental quality in relation to economic
development in the community?
The technique uses a planned programme of consecutive individual
interrogations interspersed with information feedback. For example,
each member of the group is advised of the answers given by other
members, and he is invited to review and amend his responses
accordingly.
The Delphi method permits relatively objective determination
of 'consensus from a panel of evaluators on questions which are
shrouded in uncertainty and cannot be measured or evaluated in
the classical sense' (Pill, 1971). Socio-economic methods such
as this have the following characteristics:
- they are systematic;
- they minimize bias created by dominant individuals;
- they produce consistent comparison;
- they aid in the conveyance of judgement (controlled feedback).
Sometimes, however, the opinions of a group may polarize on
two or more points of view.
(c) Observing individual and group behaviour:
(1) Direct observations
Human behaviour can be observed directly by:
-watching the behaviour of people in public places;
-watching the behaviour of people during a heat wave or a drought;
-watching the response of a community to a warning of a tornado
or blizzard ;
-etc.
(2) Indirect observations
Human behaviour can also be observed indirectly through:
-measurements of the width and wear of footpaths;
-studying the extent of littering;
-counts of numbers of automobile traffic, park users, etc.;
-historical records from newspapers;
-etc.
An example is a study of rural water supply in Ethiopia to
determine the benefits of a deep well (Browne, 1974). The investigators
used a combination of direct and indirect observational methods
(on-site observations of the local population -where people went
for water, how often, seasonal changes- as well as indirect observations
obtained from questionnaires, interviews, data on government
water sales, etc.). During the annual dry season the well was
the main source of supply, but poorer quality water sources were
preferred in the wet months because they were closer and cost
nothing, indicating that water quality was not considered to
be more important than convenience or cost.
6.4 THE PREDICTION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC
EFFECTS
6.4.1 A Classification of Methods
A classification of socio-economic prediction methods is given
in Table 6.4. The main terms are defined
below. The objective is to predict changes in the main features
of the social profile over the next few years, with and without
action (see Figure 1.1).
This is of course difficult, partly because of unpredictable
externalities: wars, world trade patterns and prices, tariff
changes, etc.
The principal sub-division in Table 6.4
is between extrapolative and normative methods.
In the former case, a prediction is made that is consistent with
past and present socio-economic data, e.g., a prediction based
on the linear extrapolation of current trends. A normative
method, on the other band, is one in which desired socio-economic
goals are specified, and an attempt is made to project the social
environment backward in time to the present to examine whether
existing or planned resources and environmental programmes are
adequate to meet the goals.
Table 6.4 Types of Forecasting
(after IWR, 1975)
| Extrapolative |
Normative |
|
|
Intuitive Forecasting
= Conjecture
= Brainstorming
= Heuristic programming
= Delphi: consensus
Trend Extrapolation and Correlation
= Trends
= Breakthroughs
= Precursor events
= Correlation and regression
Metaphors and Analogies
= Growth
= Historical
= Simulation
Scenarios
= Surprise-free
= Canonical variations
Dynamic Modelling
= Gaming
|
Morphological Analysis
= Socio- Technological
Technology Scanning
Contextual Mapping
= Functional array
= Graphic models
Mission Networks and Functional Arrays
= Mission flow analysis
Decision Theory
= Decision trees
= Relevance trees
Cross-Impact Matrix Methods
= Cross-impact gaming
Scenarios
|
The various methods listed in Table 6.3
are often used together, and should not be considered in isolation,
either from each other or from the social profiling activity.
6.4.2 Exploratory Methods
(a) Intuitive forecasting; Delphi techniques
The Delphi technique can be used not only to determine environmental
priorities (as discussed in Section 6.3.2)
but also to make intuitive predictions through the process of
achieving group consensus. The Delphi technique is discussed
in Linstone and Turoff (1975).
(b) Trend analysis
Predictions may be obtained by extrapolating present trends,
modified to take subjective account of environmental stresses
caused by a proposed action. In general, trend analysis is not
a particularly good way of making socio-economic forecasts, because
a time series cannot be interpreted or extrapolated very far
into the future without some knowledge of the underlying physical,
biological, and social factors.
(c) Analogies
The experience gained elsewhere is used to predict the socio-economic
effects associated with the proposed action.
(d) Scenarios
Scenarios are scientific fictions which allow a researcher
to consider elements of a social system 'as if they really function
in the described manner. Scenarios do not test hypotheses but
rather permit examination of possible outcomes if the hypotheses
were to hold true (Erickson, 1975).
Scenarios are commonsense forecasts resting on an empirical
base of social science data (in this case the community profile).
Each scenario is a logically constructed model of a potential
future 'for which the degrees of "confidence" as to
progression and outcome remain undefined' (Erickson, 1975).
The images portrayed in Scenarios help in the process of communicating
with decision-makers. In addition, the Scenario can form the
basis for public participation in the decision-making process.
Details on Scenario construction and applications are found in
Erickson (1975) and in Linstone and Turoff(1975).
(e) Dynamic modelling
This approach has already been discussed in Chapter
5.
6.4.3 Normative Methods
These methods are still in the research domain and are not
generally recommended for operational use. One of the more promising
new approaches is cross impact analysis (Kane et al.,
1973), in which the behaviour of non-linear feedback systems
can be simulated without resorting to differential equations.
Scenarios may be either exploratory or normative.
When used in the latter way, the scenario requires that various
desirable goals be specified. The technique then explores ways
of reaching these goals through alternative paths and decision
points. This may be conducted as a dynamic process, so that feedback
influences points of decision with a consequent alteration of
goals. As an example, suppose that the proposed action is to
develop an oil/gas field. In the exploratory mode, several
scenarios would be prepared relating to various environmental
management alternatives (construction of an oil refinery at the
site vs. construction of a pipeline, for example). In the normative
mode, on the other hand, the lifespan of the oil/gas field might
be designated as a management goal. Then from an estimate of
the extent of the resource, an extrapolation backward in time
would be made, yielding an annual production rate of oil/gas.
The associated environmental management requirements could then
be determined.
6.5 METHODS FOR DERIVING IMPACTS
Methods for deriving significant impacts from a large number
of predicted effects were described in Section
4.4.3 .Included were checklists, ranking of alternatives
within impact categories, and mathematical weighting. These techniques
were further elaborated in Chapter 5,
in the context of rather simple simulation models not having
large data requirements. The emphasis in both Chapters
4 and 5 was on physical and
biological effects, but the same approach applies to the socio-economic
environment. In both cases, there is need to rank impacts, perhaps
into only two categories, more important vs. less important,
separately for each group of affected parties. One way of doing
this is to use the Delphi technique described in this
chapter .
Executive summaries of EIAs are sometimes 50 pages in length;
yet a senior decision-maker such as a President or Prime Minister
may have only half an hour to consider an action that may have
large-scale and long-term environmental implications. A helpful
summary in such cases would be a table listing the most significant
impacts in each column and affected parties in each row.
6.6 SOME ADDITIONAL REMARKS
Some additional remarks about socio-economic assessments should
be made. In the first place, a clear distinction ought to be
maintained between scientific and political considerations within
an EIA. For example, the routing of a rapid-transit system often
leads to confrontation between the developer and citizens' groups,
especially when there is no strong scientific basis for selecting
one route from amongst several alternatives. In such cases, the
assessor should try not to appear to be the defender of the interests
of a single group. He should, however, attempt to identify the
affected parties, and to estimate their relative social responses
to the predicted impacts. Allende (1976) has pointed out that
low-income groups lack the opportunity and resources to move
elsewhere if development affects them adversely. Efforts should
therefore be made within the EIA to determine whether affected
parties have realistic avoidance mechanisms. This factor may
be a consideration in the ultimate decision to proceed with the
project.
Allende (1976) also draws attention to the fact that EIAs
often provide rankings of alternatives rather than assessments
of their absolute desirability. Whether an analysis of this latter
type should be included within an EIA is controversial, but the
assessor should at least discuss the question with the appropriate
decision making body at an early stage in the assessment.
6.7 CONCLUSION
The dialogue between the so-called hard and soft
sciences is tenuous, and there are misunderstandings even about
the meanings of words. So it is that a synthesis of biogeophysical
and socio-economic impacts is difficult to achieve. But the three
alternatives to synthesis are not acceptable:
- to ignore socio-economic effects because they are too difficult
to predict;
- to ignore biogeophysical effects because they are already
covered by legislation/standards/guidelines to ensure that the
risk of harmful impacts is kept at an acceptable level;
- to prepare separate impact assessments, leaving the task
of integration to policy-makers, politicians, or decision-makers.
In fact, socio-economic impacts may modulate some of the predicted
biogeophysical impacts and may cause new ones that would be missed
entirely by conventional EIA methods.
Human behaviour is difficult to quantify and predict, but
this does not diminish its significance. The challenge to cross
the interface between the biogeophysical and the socio-economic
environments is therefore worth the intellectual effort.
| Back to Table of Contents
|
|
The
electronic version of this publication has been prepared at
the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India. |