Table of Contents

New Directions in Social Impact Assessment

New Directions in Social Impact Assessment

Conceptual and Methodological Advances

Edited by Frank Vanclay and Ana Maria Esteves

This important new book outlines current developments in thinking in the field of Social Impact Assessment (SIA). It advances the theory and practice of SIA, and argues that a dramatic shift is required in the way socioeconomic studies and community participation is undertaken. The book emphasizes that, much more than the act of predicting impacts in a regulatory context, SIA needs to be the process of managing the social aspects of development and that there needs to be a holistic and integrated approach to impact assessment. It stresses that greater attention needs to be given to ensuring that the goals of development are attained and enhanced.

Chapter 4: Community-based Agreement Making with Land-connected Peoples

Simon Nish and Sara Bice

Subjects: economics and finance, valuation, environment, environmental sociology, research methods in the environment, valuation, geography, human geography, social policy and sociology, comparative social policy, sociology and sociological theory, urban and regional studies, regional studies


Simon Nish and Sara Bice Introduction Community-based agreement making offers an alternative to traditional compliance-driven social impact assessment (SIA) in the project development process. Drawing on mining industry case examples from Australia, Canada and southern Africa, we demonstrate that community-based agreements – when conducted in a participatory manner – offer an improved approach for: • • • • • balancing the costs of projects with desired community benefits; incorporating local knowledge and concerns; feeding back and responding to information about ongoing impacts; defining the local community’s economic participation in the development; and securing the significant, continuing involvement of communities in determining their futures relative to the development process. Two central factors underpin our analysis. First, our critique is primarily of regulatory SIA, by which we mean SIA undertaken as a compliance exercise as required by governments or lending institutions. In our experience, this type of SIA is static and predictive (as opposed to dynamic and responsive), does little to incorporate real community consultation or participation, and results in a stagnant document which by its nature is unable to respond to organic shifts in communities over time. Indeed, Vanclay (2003a, p. 2) considers regulatory SIA to be an anachronism and the simple prediction of negative impacts, whereas practitioners approach SIA as a discipline and ‘a philosophy about development and democracy’. Despite advancement in SIA generally, such as evidenced by the International Principles for Social Impact Assessment (Vanclay, 2003b), much SIA in the resources industry remains compliancebased. Such SIAs fulfil regulatory requirements while offering little in the way of...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information