This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 08 October 2014, At: 15:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
International Journal ofEnvironmental StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/genv20
Evaluating the Social Impactsof Environmental Change andthe Environmental Impacts ofSocial Change: An IntroductoryReview of Social ImpactAssessmentC.J. Barrow aa School of Social Sciences & InternationalDevelopment , University of Wales Swansea ,Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UKPublished online: 17 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: C.J. Barrow (2002) Evaluating the Social Impacts ofEnvironmental Change and the Environmental Impacts of Social Change: AnIntroductory Review of Social Impact Assessment, International Journal ofEnvironmental Studies, 59:2, 185-195, DOI: 10.1080/00207230210922
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207230210922
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Environ. Studies, 2002, Vol. 59(2), pp. 185–195
EVALUATING THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OFENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SOCIALCHANGE: AN INTRODUCTORY REVIEW
OF SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
C. J. BARROW
School of Social Sciences & International Development, Universityof Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
(Received in final form 28 August 2001)
This paper presents an introductory review of social impact assessment (SIA), focusing on itspotential for environmental managers. The origins, value, weaknesses, and principles areconsidered, and the process of SIA is briefly outlined. The SIA process is especially usefulfor those pursuing sustainable development, those interested in natural resourcesdevelopment, urban environments, the potential for and consequences of the relocation ofpeople, biotechnology impacts, or conservation. SIA is still evolving, and is not a perfecttool; nevertheless, it is likely to grow in importance. Some suggested further readingsources are presented.
Keywords: Social impact assessment; Environmental management; Sustainable development
INTRODUCTION
Planners and decision makers increasingly accept that ‘social’ impacts need
to be considered along with environmental because:
� They are often closely interrelated;
� It is a wise response to the growing demand for ‘social responsibility’
(increasingly backed by legislation);
ISSN 0020-7233 print; ISSN 1029-0400 online # 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080=00207230290015487
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
� It can improve environmental management and the quest for sustainable
development.
Social impact assessment (SIA) runs parallel with, overlaps, or is used
by: environmental impact assessment (EIA); risk and hazard assessment;
technology assessment; project, programme and policy monitoring and eva-
luation; and a number of other planning and management fields. (The
Author has recently published an introductory review: Barrow, 2000, see
‘‘Suggested Further Reading’’.) Governments, funding agencies and non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) seek to improve development efforts
by trying to establish likely impacts in advance, so those which are un-
wanted can be avoided or mitigation and contingency measures can be
put in place. Social and socio-economic problems cause misery, waste
money, and hinder efforts to establish stable governance vital for satisfac-
tory environmental management. In an increasingly crowded world, SIA
is vital for the avoidance of human problems, which often lead to environ-
mental damage.
SIA is an evaluative process that uses descriptive and analytical tools,
often derived from the natural sciences, economics and planning as much
as the social sciences. The public, planners, lawyers, engineers, resource
developers, conservationists, and many others come into contact with
SIA, especially those dealing with large-scale mining, highway develop-
ment, dams, and other large projects or policy changes.
SIA, like EIA, should be anticipatory; i.e. undertaken at the earliest
stages of planning before decisions have been made. When this is the
case SIA has the potential to help determine the optimal course of action
and to reduce the risk of unwanted (perhaps difficult to cure) impacts—
this is the best approach for environmental management and sustainable
development. In practice it is often started when a proposal has been se-
lected, and so is less powerful. Sometimes SIA is applied retrospectively;
this can still be valuable for improving resource exploitation and conserva-
tion strategies; an assessment can give a clearer idea of how exactly the pro-
cess of damage proceeds so that decision makers, rather than make do with
vague ideas about encroachment on reserves, illegal logging, etc., can for-
mulate policies likely to work. Retrospective SIA can add to hindsight ex-
perience and understanding of how change takes place.
There are two ways in which SIA can be adopted, either: as an integral
part of planning, decision-making, and monitoring; or as a ‘bolt-on’
186 C. J. BARROW
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
extra. For EIA, the trend has been toward the former, and SIA is following a
similar path, so that now it is becoming an important part of integrated
environmental management. It is not enough for environmental managers
to assess physical impacts, they must also consider social, cultural, and
socio-economic issues which are often crucial. Environmental managers
seeking to understand and manage natural resources need to be aware of
social institutions, social capital, property rights, peoples’ capabilities,
needs, fears and aspirations; SIA can furnish this information. Social capital
comprises the abilities, traditions and attitudes, which help ensure a group
of people will support each other, respond to challenges (including environ-
mental changes) in a constructive manner, and innovate. In many situations
social capital has been damaged or lost, is being eroded, or is at risk. People
who lack social capital may be very differently affected by the same envir-
onmental conditions than those who have it. SIA can provide information,
which indicates whether environmental degradation will occur, or whether
conservation efforts or sustainable development efforts will work.
Although some anthropologists would claim much earlier origins, the
expression ‘social impact assessment’ began to be used around 1973 during
feasibility studies for the Trans-Alaska (oil and gas) Pipeline. The 1969 US
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) contained a clause calling for
federal agencies to make integrated use of the natural and social sciences
when preparing environmental impact statements (EISs). In 1973 and
1978 the US Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued guidelines
to improve preparation of EISs, which stressed all impacts on the human
environment, including social, were to be considered. The 1978 CEQ
Guidelines in effect provided a legal foundation for SIA in the USA,
although it was not specifically mandated.
SIA in the USA came into the limelight in 1983 when the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission undertook an impact assessment before re-opening
the Three Mile Island nuclear reactors, the radioactive leak had forced eva-
cuation and caused much local concern. A citizen’s group legal action
forced the consideration of social and psychological impacts; otherwise
the EIS would have been restricted to physical impacts. Further progress
was made in 1985 when the Northern Cheyenne Tribe fought a court action
against the granting of a large federal coal exploitation lease because the
EIA had included virtually no coverage of social, cultural or economic
impacts on them. The Tribe won their action, preventing the mining.
There have subsequently been a number of cases where indigenous peoples
SOCIAL IMPACT 187
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
or citizen groups in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and else-
where, have reacted to development proposals with demands for SIA. For
example, in Canada the 1974–1978 Berger Commission Inquiry into the
social, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed Mackenzie
Valley Pipeline (to convey oil and natural gas from beneath the Beaufort
Sea in the Arctic to British Columbia and Alberta, crossing lands inhabited
by ca. 30,000 Native Peoples) included in-depth hearings in villages (in
local languages), and granted funding to support the Native Peoples to
make their case. The Inquiry had considerable impact on natural
resources development, helped establish the value of SIA, and taught the
lesson that it must genuinely involve local people.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID), America’s over-
seas aid agency, issued guidelines for something similar to SIA in 1975—so-
cial soundness analysis to check on proposals. By the mid-1980s the World
Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and increasingly other aid
agencies required EIA and SIA before funding development projects.
In 1981 the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) was
founded, providing an important forum for the exchange of EIA, SIA, tech-
nology impact assessment, and hazard and risk assessment news, views and
research findings. The IAIA now plays a central role in the promotion,
improvement, and regulation of impact assessment, including SIA,
world-wide; and can be reasonably described as the main professional
body (see Suggested Further Reading, Internet Sites).
THE CHARACTER, PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF SIA
SIA draws on over three decades of theoretical and methodological devel-
opment to improve foresight of future change and understanding of past
developments. It is difficult to agree upon a precise definition of SIA, or
a universally accepted list of its aims, and it is a field, which is still evol-
ving. However, the following should be acceptable to most practitioners:
� A ‘social impact’ is a significant or lasting change in people’s lives
brought about by a given action or actions.
� SIA is a process for systematic assessment of such changes; it should be
anticipatory, it aids understanding, planning and (so far not often
enough) policy making; it is iterative, i.e. adding depth and detail as it
proceeds through its successive stages.
188 C. J. BARROW
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Guides to SIA were published thick and fast between the late-1960 and
mid-1980s; unfortunately, many were ‘cookbooks’ which did little to
improve theory or methods. Retrenchment after the late-1970s led to a
shift to more reflection and research on methods, approaches and theory,
in contrast to the often hurried and sometimes shoddy consultancy of the
previous decade. Different conceptual frameworks shape the approach
adopted for SIA, although all share a broad similarity and some common
elements. Often the SIA focus is on the community because it is the
level at which the costs and benefits of change are most acutely felt. The
community also offers a manageable unit and some assessors work with
those active in community development. The opposite conceptual orienta-
tions of SIA are: ‘political’—the acceptance that the assessment is value-
laden and seeks to empower locals; and the ‘technical’—the gathering of
empirical data to give expert judgement as objectively as possible.
So far, SIA has mainly been applied at project-level, i.e. with a site-
specific and limited time-span focus. Until recently widespread uncer-
tainty, paucity of reliable data, and the lack of knowledge, meant that
assessors found it easier to cope with small-scale and short-term issues.
SIA, like EIA, has tended to dwell on negative (unwanted) impacts,
although it can also predict positive (beneficial). SIA should go beyond
anticipating possible impacts to suggest development alternatives to
avoid, reduce or mitigate problems and maximise benefits. It can also
play a crucial role in shaping ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and
may also be a means for public involvement and empowerment, and
for improving the accountability of planners and administrators; a
means to extract useful information from locals; and a way to solicit
public opinion on proposals, alternatives, trade-offs, etc.
SIA can be a research technique, often ad hoc in approach; or a ‘techno-
cratic’ planning or management tool; or a policy instrument shaped by
agreed laws and framework for application; or as a means of ensuring par-
ticipation or even the empowerment of people in the development process.
SIA aims to be multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary, usually using
a combination of objective and subjective assessment and ethical judge-
ment. It is often treated as a subfield of EIA, but if EIA and SIA are
laid out as a ‘spectrum’, then they are extremes, each clearly distinct in
terms of approach, methodology and techniques, background of practi-
tioners, and literature; however, there is also a great deal of overlap.
There is clearer separation in historical terms, EIA and SIA having had
SOCIAL IMPACT 189
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
reasonably different evolution, and in respect of legislative and financial
support.
SIA is not an easy, nor a precise art; a given impact, or combination of
impacts is likely to differently affect various social, ethnic, gender or age
groups (perhaps not simultaneously), it may quickly advantage some peo-
ple, slowly damage others, and leave some unaffected. Assessors may have
difficulties defining social units, which anyway often change suddenly and
rapidly. There are also the problems familiar to those involved with EIA of
difficult to identify off-site or downstream impacts, indirect impacts and
cumulative impacts. It is best to accept that SIA relies a lot on the profes-
sional judgement of researchers, that qualitative measurements are useful,
and that it is likely to be inaccurate.
SIA has developed more slowly than EIA and has sometimes been of
poor quality. Until relatively recently it often had little impact on project,
programme, or policy decision making. This is due to a variety of rea-
sons, including: uncertainty in some countries about its legal status; pro-
blems comparing results because of a plethora of methodologies; and the
ability of special interest groups to manipulate findings and side-line
what they do not agree with.
SIA, even if it accurately predicts many direct impacts, may miss others,
and many (or even all) indirect and cumulative impacts (the latter being
where more than one chain of causation interacts). There is thus a risk
that those unfamiliar with SIA may be given a false sense of security by
it. SIA can inform and reassure people so they are less likely to oppose
a development, although there may be situations where it has the opposite
effect, triggering unwanted reactions such as land speculation, in-migration,
and protest. Much depends on how well the SIA is conducted.
Reviewing SIA over the last 30 years or so the following weaknesses are
apparent. There is a lack of standardisation of approach and the field has
been poorly funded compared with EIA. Often in practice SIA is given too
little time for adequate results. Frequently there is only one opportunity for
assessment (giving a spatially, and temporally limited ‘snapshot’ view).
SIA deals with more complex and changeable factors than EIA, so it is
likely to be less accurate and possibly slower.
Social scientists involved in SIA tend to be critical and discursive, rather
than predictive and explanatory, consequently it is difficult to get a solid
supportive theoretical framework. SIA has mainly been applied at corpora-
tion, federal government, or regional authority level, has often focused
190 C. J. BARROW
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
on economic costs and too little on how local people will be affected by
development.
Often SIA has access to a poor database, so assessment is hindered. The
disciplines involved tend to have different, even contradictory terminology
and incompatible units of measurement, so comparison of various assess-
ments can be a problem.
SIA often conducted by consultants who are poorly trained (some have
been conducted by non-social scientists, and even by graduate students).
As with EIA professional accreditation may resolve this. SIA has been
too infrequently subjected to appraisal to see how it performed and what
went wrong, consequently there is a failure to learn as much as might
have been from hindsight.
Hindsight is often denied a wide-enough audience because SIAs are
mainly documented in ‘grey literature’ (documents which are of very
restricted circulation and seldom peer-reviewed).
SIA is treated more as an ‘approval mechanism’ to determine whether a
development should proceed, and what conditions should be applied, rather
than ensuring effective monitoring, mitigation of problems and responsive
management.
Legislation fails to oversee the SIA process adequately and may allow
authorities to simply ignore findings.
The weaknesses of SIA may not be as serious as they first appear,
Burdge [1] argued that being sensitive to social impacts is perhaps
more important than being able to precisely identify them. A less-than
detailed and accurate SIA may thus be useful. Improved accuracy of as-
sessment is a goal, but so must be the ability to get the findings accepted
and acted upon by decision-makers and planners. SIA cannot be justified
if its costs outweigh the value achieved through it, nor if the results are
too unreliable. SIA has often been undertaken by ‘outsiders’ who do not
adequately know the people they are dealing with and by assessors who
are not adequately trained objective social scientists. Some, possibly most,
of the faults of SIA are the result of misuse or careless application, rather
than the concept being faulty.
SIA alone should not determine whether development proceeds, such de-
cisions must be the responsibility of planners, decision-makers, and perhaps
the public; the role of SIA is to advise and inform them. It should show the
likely risks and benefits, and the development options available; also, like
EIA, it ought to flag potentially irreversible and dangerous impacts.
SOCIAL IMPACT 191
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Between the early-1970s and 1995 there was little uniformity in ap-
proach or methodology. Proposals from the Interorganizational Committee
on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment have helped
shape and guide SIA since the mid-1990 (see Suggested Further Reading).
From the early-1980s SIA has shifted to a participatory, rather than techno-
cratic approach, although the latter still has the edge in practice. Nowadays,
as well as the participatory and the technocratic, there is also the more
integrative approach. The likelihood is that a shift will increasingly take
place to the latter, which combines elements of both technocratic and par-
ticipatory. The integrative approach seems to hold considerable promise as
a way to overcome various methodological weaknesses, and to link differ-
ent impact assessment fields with SIA to achieve a more strategic over-
sight.
There are usually very different types and intensity of social impacts
during planning and implementation; through post-implementation man-
agement, when operational change takes place; at project, programme
or policy closedown; and following closedown. Impacts start virtually
the moment a development is proposed and they usually continue if devel-
opment ceases; for example, in the UK impacts are still felt decades after
cessation of coal-mining as communities established to service the industry
adapt.
THE SIA PROCESS
If the SIA process is effective, dispassionate and thorough, it should iden-
tify and help counter attempts to manipulate development to serve special
interest groups. Like EIA, SIA can encourage decision-makers and plan-
ners to ‘look before they leap’.
It is common for the SIA process to be divided into the following steps
or stages, similar to those adopted for EIA:
(1) Scoping—Set terms of reference, limits of study, etc.
(2) Formulation of alternatives—Identify what path development might
take other than that proposed.
(3) Profiling—Determination of what is likely to be impacted. Describe
the social units affected. Identify indicators to measure. Establish the
current social condition.
192 C. J. BARROW
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
(4) Projection—Make projections of what is likely to happen and who is
affected: if the proposed development proceeds; if it is abandoned; if
alternatives are adopted. Identify indicators to study; identify cause-
effect linkages and feedbacks.
(5) Assessment—Determine the magnitude of impacts, what effect
likely changes will have, what impacts are most significant and how
people will react. Determine potential for avoidance or mitigation.
(6) Evaluation—Analysis of trade-offs: What are the net benefits? Who
benefits? Who loses? Is the overall impact acceptable?
(7) Mitigation—if needed, identify measures to counter unwanted
impacts.
(8) Ongoing monitoring—Measurement of actual impacts, which can be
compared with, predicted. Lessons learnt can be fed-back into
policy-making and planning. Develop plan for ongoing monitoring
to warn of need for further actions.
DISCUSSION
There is currently debate as to whether SIA is: 1) a planning and policy mak-
ing tool which seeks to gather data and provide expert opinion on social
impacts; or 2) is a means to promote much more fundamental changes in
development approach (something value-laden, and essentially a political
process seeking participation and to empower local people). SIA appeared
in North America, much influenced by NEPA, and has largely evolved
there and in other developed countries; to work effectively in developing
countries, it must be adapted to their social, environmental, and cultural con-
ditions, regulatory procedures, education level of the population, and so on.
There has been growing interest in improving SIA to avoid it giving only
a ‘snapshot’ view (i.e. temporally restricted). A better approach might be to
use SIA to link pre-development assessment, impact assessment during
implementation, and ongoing monitoring.
SIA is already a valuable aid to environmental management and as plan-
ning moves toward more strategic approaches it is likely to be more impor-
tant. Natural disasters generate refugees and marked global environmental
change, if it takes place, may mean huge numbers of ‘eco-refugees’. SIA is
a valuable tool for helping to predict whether there will be eco-refugees,
how they will behave, and what impact they will have.
SOCIAL IMPACT 193
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Nowadays, more than half the world population is urban and this propor-
tion is growing, the environmental management of cities demands effective
management of people and SIA will play a part in this. Conservation, con-
trol of land degradation, and many other issues faced by environmental
managers demand information on social developments, often of more
than one group of people; SIA can clarify people’s reactions, their adapt-
ability for various social, ethnic and gender groups. It is also a means for
assessing how technological change may be greeted and whether it will af-
fect the environment; for example, those involved in energy development in
the 1960s little guessed that citizens would soon come to strongly oppose
nuclear power.
So far, surprisingly little effort has been made to assess the social
impacts of biotechnology; innovations could lead to the substitution of
some important export products with huge social, economic and environ-
mental impacts. Innovations may not be especially beneficial to society
in the long term, or environmentally wise, but they catch-on because
individual farmers or agribusinesses benefit in the short term. SIA can
help predict where things are leading so it may be possible to make precau-
tionary course-changes and promote better ways.
Reference
[1] R.J. Burdge, A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment, Revised edn. (SocialEcology Press, Middleton, Wisconsin, 1999) p. 5.
SUGGESTED FURTHER READING
1. Introductions, Guidebooks and Handbooks:
Many handbooks and guidelines were published between the mid-1970s
and the 1980s; most of these are now rather dated. The following are
more recent reviews and introductions selected for those concerned with
environmental issues.
C.J. Barrow, Social Impact Assessment: an introduction (Arnold, London, 2000).H.A. Becker, Social Impact Assessment: Method and Experience in Europe, North America
and the Developing World (University College London Press, London, 1997).L.R. Goldman (editor), Social Impact Analysis: an applied anthropology manual (Berg,
Oxford, 2000). (This is anthropological in approach, looking at SIA in practice, especiallyin relation to indigenous peoples and resource development.)
194 C. J. BARROW
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4
C. Kirkpatrick and N. Lee (editors), Sustainable Development in a Developing World:Integrating Socio-economic Appraisal and Environmental Assessment (Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, 1997).
F. Vanclay and D.A. Bronstein (editors), Environmental and Social Impact Assessment(Especially Chapter 2) (Wiley, Chichester, 1995).
2. Journal Articles
R. Bissett, ‘‘Social impact assessment and its future’’, Mining and Environmental Management4(1), 9–11 (1996).
K. Finsterbusch, ‘‘In praise of SIA – a personal view of the field of social impact assessment:feasibility, justification, history, methods, issues‘‘, Impact Assessment 13(3), 229–252(1995).
Special issue (1995) of Project Appraisal 10(3) – devoted to SIA.Special issue (1990) of Environmental Impact Assessment Review 10(1–2) – is devoted to SIA.
3. Internet Sources (Accessed by author in mid-2001.)
(i) Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment – prepared
by the Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles
for Social Impact Assessment (updated version) – available from:
http://www.gsa.jov/pbs/pt/call-in/siagide.htm or: http://www.nzaia.
org.nz/iaia/siaguidelines.htm
(ii) International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA): http://
IAIA.ext.Nodak.edu/IAIA
(iii) NEPA SIA call-in website, 1999: http://www.gsa.gov/pbs/pt/call-in/
factshet/1098b/10_98b_7.htm
(iv) EIA Newsletter (which contains some SIA articles) University of
Manchester, Manchester MI3 9PL or available from: http://
www.artman.ac.uk/EIA/n116.htm
(v) Australian EIA Network (1994) Review of Commonwealth EIA –
Social Impact Assessment (updated 1997). This reviews SIA in
general and focuses on practice in Australia, New Zealand, Canada,
the USA, and the EU: http://www.environment.gov.au/epg/eianet/
eia/sia/sia.html
(vi) US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ‘‘call in’’ on SIA:
http://www.gsa.gov/pbs/pt/call-in/factshet/1098b/1098bfact.htm
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia) (2001) Ap-
plication of SIA to the Management of a marine conservation area (a
full report is available from the site): http://www.reef.crc.org.au/
publications/techreport/TechRep2.shtml
SOCIAL IMPACT 195
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:36
08
Oct
ober
201
4