The0 y and Method in Social Impact Assessment *

Thomas Dietz, George Mason University

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is a method of policy analysis that offers great potential for integrating scientific policy analysis into a democratic political process. This potential has not been realized in large part because there has been no theo- retical framework to guide SIA. In this paper I propose such a framework, using Habermas’ (1970) pragmatistic approach to policy. The framework suggests heavy emphasis on use of SIA early in the policy process and on methods that emphasize impact identification and portrayal.

Over the last twenty-five years, scientific analysis has become a key element in debate about social and environmental problems. Research in the social and environmental sciences has helped identify and clarify many prob- lems. But in addition to this research on problems per se, techniques of scien- tific policy analysis, including benefit-cost analysis, systems analysis, and risk analysis have become very influential in policy debates. These techniques are meant to rationalize the policy process, and thus, presumably, to improve the quality of the policies adopted to address social and environmental prob- lems. Benefit-cost analysis was justified as a method of guarding against “pork-barrel’’ politics and enhancing the economic efficiency of public pro- jects. Systems analysis was intended to eliminate unintended consequences and bottlenecks in public programs. Risk analysis was meant to target those hazards that may cause the most harm. But as critics of these techniques have noted, they may be invoked for political purposes (Hoos, 1983). Habermas, in particular, has argued that there are inherent tensions between the use of science in the policy process and democracy (Habermas, 1970).

In contrast, impact assessment, including technology assessment, en- vironmental impact assessment and especially social impact assessment, while generally viewed as scientific methods of policy analysis, also have great potential for enhancing democratic participation in the policy process. Un- fortunately, that potential has seldom been realized, and impact assessments have usually remained technical documents subject to the same criticisms as benefit-cost, systems and risk analyses (Schnaiberg, 1980; Meidinger and Schnaiberg, 1980).

In large part, I believe that the weakness of many impact assessments and in particular of SIAs, has resulted from a lack of a theoretical or conceptual

THEORY AND METHOD IN SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 55

basis for conducting impact assessment. The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a number of similiar international, national, state, and local laws have mandated impact assessments but have not provided clear conceptual guidance about how to do such assessments. Thus, while benefit- cost and risk analyses are guided by efficiency notions derived from welfare economics, and systems analysis rests on systems theory, impact assessment is done on an ad-hoc basis. Several volumes of SIA methods (McEvoy and Dietz, 1977; Finsterbusch and Wolf, 1981; Finsterbusch, Llewellyn and Wolf, 1984) have appeared in the last decade, but they apply traditional social analy- sis tools, including ethnography, survey research, social indicators and de- mographic analysis, without providing a framework to guide SIA. The best critique of SIA, offered by Meidinger and Schnaiberg (1980) argues for SIA as a means of enhancing participation but does not detail methods appropriate to that task.

In this paper, I shall attempt to provide a theoretical framework for SIA that emphasizes the potential of SIA as a mechanism of reducing the conflict between scientific policy analysis and democracy. Such a framework is critical for improving impact assessment practice. Only clear thinking about why an SIA is being conducted can lead to an appropriate choice of methods. And in turn high quality SIAs may help to reconcile the science-democracy conflict. I will begin by defining SIA and discussing current practice. Then I will discuss the practical utility of SIA, and, drawing on Habermas, discuss the potential of SIA for integrating scientific analysis with democratic process. These views on the purpose of SIA suggest the kinds of impacts likely to be important. After discussing these, I turn to practical constraints of conducting SIPS. Comparisons of practical constraints with potential leads to specific sugges- tions on the use of SIA and on ways of improving practice in the intermediate and long term.

What is Social Impact Assessment?

No definition is sufficient to completely delineate a mode of research. But a good definition can serve as a base for excursions into the underbrush of an approach to analysis. Those unfamiliar with the terrain will find that a good definition provides a clear map, while those with more experience will be able to see where a map is fuzzy and how the map provided by a particular definition differs from others, and therefore can use the definition to initiate discussion.

After offering a definition, I will briefly discuss several issues raised by it, including the nature of the impact assessment process, the importance of sub- jective and objective impacts, the definition of the event generating impacts,

56 THOMAS DIETZ

assessment of net rather than gross effects and boundaries on the impact assessment. In the context of discussing those issues, I will provide some suggestions regarding the scope of an SIA.

My favorite definition of social impact assessment is one which first defines social impact assessment, then defines social impacts. It was developed by Duncan and.Jones (1976) and is discussed in Cramer, Dietz and Johnston (1980). A social impact assessment is defined to be the identification, analysis, and evaluation of the social impacts resulting from a particular event. A social impact is a significant improvement or deterioration in people’s well-being or a significant change in an aspect of community concern.

By my definition, SIA is a process composed of three steps: identifica- tion, analysis, and evaluation. Methods will differ from one step to another. Identification of impacts requires imagination, creative thinking, and an understanding of the people being impacted and the social systems in which they live and work. Analysis assigns probabilities to possibilities uncovered in the identification stage and attempts to elaborate sketchy ideas, providing quantitative and qualitative data as appropriate. Evaluation integrates the information from the identification and the analysis into an overall image of the irnpacts resulting from the proposed action. Evaluation does not require the reduction of all impacts to a single dimension but does require a clear, informative display of data. The impact assessor may wish to provide an overall rating for a proposed plan, but the information on which such a rating is based should be as accessible to the reader as the summary judgment.

The definition includes two criteria for an impact: a subjective one and an objective one. Subjective impacts are those perceived by, or of concern to, those affected, whether or not an outsider finds those concerns realistic. Objective impacts are those considered important by an outside expert whether or not those impacts are of concern to those affected. Many SIAs consider only objective impacts. This is inappropriate. Outside experts will often mini- mize the importance of those social changes which are of greatest importance to those affected by a project. The result can be an assessment which ignores the factors which are most important to the development of political opposition to or support for a policy (Cramer, Dietz and Johnston, 1980).

The definition refers to an event. In many cases the event is the imple- mentation of a policy and thus stretches over several years. Different stages of the policy may have different impacts, so the SIA must examine changes over time. In assessing the impacts of a policy, the analyst can assume that the policy will be implemented as proposed, or can construct what seems to be a realistic implementation scenario. Most analysts act as if policies are followed carefully, so analysts tend to examine only policies-as-proposed. This is neces- sary for an adequate SIA but not sufficient. Because practice can deviate

1 H E O R Y AND METHOD IN SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 57

substantially from policy, the impacts of practice may be very different from the impacts of a hypothetical, perfectly implemented policy. So the analyst should construct a realistic implementation scenario and indicate how devia- tions from the written policy will change impacts. If the analyst wishes to limit the assessment to the policy as proposed, he or she should provide con- vincing evidence that previous policies have been implemented as proposed.

All assessments are implicitly of net impacts, that is, of the impacts caused by the policy rather than of all social change. To ascertain net impacts, the future with the policy must be compared to the future without the policy. This may seem cumbersome, but impact assessment practice under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of a “no project” or “continuation of current practice” alternative, so the assessment of net impacts does not add to the complexity of most impact assessment work.

The definition does not specify boundaries for the analysis. Boundary, or externality, issues are a problem for all modes of policy analysis. For example, in benefit-cost analysis, the discount rate reduces the importance of future events and thus delineates a time boundary. The economic effects of many policies are local, so the spatial horizon in economic analysis is sharply limited. SIA should not have comparable limits on the horizons of analysis. Regional, national, and global effects, and intermediate (10-25 years), long term (25-50 years) and very long term (50 + years) effects should be identified then analyzed and evaluated as carefully as possible.

Legal Status of Social Impact Assessment

While the definition and subsequent discussion deals with SIA in a generic, common sense way, current practice in SIA has been driven by the specific requirements of laws and regulations. In addition to the mandates of NEPA at the U.S. federal level, there are a number of state and local laws calling for SIA as part of general environmental impact assessment process or in response to certain kinds of proposed developments, particularly those with a “boomtown” potential (Atherton, 1977). In the last decade a number of international agencies including the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank have begun exploring the use of SIA as a tool in develop- ment planning. So far these efforts have produced some interesting experi- mental efforts but no large scale systematic use of SIA methods.

In contrast, SIA has been conducted on an ad-hoc basis in response to the requirements of various laws and regulations. In the U.S., the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Section 102(2) (A and B) requires federal agencies to “(a) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the en- vironmental design arts in planning and decision-making which may have an

58 THOMAS DIETZ

impact on man’s environment” and “(b) identify methods and procedures . . . which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical consideration” (Atherton, 1977:9-10). This act and parallel laws at other levels of government mandate SIA without specifying its content. The court interpretations of NEPA make it clear that social im- pacts must be considered in the environmental impact assessment process, but they provide little guidance to the contents of social impact assessment or the methods appropriate to carrying out the assessment (Atherton, 1977; Freuden- burg, 1986; Meidinger and Freudenburg, 1983). Most federal agencies have prepared in-house guidelines for preparation of SIAs as part of the environ- mental impact assessment process. But there is great variation in the methods used and in the utility of the information produced.

A Conceptual Framework

As noted above, the most important contribution of SIA to policy analy- sis comes from the ability of impact assessment to display the implications of a policy option in a form which generates focused, rational debate on the policy and diffuses rigid, single issue attacks. In evaluating a policy, a large body of research and conjecture on the current situation, the absolute and relative effectiveness and efficiency of alternate policies, and many other factors must be considered. Making a decision for one policy option on purely technical grounds would be a formidable task, but many important issues cannot be addressed with a technical analysis. Individuals within our society vary con- siderably in the value they assign to the consequences of alternative policies. These value differences, translated into the positions of various interest groups, lead to strong political pressures. Integrating the diverse values of the public with the information derived from scientific analysis is the key problem of policy analysis in a democracy.

Some ideas derived from the work of Jurgen Habermas provide a useful framework for understanding the problems of technical policy analysis in a democracy. For Habermas (1979: 178-188) unconstrained communication is a requisite of democracy. A society is democratic if and only if all members of the society can participate equally in unconstrained discussions of political and policy issues. It is through this discussion that values come to bear on political and policy issues, This condition is difficult to meet when technical analysis plays an important role in the policy process (Habermas, 1970, 1971). Mem- bers of the general public lack the background to fully understand the details of benefit-cost analysis, risk analysis and other techniques. Indeed, specialists with technical training in one scientific discipline often cannot assess work done by analysts using the tools of a different discipline. Two problems for

THEORY A N D M E T H O D IN SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMEN’I’ 59

democracy result. First, parts of the discussion become unintelligible to non- specialists, so all members of a society cannot participate freely in debate. Second, because technical analysis is viewed as scientific, i t carries great legitimacy in industrial societies. This legitimacy is a source of power for those whose position on a policy is supported by the technical analysis. Both of these problems are departures from the ideal discussion process used to integrate values into the policy process.

Under these circumstances, there are three modes that can be used to integrate values and technical analysis into politics. The first mode is a de- cisionistic approach which subordinates science to politics. Decisions are made in response to the pressures of interest groups and so reflect the product of the value positions of those groups and the relative power they possess. Scientific analysis has two functions in this mode. First, it can clarify the implications of a policy to the interest groups concerned and lead to some “fine-tuning” within the general policy selected on political grounds. Second, technical analysis may be used to justify decisions which are made on a political basis. But the critical decisions are not based on a scientific analysis. This mode of decision-making is problematic because i t concentrates on a political balancing act, trying to reconcile a general mandate to promote the public interest with the positions of uncompromising special interest groups. The public interest is ill-served, because a rational overview of the impacts of a policy is not used in allocating resources.

In Habermas’ technocratic mode of integrating scientific information and value questions, politics is subordinated to technical analysis. Decisions are made on the basis of the costs and benefits of policy options. Value questions and the political process are used only to legitimate decisions to the public. The current emphasis on using benefit-cost analysis to justify regulation is an attempt to promote technocratic analysis. Indeed, some advocates of scientific policy analysis explicitly question the viability of democratic approaches to decision-making. To quote .John Kemeny, chair of the presidential commission which investigated the Three Mile Island accident:

I’ve hcard many times that although democracy is an irnperlert system, wc somehow always muddle through. The mrssagr 1 want t o give y o u , alter long and hard rtdlection, is that I’m vrry much alraid i t is no Icinger possible t o muddle through. Thr issucs w r deal with do not lend themsclves to that kind d’treattnent. (Quoted in Dickson 198153-64)

There is a perception that the political process, dominated by special interest groups, has produced irrational and counter-productive policies and that the only resolution to this problem is to remove many key decisions from the political arena, leaving them to be made on wholly technical grounds.

For Ha.bermas. the ideal mode of decision-making is one that integrates

60 THOMAS DIET%

values and scientific analysis. He advocates a prugmutistic mode, where dis- cussion by an informed public integrates values and scientific information. In this mode, all debate about policy is unconstrained, with no individual or group able to wield any power beyond the validity of their arguments. Policies are selected by the merits of arguments pro and con. Values are brought to bear through the debate itself, since arguments for and against a policy must reference the value structure of the debaters. And over time, community value structures will evolve in response to these debates so that there is a dynamic relationship between values and science.

Unfortunately, Habermas provides no guidance as to how societies may move from the current mix of technocratic and decisionistic modes of inte- grating science and policy towards a pragmatistic mode. A major problem with the pragmatistic approach lies in developing an informed public moti- vated to discuss a policy in a constructive way. The public has little informa- tion about most policies. The information that is available is presented in a form which is difficult to understand and which does not link the impacts of the policy to the everyday interests and experience of the public. The excep- tion to this general condition occurs when interest groups publicize policy impacts. But this usually does not lead to informed discourse, because the groups will emphasize only those aspects of a policy related to their value positions. The result is a polarized public debate, where compromise and rationality are more difficult to achieve.

I believe that SIA can be an effective tool for informing the public, en- couraging their participation in policy debate, and reducing disproportionate influence of special interest groups in the decision-making process. That is, SIA can be designed to make the mode by which science and values are in- tegrated into policy closer to Habermas’ pragmatistic ideal. SIA can translate all policy consequences into social consequences which are comprehensible and salient to the public. A rancher might not understand nor care much about the cost-effectiveness of a particular public lands policy. Hut he or she will understand and be concerned with the impact of a policy on his or her ranch, neighbors, and town. An Ohio steelworker won’t care about or under- stand a loss of plant diversity in a section of range, but he or she may be con- cerned about a reduction in sightseeing or hunting opportunities. Broadening and deepening public interest and understanding can also depolarize debate. I ! a rancher’s only source of information about a policy is the Cattlemen’s Association, he or she will think only about the economics of the plan. If an SIA points out the consequences of alternative policies for ranch economics, hunting opportunities, and local service costs, the rancher will have a better view of the tradeoffs inherent in any decision and will be less inclined to sup- port all or nothing positions.

THEORY AND METHOD IN SOCIAL I M P A C l ASSESSMENT 61

SIA can also clarify the relationship between scientific information and values. When science subordinates politics or politics subordinates science, it is difficult to understand the line between fact and values. An SIA can clearly display all known impacts, the facts derived from scientific analysis. Then the values assigned to each impact in the process of making a decision are also clear. A policy may preserve a Native American burial ground but hurt the income of the timber industry. Another policy may destroy the burial ground but improve timber production. If each set of impacts is clearly portrayed, when a particular policy is chosen, it is obvious that the resource manager has valued the cultural resources over the economic productivity or vice versa. The SIA does not indicate which decision is best, but it does differentiate scientific or factual information from values or political judgments.

An outstanding example of the approach I am advocating is the Berger Inquiry into the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline (Gamble, 1978). The inquiry provided a forum for public debate on the pipeline, sponsored well- publicized hearings, and provided funds to organizations interested in par- ticipating. The process was very successful at opening up debate on a large complex project. As Gamble (1978:951) concludes, the inquiry “ . . . demon- strates that the obligation of the expert in industry and government is to expose, at a very early stage, the whole range of issues to the ‘expert’ scrutiny of all citizens. The citizens’ input has now been shown to be essential to an assessment process. ” This general approach to facilitating public scrutiny and debate has also teen used successfully in the evaluations of Community De- velopment Block Grants (Kotz, 1981) and in the evaluation of proposed urban developments (Francis, 1975).

Implications for Practice

Benefit-cost analysis is justified as a means of increasing the efficiency of public resource allocations. This justification legitimates the use of benefit-cost analysis and guides its practice. SIA can be justified as a means of moving the policy process closer to a pragmatistic mode, a means of democratically in- tegrating science and values. This justification will legitimate SIA to those concerned with the quality of public participation in policy and with mechan- isms of conflict management. More important for the purposes of this paper, a pragmatistic view of SIA provides a conceptual framework for conducting SIAs. In this section of the paper I will examine some of these implications for SIA practice.

Integrating Impacts

Many analysis techniques translate all identified impacts into a single dimension. For cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis, this translation is

62 THOMAS DIETZ

done by assigning market values. Multiattribute utility analysis uses an empiri- cally derived utility function (Keeney, 1972, 1973), and some varieties of social impact assessment use measures based on the social well-being or quality of life (Freeman, Frey, and Quint, 1982; Olsen, Melber, and Merwin, 1981). All these techniques assign weights based on values to the various types of impacts, multiply these weights by a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of the impact, and sum over impacts to produce an overall assessment. There are two problems with these approaches. First, the assignment of weights is a value question which should be the subject of public discussion. But in most cases, the weighting procedure as practiced is highly technical, and its assump- tions are not easily identified and debated. Second, the magnitudes of impacts are difficult to estimate and may be substantially in error. For example, economic and demographic models that are central to many impact assess- ments are very sensitive to the quality of input data and to assumptions they incorporate. Assumptions of structural stability over time in social systems are dubious, and baseline data are of poor quality. As a result, impact analysis based on economic-demographic modeling is very imprecise and may obscure more than it clarifies (Dietz, 1981; Meidinger, 1977). When quantitative models of this sort are used to estimate the magnitude of impacts the results may be little more than noise. But since the results appear scientific, the public may give undo weight to these analyses.

Some aggregation of values must be done before policy choices can be made. Quantitative techniques can aid the public and decision-makers in coming to a better understanding of a complex problem. My concern is that the imprecision and judgments inherent in these techniques can be masked by their technical complexity. SIA allows the use of a different approach to the problem of assigning and aggregating values. Emphasis is placed on multi- dimensional display rather than on developing a single evaluative criterion. For each policy option, all known impacts are exhibited. Detailed analysis of particular impacts, including estimates of magnitude, distributional charac- teristics, and importance to various subpopulations should be included in the display. But no attempt is made to aggregate across categories of project effects to form an overall, or net, assessment of a proposal. Each person read- ing the SIA is free to assign values to each category of impact, to debate those values with others, and aggregate them into an overall evaluation of the policy. By following debate the resource manager can learn about the weights interest groups assign to impact categories and the value positions taken by the group. This approach does not always lead to an unambiguous selection of one option over another, but it does clarify the issues and avoids the obfuscation which is inherent in many aggregation techniques.

Of course, it is not sufficient to provide an unstructured list of impacts, as

THEORY AND METHOD IN SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 63

is often done in SIAs. While such a list is preferable to hiding value judgments in an evaluative procedure, a simple list makes it difficult for concerned mem- bers of the public to understand how a proposed policy will change their lives. Care should be taken to discuss impacts in a fashion that educates and informs the public and sparks informed discussion. Unfortunately, there has been little research of impact display, in part because the goal of and audience for that display has been poorly defined (Johnston, 1975).

Impact Categories

The kinds of impacts that should be considered in an SIA depend on the policy being assessed. As a result, it is not useful to develop a general checklist of impacts. Indeed as I have argued elsewhere (Cramer, Dietz and Johnston, 1980), such checklists may be counterproductive because they limit imagina- tion. But it is useful to consider briefly some categories of impacts that are important in almost all circumstances and that are often neglected.

Few, if any, policies produce costs and benefits that are identical for all citizens. Individuals vary in their ability to adapt to changes in resource allo- cation. A policy change which has minimal average impact may have an over- whelming effect on part of the population. Meidinger and Schnaiberg (1980; Schnaiberg, 1980) have noted the importance of focusing on distributional impacts, but their arguments have not yet had much effect on SIA practice. Disaggregating the impact assessment by location, income, occupation, and ethnicity will identify any groups who are disproportionately affected by a policy. This disaggregation, properly publicized, can motivate those groups with the most to gain or lose to actively participate in discussion of proposed policy, thus broadening the planners’ understanding of the impacts on those groups.

Many public policies have moderate impact on the nation as a whole but have massive impact on local communities. Certainly any policy that involves construction of facilities or that changes allocation of resources to particular types of communities, such as those with military bases, colleges, etc., will have very substantial local impacts. Small communities and neighborhoods lack mechanisms for monitoring and influencing policy changes that affect them. SIAs should pay particular attention to such local impacts as a way to engage the community or neighborhood in discussion of policy. There is a body of research o n “boomtowns” in rural areas that can guide the analyst in considering such local impacts (for a review, see Freudenburg, 1986), but more work on local impacts in urban areas is badly needed.

At the opposite end of the scale from community level impacts are im- pacts on the nation as a whole, the planet, and future generations. I have lumped these broad effects together under the term macro impacts. It is diffi-

64 THOMAS DIE1'Z

cult to assess the impacts of a specific policy on the overall condition of the nation, the world, or future generations. Indeed, a single policy may have little impact in itself'. But it may be representative of a set or type of policy whose cumulative effects are substantial. To insure adequate consideration of these macro effects, the cumulative impacts of policies of the same kind should be considered. It has been argued that this approach may place an unfair burden on a specific policy proposal, which is judged not on its own merit but on the basis of real and hypothetical policies of a similiar character (Gamble, 1978). If SIAs produced a single metric that aggregated all impacts, then the use of the proposed policy as a surrogate for all similar policies would be in- appropriate. But a disaggregated SIA simply includes a cumulative "if we all did this" analysis as one of several views of project impacts. It is not, in itself, damning but may indicate unpleasant and otherwise unanticipated con- sequences for the nation, the globe, or future generations.

Practical Constraints

SIA methods must be frugal in their use of time, money, and technical expertise. Agencies have limited funds for planning and few social scientists with expertise in impact assessment, yet must prepare a large number of impact assessments in a short time. Techniques that work well when used by a team of specialists with long lead times may perform poorly in a realistic agency environment. To be useful, an SIA method must perform well when used with typical resource limitations.

Most agencies develop a diversity of types of policies. Some call for very little change from current practice. Others bring about massive, permanent change with significant regional and national impacts. SIA methods must be capable of examining many different kinds of plans and the multitude of impacts associated with them. If analytic resources were abundant, special methods might be developed for each sort of policy and type of impact, but since that is not practical, general purpose methods are required.

Since both subjective and objective impacts must be considered, an effec- tive SIA technique must identify, analyze, and evaluate both sorts of impacts. Most techniques used today emphasize either subjective or objective impacts, so the analyst must compensate at the evaluation stage and attempt to in- tegrate the results of various methods into a balanced image of the project which does justice to both subjective and objective inputs. It is better to use a set of methods which can integrate subjective and objective impacts from the start of the process.

An impact assessment tool should be frugal of time, money, and expertise yet be flexible enough to integrate a wide range of impacts. These demands can be met by using techniques which emphasize impact identification over

THEORY AND METHOD IN SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 65

analysis and evaluation. Analysis and evaluation of a list of irnpacts which does not include all important consequences of a plan will not yield an adequate assessment. But a list of impacts from a careful identification process can often serve as a full impact assessment. If all salient impacts are identified and are sufficiently disaggregated that individuals can understand how they will be affected, the resulting debate about the policy can generate much of the in- formation which would result from staff analysis and evaluation. This is not to suggest that the analysis and evaluation processes are unimportant. But an impact assessment process should concentrate resources on careful identifica- tion.

Timing

SIA is usually conducted at the end of the planning process. By the time social consequences are examined in a systematic way, only a few alternatives are being considered. This has the advantage of simplifying the analytical task to be accomplished, but it also minimizes the usefulness of SIA. Most environmental impact studies give the impression that decisions have been made long before the impact analysis was finished and that public debate is intended to make marginal changes in policy rather than develop policy. Be- cause impact assessments are irrelevant to decisions, they are a low priority activity. Because there are few resources expended on impact assessment, the resulting impact statements are dull pro fonna documents that provide little significant new information about the project. This in turn reinforces the position that impact assessments are more or less useless and that scarce agency resources should be devoted to other parts of the planning process.

For SIA to realize its potential, it must be integrated into the planning process at a point at which the impact assessment and the public discussion it generates can actually influence decisions. First, SIA should be used to identify issues at the beginning of the process. SIA can be used to generate general information to identify key impacts that would result from a continuation of current practice. The impacts identified are the social issues that should be considered in developing policy. Then SIA should be used in formulating alternative plans. Since early plans are vague and include rather crude analy- ses, planners are defensive about them and reluctant to share them with a wide audience. I suggest that an in-house abbreviated SIA be conducted on sketch plans. Informal but systematic procedures can produce information that is very useful in improving plans. This approach to SIA can be viewed as one step in the preparation of a draft plan rather than a formal evaluation of the draft.

After several iterations, a tentative set of policy plans emerge and must be scrutinized by other organizations and the public. An SIA on each proposed

66 THOMAS DIETZ

alternative should be completed before public release of the plan and presented with i t . This is, in essence, the environmental impact assessment process. Again, it is critical that assessment be done early enough to have an impact on decision-making. The SIA should emphasize open options and should clearly indicate what actions have already been dropped from consideration.

Specific Tools

As I noted in the beginning of the paper, each step in the impact assess- ment process requires its own methods. One weakness of current practice is that it emphasizes tools for analyzing impacts without giving sufficient atten-

. tion to impact identification. Instead, impact identification tools that are frugal, flexible, and able to deal with both objective and subjective impacts should be used. Previous work with planning and development agencies have shown that a structured group process, using panels of experts, can meet all these requirements (Cramer, Dietz and Johnston, 1980; Dietz, 1984; Dietz and Pfund, 1983). The panels are inexpensive to run, requiring only a small amount of staff time. The panels are flexible because their composition can be changed to reflect the local, regional, and national concerns most important in considering a given policy and because the members can think through general statements in a plan or even the rough ideas in a sketch plan. By structuring the panels to include both technical experts and individuals familiar with the local setting, both subjective and objective impacts can be identified. The panels can also develop priorities for focusing limited staff resources on analy- sis of the most important, least understood impacts. The panels can develop a summary evaluation of impacts. A technique for using expert panels in SIA is described in Dietz (1984). It should be noted that the use of expert panels for SIA requires careful training of the staff who will be leading the panels. Effec- tive training will make the difference between a useful, creative SIA process and a pointless and frustrating procedure.

An emphasis on impact identification does not reduce the importance of analysis and evaluation. Most agencies do not have the resources to conduct an extensive analysis for all social impact statements. In most situations, the analysis phase must be restricted to a few site visits, an examination of second- ary statistics, and a review of the published literature on the sort of impact identified. This work can provide new insights, particularly if it is focused on a few salient impacts.

Goals for the evaluation phase should also keep practical constraints in mind. A clear and graphic display of impacts, broken down by areas and groups impacted and accompanied by importance ratings from the panels, can facilitate public discussion. More elaborate approaches to analysis and

THEORY AND METHOD I N SOCIAL. 1MPAC:’I’ ASSESSMEN-I’ 67

evaluation should be deferred until there is a significant increase in research on socal impacts and social impact methods.

Long Range Considerations

There are four information needs that must be met to improve SIA practice. First, agencies should begin a program to monitor the social con- sequences of policies already in effect. This sort of basic evaluation study pro- vides the data critical to all other SIA work. Second, methodological studies should be conducted to determine how well SIA methods perform in practice and what kinds of SIA techniques have been most effective in improving policy. Third, careful ex postfucto impact assessments should be carried out to improve basic knowledge about the most important and common consequences of policies. Fourth, experience in public participation and mediation should be used to develop better methods for impact display. SIA is a new field. Its potential contribution to rational policy-making is great, but that potential can be realized only if an investment is made in improving the data base and techniques available for SIA.

Conclusion

Jefferson once wrote that “whenever people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government.” I view SIA as a tool tor making citizens better informed about complex policies. Working from that perspec- tive, this paper sketches some thoughts on how the Social Impact Assessment can be used in the policy process. I hope that it is of practical value and that i t also contributes to fruitful discussions of the tensions between science and values in a democratic society.

ENDNOTES

‘The ideas presented here were dcvcloprd in part while preparing a paper o n social impact iisscsstnent i n rangelands management Ibr the U.S. Natirinal Kescarrh Council (Dietz, 1984). 1 thank C . Orsburn, R. Frey, S. Groth, R . Johnston, A. Kasper, P. Stern, S. Schwartz, W. Freudenburg, Sociological Inquiry’s anonymous reviewers, and especially J. Cramer for com- ments and the Graduate School of George Mason University for research support.

REFERENCES

l\thvrton, <: C. 1977 “LrgaI rcquiternrnts lor rnvironmental impact reporting.” I’p. 9-64 in J . McEvoy

and ’I. Dietz (eds.), Handbook lor Environntental Planning. Nrw York: Wilcv- I n I r rsc‘ i r nc‘e .

68 THOMAS DIETZ

Cramer, J. C., T. Dietz, and R. A. Johnston 1980 “Social impact assessment of regional plans: A review of methods and issues and a

recommended process.” Policy Science 12:61-82.

“Limiting democracy: Technocrats and the liberal state.” Democracy 1 :61-79.

“The Use of Demographic Information in Social Impact Assessment.” Pp. 196-206 in K. Finsterbusch and C . P. Woll’(ed.), Methodology ol‘Social Impact Assessment. Second edition. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Hutchinson and Ross.

“Social Impact Assessment as a Tool for Rangelands Management.” Pp. 1613- 1634 in National Research Council (eds.), Developing Stratrgirs for Rangelands Management. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

Issues related to the Trinidad and Tobago Health Project. Washington, D.C.: Inter- American Development Bank.

Methodology and Guidelines for Assessing the Social Impacts of Developmrnt . Berkeley, Calif.: Duncan and Jones, Inc.

Social Impact Assessment Methods. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. Second edition. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Hutchinson and Rosa.

“Urban impact assessment and community development.” Environment and Be- havior 7:373-404.

“Assessing resource management alternatives. A social wcll-being framework with a national level application.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 3:59-73.

“Social impact assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology. 12:451-478.

“The Herger inquiry: An impact assessment process.” Science 199:946-952.

Toward a Rational Society. Boston, Mass.: Beacon. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston, Mass.: Beacon. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, Mass.: Beacon.

Systems Analysis and Public Policy: A Critique. Sewnd edition. Brrkley, Calif.: University o f California Press.

”Assessing Social and Economic Impacts.” Pp. 113-157 in R. Corwin and P. Hetter- nan (cds.), Environmental Impact Assessment, San Francisco, Calil:: Freeman, Cooper and Company.

Dickson. D. 1981

Dietz, ’l’. 1981

Dietz, T. 1984

Dietz, T., and A. Plund 1983

Duncan and Jones 1976

F’instcrbusch, K. , L. Llewellyn, and C. P. Wolf

Finstwbusch, K., and C. P. Wolf 1984

1981

Francis, M. 1975

Frecman, L). H., R. S. Frcy, and J . M. Quint 1982

Frcudi-nburg, W.

Gamblc, D.

Habermas, J .

1986

1978

1970 1971 1979

1983 HINK. I .

Johnston. K . 1975

Kwncy, K. I . 1972 “Utility functions Ibr multiattributed consequcnccs.” Management Science 18:

276-287.

THEORY AND METHOD IN SOCIAL I M P A C l ASSESSMENT 69

1973 “A decision analysis with multiple objectives: The Mexico City airport.” Bell Journal of Economics 4:lOl-117.

“Citizens as experts.” Working Papers for a New Society 8 (2):42-48.

Handbook for Environmental Planning. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

“Projecting secondary jobs: An empirical examination and epistemological critique.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, Illinois, September.

“The legal status of social impact assessment: Recent developments.” Environmental Sociology 34:30-33.

Meidinger, E., and A. Schnaiberg “Social impact assessment as evaluation research: Claimants and claims.” Evalua- tion Review 4:507-536.

“Methodology for Conducting Social Impact Assessments Using Quality of Social Life Indicators.” Pp. 48-78 in K. Finsterbusch and C. P. Wolf(ed.), Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. Second edition. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Hutchinson and Ross.

The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kutz, N . 1981

1977

1977

McEvoy, J., and T. Dietz

Mridinger, E.

Meidinger, E., and W. Freudenburg 1983

1980

Olsrn, M. E., B. D. Melber, and D. J . Merwin 1981

Srhnaiherg, A. 1980