Suchergebnisse

Over 150 forms of impact assessment can be identified using Google searches, with several new forms appearing since 2003. Since then, the popularity of the various members of the impact assessment family has changed, partly in response to legislative and regulatory changes, and general trends in society. The information explosion and expansion of the internet has resulted in a 32 fold increase in the number of hits for 'impact assessment', now over 12 million. The conventional methods most frequently mentioned in 2003 had relatively low proportional change over the last 10 years but remain amongst the most frequently mentioned in 2014: risk assessment, public participation, cost-benefit analysis, public involvement, environmental monitoring, and project evaluation. The terms with highest proportional change (i.e. the super-hot topics) were primarily social concerns, including: equality impact assessment, welfare impact assessment, mental health impact assessment, disability impact assessment, human impact assessment, social impact assessment, and social risk assessment. Other terms that had high proportional change included life cycle impact assessment. Information about the relative popularity of the various forms of impact assessment is used in this paper to discuss issues and trends in the broad field of impact assessment.

Traditional expert (or technocratic) approaches to Technology Assessment have been fundamentally challenged by two observations. The first is that social impacts are not side effects of technology; they are core dimensions of new technology and technological development, and are a function of the coproduction of technology and society. As such, they can only be understood in social, not technical terms. Secondly, technological developments are driven by particular visions for society that are normative. Because these visions (and the latent premises that underpin them) are implicit and not negotiated by society, they are, in effect, undemocratic. Participatory methods have been utilized by Technology Assessment to improve the evaluation of the social and ethical dimensions of technology, and to democratize decision making about science and technology. However, we argue that public participation on its own does not necessarily lead to deeper understandings of social effects, nor necessarily to democratic input into decision making. We therefore make a case for a new form of Technology Assessment which we call TASC - Technology Assessment in Social Context. It takes a constructive, social systems approach to assess technology in social context and seeks to shape technology and social contexts through information, interaction and dialogue.

Traditional expert (or technocratic) approaches to Technology Assessment have been fundamentally challenged by two observations. The first is that social impacts are not side effects of technology; they are core dimensions of new technology and technological development, and are a function of the coproduction of technology and society. As such, they can only be understood in social, not technical terms. Secondly, technological developments are driven by particular visions for society that are normative. Because these visions (and the latent premises that underpin them) are implicit and not negotiated by society, they are, in effect, undemocratic. Participatory methods have been utilized by Technology Assessment to improve the evaluation of the social and ethical dimensions of technology, and to democratize decision making about science and technology. However, we argue that public participation on its own does not necessarily lead to deeper understandings of social effects, nor necessarily to democratic input into decision making. We therefore make a case for a new form of Technology Assessment which we call TASC - Technology Assessment in Social Context. It takes a constructive, social systems approach to assess technology in social context and seeks to shape technology and social contexts through information, interaction and dialogue.

In democratic societies, protest is a legitimate and necessary way for communities to seek redress for issues that are ignored by decision-makers. In the wake of large projects, communities often find they need to mobilize to achieve respect for their rights and to influence the decision-making processes affecting their lives. Protest action can take many forms (e.g. blockades, rallies, boycotts) constituting a repertoire of contention, which is subject to continuous innovation. With new information and communication technologies (ICTs), digital repertoires of contention are also being enacted (social media, online petitions, digital sit-ins, twittering). This paper integrates the fields of performance theory, social movements, and impact assessment to conceptualize social protest. We identify over 200 forms of protest and related terms and provide a conceptual model to comprehend the contemporary role of protest. We consider that protest is part of the broader unfolding of social dramas, and is a mechanism to seek redressive action in contentious situations, especially between impacted communities and project proponents. Companies and governments that respect the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and meaningfully engage with local people are less likely to experience protest and are more successful in establishing a social licence to operate.

The purpose of this Guidance Note is to provide advice to various stakeholders about what is expected in good practice social impact assessment (SIA) and social impact management processes, especially in relation to project development. Project development refers to dams, mines, oil and gas drilling, factories, ports, airports, pipelines, electricity transmission corridors, roads, railway lines and other infrastructure including large-scale agriculture, forestry and aquaculture projects. This Guidance Note builds on IAIA's (2003) International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. While the International Principles outline the overarching understandings of the SIA field, including the expected values of the profession, this document seeks to provide advice on good practice in the undertaking and appraisal of SIAs and the adaptive management of projects to address the social issues. As a statement of good and sometimes leading practice, not all the information in this document will necessarily be applicable in every situation – people utilising this information will need to establish for themselves what is appropriate in each particular context. The intended users of this document include: • SIA Practitioners/Consultants who want to know how their practice compares with international best practice; • Project Developers/Proponents (private sector or government) to assist them in evaluating SIA consultants and in knowing what to expect from consultants; • Regulatory agencies in terms of judging the quality and acceptability of SIA reports and in determining what procedures and expectations will be; • Social specialists in the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB); • Social staff in other financial institutions, especially Equator Principles banks; • Development cooperation agencies; • Government planning agencies; • Communities and local peoples; • Civil society organizations; • People responsible for SIA regulatory frameworks.

Emerging approaches to environmental governance require a greater level of community participation than did previous approaches in which these responsibilities largely rested with government agencies. There is consequently a need for increased engagement

Emerging approaches to environmental governance require a greater level of community participation than did previous approaches in which these responsibilities largely rested with government agencies. There is consequently a need for increased engagement