SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

, 

; 

C , 

AN 

OVERVIEW 

A REPORT SUBMITTED TO: 

THE U.S. ARMY ENGINEERS 

INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESOURCES 

KINGMAN BUILDING 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060 

CDMSTITUTE FOR 

. 

WATER RESOURCES 

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED 

, 

t 

DECEMBER 1975 IWR 75-P7 
SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

AN OVERVIEW 

A Report Submitted to the: 

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESOURCES 

Kingman Building 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 

By the Consultant Team:. 

Evan Vlachos, Colorado State University (Coordinator) 

Walter Buckley, University of New Hampshire 

William J. Filstead, Northwestern University Medical School 

Sue Ellen Jacobs, University of Washington 

Magoroh Maruyama, Portland State University 

John H. Peterson, Jr., Mississippi State University 

Gene E. Willeke, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

DECEMBER 1975 TWR PAPER 75-P7 
Copies may be purchased from: 

National Technical Information Service 

U. S. Department of Commerce 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 

This report is not to be construed as necessarily representing the views of 

the Federal Government or of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
UNCLASSIFIED 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) 

REPORT DOCUMENTakTION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS 

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 

1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER 

IWR Paper 75-P7 

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED 

Social Impact Assessment: An Overview Final 

6 PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 

7. AUTHOR(e) 8 CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(I6 

Evan Vlachos, Walter Buckley, William J. Filstead, 

Sue Ellen Jacobs, Magoroh Maruyama, John H. DACW31-74-C-0134 to 0139 

Peterson, Jr., Gene E. Willeke 

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK 

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS 

Evan Vlachos, Project Leader 

Colorado State University 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE 

U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources December1975 

Kingman Building 13 NUMBER OF PAGES 

Fort Belvoir,Virginia 22060 117 

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) IS SECURITY CLASS (of this report) 

Unclassified 

15e DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING 

SCHEDULE 

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report) 

18 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Prepared under sponsorship of US Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. 

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) 

Social Impact Assessment, Social Effect Assessment, Community Profiling, 

Social Science Research Methodology, Social Well-Being, Social Indicator 

20 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) 

The report seeks to present an overview of the basic assumptions, priorities, 

methodological strategies and techniques, procedures of data collection, 

organization and analysis for conducting social impact assessment as a part 

of the entire project assessment process. 

._.-... 

D

r, FORM 7,473 Li 1 JAN 73 14 EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) 
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whon Data Entered) 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS P AGE(When Data Entered) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE 

1. INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 General Premises 1 

1.2 Epistemological Perspectives 6 

1.3 Socio-Political Realities 9 

1.4 The Social Scientist 11 

1.5 The Integration of Social Sciences in the Planning Field . 13 

2. HUMAN COMMUNITY (Profiling, Modeling) 

2.0 16 

2.1 Human Community 18 

2.2 Structural 24 

2.3 Cultural 28 

2.4 Interrelationships 33 

2.5 Phenomenological 38 

3. METHODS - ANALYSIS 

3.0 41 

3.1 The General Model of Social Science Research 42 

3.2 Data Gathering 47 

3.3 Data Organization 54 

3.4 Display and Analysis 56 

3.5 Forecasting, or Using Assessment as a Predictive Process . 61 

4. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION 

4.0 67 

4.1 Sources of Evaluation 68 

4.2 Evaluation Criteria and Procedures 70 

5. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 

5.0 85 

5.1 The World of Social Science 85 

5.2 Levels of Competency in Social Science 86 

5.3 The Social Scientists in the Multidisciplinary 

Impact Assessment 86 

5.4 Integration of Social Science Expertise into the Corps . . 87 

5.5 Mutual Education of Engineer/Planners and 

Social Scientists 88 

SUMMARY - RECOMMENDATIONS 90 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 93 

Page 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

1 -- Social Impact Assessment Overview . . . iii 

2 -- Process of Problem Solving and Project Assessment 4 

3 -- Social Impact Assessment and the Context 

of Environmental Analysis 5 

4 -- Background of Social Impact Assessment 22 

5 -- Community Profile, Assessment and Evaluation 23 

6 -- Possible Impact of Planning Process Itself 34 

7 -- Possible Routes of Impact Flow (Much Simplified) 35 

8 -- Model of Possible Separate Impacts of Each Set of 

Major State Variables 36 

9 -- Social Science Methodological Emphases and the SIA Process. 45 

10 -- General Model of Social Science Research 46 

11 -- Approximate Stages in Pre-Project Social Impact Assessment. 57 

12 -- Assessment Steps and Selected Analytical Techniques 66 

13 -- The Process of Goal Reduction and Indicators' Development . 74 

14 -- Generation of Evaluation Criterion Through 

Social Well-Being Goal Emphasis 76 

15 -- Determining Social Well-Being Dimensions 77 

16 -- Process of Developing Social Indicators 80 

17 -- Selected Examples of Probable Cause-Effect Consequences 

in Reservoir Construction 82 

ft 
LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

1 -- Key Structural Variables in Human Community 25 

2 -- Selected Sources of Secondary Data 51 

3 -- Types of Forecasting 64 
ar 

PREFACE 

As indicated by the title, this document is a first response of a team 

of social scientists to the continuous challenge of providing an appropriate 

social sciences framework in the challenging effort of impact assessment by 

the Corps of Engineers. By assembling a group of diverse social scientists, 

the intended outcome was a general discussion of issues and concerns on 

social aspects of the assessment process and the specification of major 

strategies and techniques in answering continuing questions as to methodologies suited to the evaluation of water resources projects. 

In view of the large and increasing literature on SIA and of the continuous efforts of the Corps, it would be presumptuous to present -- with 

limited time and effort -- a comprehensive compendium and specific 

guidelines for conducting the assessment process. What is intended here ' 

is a flexible general framework for delineating persistent problems and 

issues in social impact assessment. However, an effort has been made to 

include some form of specificity by using some relevant examples. 

The key point and major argument of this document needs to be underlined 

in the beginning: in view of the state-of-the-art and because of the 

major disagreements separating social scientists, it is impossible to 

arrive through consensus to agreed upon definitions, specific variables, 

particular social indicators, and largely shared techniques for conducting 

social impact assessment. Yet, the group has at least achieved consensus 

as to the need for a variety of perspectives, with an implicit sensitivity 

for approaching problems of project assessment through diversified approaches. 

At the same time, there runs throughout the text an explicit call to obtain 

inputs not only from above, but also through public participation from 

below. Legal guidelines and inputs from proper authorities, from the 

public affected and from a wide spectrum of disciplines can make possible 

the articulation and achievement of such broad goals as to enrichment of 

the quality of life, the perpetuation of social cohesion, and the economic 

and social enhancement of communities. 

This document is to be read as part of a continuing effort to provide 

both specificity and generalizability relative to the questions of social 

impact assessment. The problem of social impact assessment is elusive, 

the language by necessity is often obscure, the argument occasionally 

torturous, and the conclusions rather evasive. This should not be seen 

as a weakness of the social sciences in providing the rigid and precise 

answers expected from any 'science." The current status of social impact 

assessment reveals not only these limitations, but it also offers an 

opportunity and a flexibility for being more sensitive to the demands of 

a given situation and to the variety of problems encountered when public 

projects disrupt the normal flow of daily life. 

The substance of this document is to present a general conceptual model 

for conducting social impact assessments. It is a first attempt to present 

in a coherent framework the assumptions, priorities, methodological strategies 
and techniques, procedures of data collection, organization and analysis 

of the social impact assessment to the entire project assessment process. 

In essence, the following document is intended to be a pragmatic response 

to the field planner in conceptualizing, conducting and assessing the social 

impact of Corps projects. 

There are many ways of proceeding with the analytic requirements of 

each SIA step. The sequence of this document runs more or less parallel 

to that outlined in Section 122 Guidelines, i.e., profiling, projecting, 

assessing, evaluating. Such a sequence must be seen in the context of the 

particular argument. Thus, the present document has modified in some 

respects the emphasis in assessment sequence, by more in-depth elaboration 

of theoretical and conceptual issues. The congruence of the steps in 

Section 122 Guidelines and the present discussion can be seen in the 

juxtapositions of Figure 1. The SIA overview in this figure relates in 

brief form the steps of the assessment process, central methodological 

strategies, intended output, and reference to pertinent sections throughout 

the present document. Although mitigating circumstances and decision-making 

are included in this figure, there is no attempt at further discussion in 

the following text. 

The present argument revolves around five major parts that are briefly 

presented here as indicative of the general philosophy and thrust of the 

social guidelines. 

1. Introduction 

A first step in the development of social impact guidelines is the 

construction of a general conceptual scheme and approach to the basic 

processes that may be involved, in what is a very complex and largely 

uncharted field. The social sciences have a variety of general, often 

contending, "theories" about the nature of social systems. Thus, much of 

the conceptual work that anyone can offer is of a sensitizing rather than 

operational nature. Economic and demographic data, for example, can be 

specified quite exactly, but the psychological, cultural and social causes 

of this data can often only be roughly and indirectly indicated. 

Fundamental to any attempt to understand the impact of a phenomenon 

on social life is to realize what assumptions, beliefs, and values individuals or groups bring to bear in comprehending the social world in which 

they live. These frames of reference provide individuals with a structure 

for thinking about and a meaning system for attaching values to people, 

places, or things. It is, indeed, well-understood that groups with different backgrounds and experience view the world with different frames of 

reference, and are often unaware of the differences. The planning and 

impact assessment staff has to make an explicit effort to take into 

account its own frames of reference and how they contrast with those of 

the affected publics. 

ii 
Impact Assessment 

H. 

Critical variables 

Forecasting 

Social Indicators 

Measurement Scales and 

Models 

Profiling 

Projecting 

EvaZuation 

FIGURE 1 -- Social Impact Assessment Overview 

Steps Key Methodological Approach Output or Desired Emphasis Pertinent Report 

Sections 

- Presentation of general model 

- Data structuring 

- Major interrelationships 

- Generation of alternatives 

- Potential futures 

- Description of significant impacts 

- Delineation of irreversible effects 

- Evaluation and display of impacts 

- Analysis of long-range consequences 

- Reformulation of alternatives , 

- Consistent sets of scenarios 

2.3 

2.4 

3.5 

3.0 3.2 

3.1 3.3 

3.4 

4.1 

4.2 

1.1 

2.1 

2.2 

Mitigation "Optimization" and - Explication of constraints 

"Suboptimization" - Compensatory measures 

- Design modifications 

- Alleviation of adverse effects 

Decision-making Decision Models - Decision outcomes 

- Quantification of judgements 

- Dealing with complexity 

- Basis for implementation 
Cultural and political diversities in values, interests, ideology, and 

power or influence are an intimate part of the social reality surrounding 

project planning and impact assessment. In maintaining sensitivity to 

these many facets of the situation as perceived by the Corps planners, it 

is important to determine how the viewpoints of the various parties to a 

project are affected by and in turn affect the course of the project. The 

field planner can be alert to issues which may present difficulties to the 

Corps or the public and can use this knowledge to facilitate discussion 

of key issues. 

Finally, the document emphasizes that any social model must be treated 

as tentative. Predicted impacts are always subject to updating and reevaluation. Better assessment models and procedures will only develop on the 

basis of accumulated attempts and continual refinement -- often of a trial 

and error nature. 

2. Human Community ["Profiling"] 

The term "human community" as the central concern in SIA has multiple 

definitions. In the broadest sense it refers to groupings of individuals 

with some interrelatedness and interdependence that can be defined along 

a multidimensional continuum from small, homogeneous and cohesive groupings 

living and working together in the same place, to large, heterogeneous 

clusterings, be they metropolitan, state, or even regional. Three aspects 

of human community are elaborated in the text: the ecological, structural, 

and cultural-phenomenological. 

Having identified the potential community(ies), the suggested Community 

profile variables may be seen as the major "state variables" defining the 

current state of the relevant social system. Depending on the project 

under consideration, the relevant field professionals must decide which 

sets of variables should be initially selected for data analysis. Given 

important variables defining the impacted social systems, a model of how 

these tend to be interrelated (often in complex and non-linear manner) 

should be drawn up. 

Two different approaches characterize this process. The deductive 

starts with a general model of social reality, appropriate profiling, and 

development of pertinent indicators. The inductive approach, on the other 

hand, although starting with some broad visions about the world around us, 

concentrates first on the identification of critical variables, structured 

into a model, assessed and evaluated through pertinent indicators. Some 

social scientists think that categories established prior to data collection 

introduce a bias which causes data to be forced into artificial categories. 

These social scientists argue that data will fall into "natural" categories 

if the researcher proceeds without preconceived notions of how data should 

aggregate. 

iv 
The goal of a predictive model is the set of relevant quality of life 

variables and related indicators, not the many intervening variables that 

may be involved. These variables and indicators should be specified. 

However, social impacts are mediated by individuals as members of sociocultural groups, through which the attitudes, values, and definitions of 

their situations are generated and maintained. The planner must be 

sensitive to these changeable community responses. 

4 3. Methods - Analysis 

Procedures and techniques for the collection, organization, display ( 

and analysis of data relevant to social impact assessments are discussed 

in this section. Basic questions such as when to collect what kind of 

data, what techniques are most appropriate, what sources of data to use, 

what analyses are most appropriate, and how these activities can be integrated to help understand and evaluate the community with and without the 

proposed project are discussed. 

A very important issue in this section is the problem of data distortion 

and errors in inferences. Social data collection is especially subject to 

distortions which may not be easily recognized as such due to frames of 

reference and sociocultural conditioning of which the researcher is unaware. 

Social data gathered for impact assessment need to be organized and easily 

accessible. This involves standardization and indexing. Despite this, 

the validity and reliability of social data collected remain a vexing 

problem. 

Social impact assessment requires also the construction of criteria 

or indices of quality of life or social well-being, and these are 

especially subject to a number of limitations and distortions. Quality 

of life data imply a set of reference values, which differ for different 

subgroups. Thus, the reference set used in particular cases must be 

specified. 

Finally, social impact assessment involves prediction of possible 

effects and an evaluation of long-range consequences. Both of these 

requirements -- prediction and evaluation -- pose difficult problems for 

which there are presently no generally accepted solutions. The social 

methodology involved is only in its infancy and only simple projections 

or extrapolations over a few years are justified. Thus, it is essential 

that highly experienced social scientists familiar with the areas under 

study undertake the predictions and evaluations. However, as a general 

introduction to the area of forecasting, procedures and techniques are 

also briefly discussed. 

4. Assessment and Evaluation 

This section discusses the sociopolitical process of assessing and 

evaluating various project impacts and the limitation and constraints of 

the kinds of data collected. It concludes by relating social impact 
assessment to the broader processes of environmental and economic assessments. 

The process of evaluating the social impact of a project is essentially 

the process of making value judgments about the kind, degree, intensity, 

and duration of its effects. All parties do not perceive these in the same 

way. The Corps, as well as the others involved in a project, see the 

social impacts from their own vantage points. Thus, it is to be expected 

that divergent groups may see the social impact of a project differently. 

The "valuative" character of this phase makes also imperative a high 

level of systematic and extensive citizen participation in the planning 

and assessment of projects in order: 

to identify goals against which alternative plans may be assessed; 

to identify points of conflict so that an equitable distribution 

of values and costs may be ascertained; 

to provide necessary information about perceived as well as anticipated 

impacts; 

to solicit the widespread community support needed for the success of 

the project. 

However, some set of ranked goals and values must be used as a baseline 

for judgment, the planner must make explicit those that his group is using. 

A good set of impact data expressed in terms of quality of life indicators 

may pretty much speak for themselves, or provide a clear basis for evaluation by the groups involved through the political process. To this extent, 

the final decisions may be lifted from the Corps' shoulders. 

5. Management - Operations 

In the final part of the guidelines a general discussion of the world 

of social scientists and its relationship to the perspective and work of 

engineers and planners takes place. These professional viewpoints need 

to be understood by the individuals involved in social impact assessment. 

It is especially important to know what social scientists are needed for a 

project and what kind of social science information is most appropriate 

for the project. This section concludes with some remarks concerning how 

these viewpoints can be integrated into the entire impact assessment 

process. Some recommendations are given about current attempts by the 

Corps in refining and applying principles of social impact assessment. 

v i 
INTRODUCTION 

1.1 General Premises 

It would be a truism to repeat that concern with the "environment" has 

become a key preoccupation in many disciplines. Vast amounts of writing, 

research, concern and legislation are describing ramifications of man's 

actions on his ecosystem and problems resulting from the spillovers of 

technological advancements. However, the general social concern with the 

despoliation of the environment and the threat to survival has not remained 

abstract, but it has become part of legal and social policies designed to 

protect our surroundings. The cornerstone of such legal protection is the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which has also become a federal 

document of immense consequence for encouraging interdisciplinary coordination. 

NEPA may be used to exemplify the shift in concern over an appropriate 

and careful consideration of all environmental aspects of proposed 

technological actions. Such an act was made possible because negative 

effects of a variety of public projects has become more visible, the concern 

over the high momentum and the fast pace of technological change has become 

widespread. There has also been a pervasive feeling that each person is 

only a secondary part to decisions about the exploitation of resources. 

The present market forces did not seem to be satisfactory in allocating 

secondary costs, and the legal system seems to be relatively ineffective 

in coping with technological damages. The seventies, following the 

environmental fervor of the late sixties, are shaping major environmental 

legislation concerned with comprehensive planning. 

A new comprehensive future-oriented approach has come about according 

to Toffler in his "Future Shock" as a reaction to three basic characteristics 

of planning in industrial nations: 

a. obsession with economics to the exclusion of other concerns; 

b. a time bias that regards five years as a "long-range"; 

c. the elitist character of planning that removes decision from the 

ordinary citizen and hands it over to remote experts and bureaucrats. 

What makes the discussion of environment and holistic planning more 

urgent today is a general agreement that major environmental problems seem 

to threaten the very existence of humanity. In this respect, social 

scientists may help delineate social and cultural conditions, which give 

rise to environmental problems as well as to propose solutions. Since 

harmful effects of technology seem to constitute the essence of the 

"environmental problems", our approach centers around the notion that any 

public project or major program requires the answer to three crucial and 

interrelated questions: 
V"' 

1. How do we balance, in an equitable manner, costs and benefits 

involved in the alteration of the surrounding environments? 

2. How do we make appropriate changes and transitions to new 

states without unacceptable disruptions to all systems? 

3. How do we measure in a valid, reliable, and comparable manner 

impacts and, therefore, provide guidance for alternative planning 

options? 

In every activity, public project, technological innovation, or program 

implementation that involves the commitment of significant amounts of 

natural and human resources, we need to examine closer what effects, in 

addition to ecological or economic ramifications, may befall the social 

structure of given communities or social groups. 

In many recent reports, government directives, legislative requirements, 

analytical works, and other documents, explicitly or implicitly, reference 

is made to three conditions necessary for an appropriate response to 

environmental challenges: 

a. Efficiency, or growth in material development so that a 

solid base of economic sufficiency can be maintained. 

b. Equity, or fair access of resources and consumption to 

different segments of the population. 

c. Effectiveness, or the overall significance of any project 

or policy vis-a-vis the pursuing of certain larger social 

goals. 

What these conditions imply is a balanced natural resource policy that 

recognizes the social needs of the citizens as well as larger long-range 

objectives of communities and the nation. 

Since the focus of the present work is not an analysis of EIS or NEPA 

but the specific requirements of 122 Guidelines, we do not intend to repeat 

the discussions on the broader environmental impact statement or its legal 

and methodological requirements. Instead, this document focuses explicitly 

on the social impact components of the total Corps planning process. In 

general, however, for the social scientist, the problems are similar to those 

in other disciplines: an adequate description of ambient conditions, proper 

analysis of all possible impacts, and, finally, presentation of all reasonable alternatives for a proposed action. Yet, further problems arise when 

we try to combine essentially non-comparable items, such as the cost of 

the project, the social desirability of the proposed action and the 

intensity of impacts in some composite measure. 

2 
Environmental impact analysis often challenges sacred assumptions and 

the inertia of traditional approaches. Intense self-criticism, questioning 

of presumed objectives, and participatory planning become not only a noble 

cry but a requirement of integrated planning and assessment procedures. 

More than anything else, recent developments point to the need of articulating a vision about society and life and a basis for elaborating desired 

future goals which has so far been avoided in traditional planning. 

In most documents anything which focuses on people is deemed a "social 

impact." Social impact assessment can be broadly understood as an appraisal 

of short- and long-range consequences of technological change on affected 

human communities. The interpretation of NEPA and of related documents 

leads, then, to the following general outline of the social impact assessment procedure: 

1. Definition of the problem or felt need that suggests a particular 

project. 

2. Determination of the impacted communities. 

3. Modeling of impacted communities in terms of profile variables 

and relationships between them. 

4. Projection of possible impacts over selected time period. 

5. Projection of community model without the project over the same 

period. 

6. Assessment of net community changes probably due to the project, 

with comparison of alternative versions of the project. 

7. Evaluation of various impacts in terms of benefits and liabilities 

for different community groups. 

The recent environmental legislation has also made it imperative to 

study the integration of social sciences with natural sciences, the 

estimation of social costs, the effects of public projects on communities, 

and the social policy alternatives concerning various technological changes. 

In this spirit the overall approach of the present document, in conjunction 

with the SIA overview suggested in Figure 1, can be summarized in a 

descriptive diagram that shows the major areas of concern with both the 

letter and the spirit of NEPA and similar documents or guidelines that 

exemplify efforts of assessment through systematic problem solving (Figure 

2). The specific derivative of this basic framework of problem solving 

and assessment is summary Figure 3, which exemplifies the major steps 

included in the 122 Guidelines. The congruence between these two schemes 

(and many similar efforts) underlines also the common thread and steps of 

all assessment efforts, namely profiling, projecting, assessing and 

evaluating. Before proceeding, however, with a more careful analysis of 

such steps (elaborated in Section 2.1), some further introductory remarks 

on the framework, approach, and perspectives of social sciences must be 

made. 
I. Problem Formulation 

2. Variable Specification 

3. Model 

4. Generation of Alternatives 

5. Evaluation of Alternatives 

6. Decision - Making 

—6'. Visions, Assumptions 

( Probable, Plausible or 

Desirable Futures ) 

--0. What is 

—* Variable 

Specification 

--•• Model 

--ip. Range of 

Alternatives 

—.. Significant Effects 

( Impacts and 

Consequences) 

—0. Evaluation 

--. Decision -Making 

Trade- Offs 

Describing the problem 

Clusterof critical variables and 

their dimensions 

Structuring the problem, Interrlationship 

of variables 

Range of reasonable alternatives 

Measuring significant impacts and 

consequences 

Acceptable or feasible design, 

mitigating circumstances 

FIGURE 2 -- Process of Problem Solving and Project Assessment 
 "Without" 

Environ. 

1 

V I Econ. Social 

Evaluate - 0.1 

Projections ' 

Extrapolations 

Forecasts 

FIGURE 3 -- Social Impact Assessment and the Context of Environmental Analysis 

- - 

—41 Feasible 

Plan 

Recommendations 

- --A■ = of primary concern here 

= also part of the larger planning effort 
1.2 Epistemological Perspectives 

One helpful way of trying to understand the ideas, beliefs and values 

of individuals and/or groups is to examine the frames of reference that 

are used by them in comprehending the world in which they live. These 

frames of reference provide individuals with a structure for thinking about 

and a meaning system for attaching values to people, places or things. 

Although it can be argued that no two individuals share the same frame 

of reference, it is also apparent that in order for society to exist individuals have to develop a shared view of social life. The essence of social 

life is people doing things together. And when people do things together 

they influence and are influenced by others. This give and take between 

individuals and groups produces a social order which exerts an influence 

on the very individuals who create it. Such is the nature of social life 

and why it is possible to study the influence of the structure of society 

on the collective action of individuals and groups. 

Thinking about society this way leads to the assumption that there 

are multiple frames of reference which reflect the diversity and plurality 

of society itself. This point is central to the Corps' activity for in 

planning and carrying out impact assessment the Corps has to be aware of 

both its own frames of reference (which are quite complex because of the 

various professions and disciplines involved in the assessment process), 

and also frames of reference of people in the impacted area. 

(a) The Corps frames of reference 

The Corps of Engineers is composed throughout by professionals representing such diverse disciplines as engineering, physical science, 

geography, and in recent years economies, sociology, and anthropology. 

What professions will become involved in the work of the Corps can only be 

guessed at, but psychology and other fields may become integral to impact 

assessment teams. 

The addition of these new kinds of professionals in the Corps has and 

will bring in not only new knowledge and new skills, but more importantly, 

new kinds of frameworks, and philosophies. This creates excitement and 

enrichment as well as puzzlement, misunderstandings, and frustrations. 

Thus, each profession brings in not only new information and a new 

perspective but also a different structure of reasoning regarding the 

same subject. Many scientists are quite upset by challenges to the 

notion that there is one logic and one truth which is universally valid. 

But now the Corps is required to take social and cultural considerations into account. Extending the universalistic paradigm to which they 

are familiar, engineers tend to look for a universal formula for human 

happiness, social well-being and quality of life. (It must be added 

that many economists and even a considerable number of sociologists, 

anthropologists and psychologists do the same. In their effort to be 

"scientific," they emulate the Newtonian physics rather than the most 

recent scientific paradigm of mutual causality and heterogenization). 
Universe: Predetermined. 

Unchanging. 

Reasoning: Deductive, 

Axiomatic. 

Knowledge: 

Society: Hierarchical 

Ethics: Competitive 

Social Ideal: Homogeneity 

Community of Ignorant, 

People Viewed Uninformed. 

as: 

One truth. If 

people are informed, 

they will agree. 

Not only society is heterogeneous, but also its logics may be heterogeneous. That is to say, there may be many logics (one of which is the 

homogenis tic logic). For the sake of illustration, three logics are 

used as examples in order to compare their characteristics. Since they 

are only examples, they are not meant to be exhaustive nor mutually 

exclusive. 

Uniformistic Logic of Mutual Causal 

Logic Independent Events Logic 

Scientific Newton's celes- Thermodynamics 

theories: mechanics. 

Assessment: 

Data 

Collection: 

Planning 

Procedure: 

"Impact" 

Analysis. 

Classificational 

By "experts." Keep 

community uninformed 

or inform them in 

such a way that they 

will agree. 

Decaying 

Universe 

Inductive, 

cumulative, 

additive. 

Why bother to learn 

beyond one's own 

interest. 

Individualistic 

Isolationist 

Decentralization 

Egocentric 

What does it do 

to me? 

Statistical 

No planning. 

Self-organizing noise 

by resonance. Condensation theory in 

astronomy 

Self-organizing and 

self-generating universe. Evolution. 

Contextual, 

relevanceselective. 

Must learn different 

views and take them 

into consideration. 

Interactionist 

Symbiotic 

Heterogeneity 

Articulate in their 

own view. Essential 

in determining 

relevance. 

Feedback loops for 

self-reinforcement 

or self-cancellation. 

Analysis of patterns, 

context and networks. 

Generated and participated by community 

people. 
Uniformistic 

Logic 

Logic of Mutual Causal 

Independent Events Logic 

Decision: Dictatorship, 

majority rule 

or consensus. 

Do your own thing. Elimination of hardship on minorities 

and on any single 

individual. 

Thus, new conceptual frameworks and alternative interpretative schemes 

provide additional ways of understanding and proceeding with impact assessment. Obviously, with a plurality of frames of reference no longer can one 

assume that there exists a "right" or "correct" answer or solution to impact 

assessment. Rather than providing definitive solutions to impact assessment, 

these frames of reference make us extremely aware of the relative nature 

of value judgments. It is also at this point that one must draw an 

important distinction between assessment, which requires more or less 

analytic objectivity; and evaluation, which incorporates a variety of 

value assumptions or subjective judgments. 

The planner and/or team involved in impact assessment, understanding 

the implications of multiple frames of reference, can no longer ask the 

question, "What are the adverse and beneficial effects of a Corps' project?" 

-- now the phrase from "whose point of view" has to be added. If everyone 

can be sensitized (the leadership of the Corps, the Division and District 

leadership, the personnel responsible for impact assessment) to the phrase 

"from whose point of view" a level of awareness of cultural diversity will 

have been achieved which should add immeasurably to the process of impact 

assessment. 

(b) Publics' frames of reference 

Just As within the Corps there are multiple frames of reference to 

consider, the same is true of the impacted area. The individuals in an 

impact area by virtue of being members of different racial and cultural 

groups, different social classes, different age, economic, religious, and 

political groups, see uniqueness in the world they live in and a shared 

consensus with other individuals who make up their world. 

In assessing social impacts, it is especially important, in the light 

of socio-political realities, to determine whether the publics' frames of 

reference do or do not fit with those of the Corps. In maintaining this 

sensitivity, the planner can be alert to issues which may present difficulties 

to the Corps or publics. He can use his knowledge of the diversity of 

viewpoints and the sources of actual or potential community conflict, to 

develop and promote discussions of issues which can encompass the wide 

spectrum of these world views. 

8 
1.3 Socio-Political Realities 

Assessing the multiple impacts of Corps projects is a complex and 

complicated process at best. A major aspect of this complexity is the 

fact that impacts, be they environmental, economic or social, are not in 

controlled laboratory settings but in the everyday world of people. People 

with a variety of frames of reference, points of view, values, expectations, 

etc., about what is the best possible life for them. Given this plurality 

one can see how disagreements might emerge over the appropriateness or 

inappropriateness of any given Corps project. 

A lot of different people participate in raising issues, asking 

questions, and providing tentative solutions to the vexing problems of 

water resource planning. How are the varied value judgments of these 

different publics incorporated in impact assessment. 

Socio-political considerations are a major reality that confronts any 

evaluator, regardless of the area of evaluation or the nature of the 

individual project itself. Socio-political considerations, i.e., those 

forces which enable an individual or group to influence or be influenced 

by others, take on added importance in impact assessment because of the 

potentially profound effects of Corps projects. Engaging in the evaluation of projects for the public interest necessitates studying the diverse 

commitments the various groups or publics have vis-a-vis the project and 

the impacted area. In short, since there are likely differential,'if 

not conflicting, interests on the part of the multiple publics to any given 

Corps project, methods of impact assessment that can capture this diversity 

have to be utilized. 

Throughout this document, the word public(s) or public interest or 

community interest is repeatedly used. By public interest we simply mean 

interests of all affected parties that ought to be taken into account in 

weighing the potentially adverse or beneficial effects of a Corps project. 

Given the importance of identifying, understanding, and responding to 

the multiple frames of reference used by individuals to comprehend their 

social worlds, a consideration of socio-political realities makes us keenly 

aware of the need to clearly specify to the public the standards and criteria 

by which important policy decisions are reached. Impact assessment or 

evaluation always have explicit political overtones. They are designed 

and implemented with the clear intention of yielding conclusions about the 

worth or value of a project vis-a-vis the framework in which the project 

is conceived. The rationale for conducting impact assessment is that it 

provides a foundation of evidence upon which judgment, policy decisions, 

and actions can be made about either implementing, constructing, maintaining 

and expanding current or proposed projects, or postponing, re-evaluating, 

modifying or abandoning current or proposed projects. This process 

inevitably leads to decisions which are unavoidably partisan. For, regardless of the evaluative criteria or social indicators used, the public may 

have a different priority. Any set of social indicators is also partisan 

in what is left out and as a result, the unintended consequences of any 

9 
Corps project may be far more important to certain parties than the few 

(often vague) intentions of its sponsors (for example, the new benefits 

accrued to duck hunters from a new body of water, as contrasted to the 

primary purpose of augmenting the municipal supplies of a nearby community). 

Thus, in social impact assessments there is a lot that is threatening 

to everyone involved -- the Corps, politicians, federal agencies, interest 

groups, planners, publics, and the community. The more everyone understands 

the better they can cooperate in their respective roles in impact assessment. 

But are there potential problems that can alert these parties to sensitive 

areas? Again, the following examples are not meant to be definitive but 

are only indicative of the potential problems outlined above. 

1. The role of the evaluator(s) is vitally important to impact assessment. Is the evaluator(s) an advocate or a protagonist or a 

neutral party to the impact assessment? Is the evaluator(s) a 

member of an "in house" or "out of house" team? How is the role 

of the evaluator(s) seen by the Corps, the various publics, and 

by the evaluator(s) himself? What circumstances, e.g., size of 

project, type of project, etc., play a part in shaping the role 

the evaluator(s) plays? 

2. Too many times agencies and organizations state their goals in 

broad, general terms that really cannot be evaluated. Therefore, 

one of the most pressing tasks is to state goals in measurable 

terms. Often it may be up to the evaluator to help translate the 

goals, objectives, and basic questions into something that can be 

measured. Also it is important for the Corps to be aware of the 

need to assess the goals and objectives as perceived by the parties 

affected by the project. Then expectations can be put together 

for some collectively shared goals. 

Planning projects involve people with their expectations and 

values. Projects that involve people have a fluid quality to them. 

Because of this dynamic character, a flexible approach to impact 

assessment has to be pursued in light of changing priorities placed 

on project goals and objectives. 

3. The literature on organizational theory suggests that organizations 

are rarely what they pretend to be. That is, there seems to be a 

distinction made between the formal and informal or the stated and 

the real objectives of an organization. It is important to 

realize that how organizations are built, what they do, and the 

consequences of this structure and process are frequently quite 

different from the formal or public statements about such matters. 

This suggests that the Corps needs to be aware of the influence 

of these processes on Corps projects. What promotes this dichotomy 

in perspective and what consequences does it have on public opinion 

about projects? This literature should make us cognizant of the 

socio-political ramifications of the "public" and "private" side 

of projects. 

10 
As mentioned earlier other interests could have political consequences 

on Corps projects. Attaining the project goals, avoiding outside political 

pressures and litigation, demonstrating fiscal responsibility, making one's 

ideological or technical point, etc., all mean different things to different people. It is important to Corps projects to understand what these 

meanings are. 

Finally, what needs to be understood is that impact assessment implies 

public(s) participation, and participation implies both political pluralism 

and new uncertainty, namely, that impact assessments are continually subject to renegotiation and change. 

1.4 The Social Scientist 

Social scientists have theory, concepts, methods, data and interpreted 

findings to offer to the water resources planner. Occasionally, the transfer is easy and straightforward. Usually, there is difficulty because the 

social scientist and the planner operate in somewhat different worlds. 

The language is different, and the categories and approaches are different. 

Theory 

Social scientists are usually quick to say their theories are in early 

and tentative state of development. This is certainly true in comparison 

with theories about the physical world. Yet, there is a large body of 

theoretical work in the social sciences which is useful to the water 

resources planner in several ways: a) it can sensitize the planner to 

conditions and relationships he might otherwise not recognize; b) it can 

give the planner a better understanding of how social systems function; 

and c) it provides a framework which can assist in direct assessment of 

social impacts. 

Concepts 

Many of the concepts of social scientists have, to some extent, 

passed into the general vocabulary, and as a result often now appear 

obvious at least in their general meaning. Yet, for this very reason it 

is often possible to forget that these concepts did not seem so obvious 

until they were empirically developed and tested. The rejection of these 

concepts can weaken a planning effort. The concept of opinion leadership, 

for example, seems trivial in retrospect. Yet, communication programs 

were and are designed as though there were no such concept. 

11 
J 

Data 

Much of the data of the social scientist is "soft" and subject to 

some diversity in interpretation, particularly when compared with 

engineering data. As a result, in the recent past use of social data has 

often been limited to population and other demographic data. Many more 

data are available, however, and in doing social impact assessment it is 

necessary to gather and utilize these data as will be discussed in the 

third section of this report. 

Who Are Social Scientists? 

Like engineers, there are many kinds of social scientists. This topic 

is discussed more fully in the fifth section of this report, but at least 

six broad groupings of social scientists should be recognized: a) anthropologists, b) economists, c) political scientists, d) sociologists, e) 

social psychologists, and f) geographers. 

What Do Social Scientists Do? 

Work by social scientists can be divided into two categories: descriptive and analytical. In doing descriptive work, the social scientists 

collects data. His special expertise is in deciding what kind of data 

is relevant, how it can be collected, and how it can be organized and 

presented in a useful fashion. In doing analytical work, the social 

scientist seeks relationships among social variables. These relationships may allow for understanding social systems, making projections, or 

inferring causal or probalistic relationships. 

The final statement made by a social scientist may not appear dissimilar on the surface from those made by laymen. The difference is the 

reliance by the social scientists on science, rigor, and professional 

judgment. As a result, the social scientist has a foundation for his 

statement and is prepared to support it. 

What Don't Social Scientists Do? 

The images of social scientists held by non-scientists vary from the 

sublime to the ridiculous. They are sometimes thought to be able to 

completely comprehend and control society in an optimal manner. They plan 

parties and make people happy. They are advocates of Social Security, 

social outcasts, the poor, and racial or other minorities. 

The first image is false. The other two images are also false, though 

individuals may be especially adept at planning parties and individuals may 

be advocates for one or more of the positions or groups mentioned above. 

Individual engineers, musicians, and businessmen do likewise. It would 

not be surprising, however, to find a somewhat higher percentage of social 

12 
scientists becoming advocates for particular groups or positions because 

their work often leads to an understanding of the problems of some group. 

Thus, just as a biologist might raise an alarm upon discovering an animal 

species was in danger of extinction, so the social scientist might speak 

out on behalf of some social group suffering an injustice or encountering 

special problems. 

The social scientist is sometimes thought to be able to make statements and judgments with very little effort and money. This is also a 

false impression. When data must be acquired and detailed studies made 

of a situation, the social scientist requires resources of people, time, 

and money just as does the surveyor, the geologist, the hydrologist, and 

the engineer/planner. 

When Should The Social Scientist Be Used? 

This question is addressed more fully towards the end of the document. 

The general answer is that there are roles for social scientists throughout 

the planning process leading to the final assessment of social impacts. 

The roles change through time, of course, ordinarily, more time would be 

spent in sensitizing the planner and collecting data in the early stages. 

In later stages, the emphasis would shift to organization and analysis of 

data, and interpreting the findings in light of proposed alternatives. 

There should be a close relationship between social impact assessment 

and public involvement in planning. To some extent, the same persons 

would be working in both roles. The social scientist should himself assist 

in deciding where, when, and how he should participate in the planning process. Assigning the social scientist to perform a particular set of tasks 

is likely to lead to underutilization of his skills, and knowledge. While 

this is true of all planning team participants, it is especially important 

with social scientists because the planner is less likely to appreciate 

fully the potential roles of the social scientist. By contrast, the roles 

of the hydrologist, geologist, and civil engineer are usually much better 

understood. 

1.5 The Integration of Social Sciences in the Planning Field 

A few remarks may conclude the introduction and general understanding 

of social impact assessment and its actual or potential practitioners. We 

do not really need to enter into an extensive argument in order to justify 

the professional credentials and the necessity for social sciences input 

in interdisciplinary research. What we should emphasize, since recent 

environmental legislation much more explicitly requires the presence of 

social scientists, are the roles that they might be called upon to play 

in the context of environmental studies, public project assessment, or 

in the general planning process. Such roles may include: 

13 
4 

4 

1. Competent consultant, by providing proper advice as to how to 

maintain or alter existing social arrangements to make collective 

life more harmonious and satisfying. 

2. Policy planner, not only by using in a systematic way relevant 

sociological data and by formulating and elaborating coherent 

systems of social indicators; but also by clarifying values, 

assessing needs, or formulating appropriate criteria and standards. 

3. Evaluator, by analyzing effects of perturbations, assessing longrange consequences, and considering new solutions to a variety of 

problems. 

4. Practitioner by facilitating the transition to "new states," 

implementing social change through established organizations, and 

articulating public issues. 

The social scientist is also a researcher studying not only the overall structure of society, institutions and social relationships, but also 

providing explanations which may help predict trends or events. This 

role as a researcher is an extension of the broader role of scientist who 

considers how new knowledge is acquired and used for the betterment of 

society. Thus, the acquisition of new knowledge (researcher) should complement the marshalling of existing knowledge (consultant and practitioner). 

Three key questions seem to characterize the interest, preoccupation, 

and imagery of social sciences. The first has to do with the units of 

interaction. What kinds of entities participate in social interaction? 

Are we talking about individuals, groups, gangs, families, communities, or 

nations? The second has to do with the process of interaction. What are 

the components or phases of this process and how do various units or 

entities go about organizing their activities? The third has to do with 

what has been broadly defined as the matrix of interaction, i.e., the 

physical or social space in which interaction takes place. Around these 

key topics essentially related to the social process, major subject areas 

in social sciences have developed. Important are, among others, theory 

and methods (i.e., the logic, strategy and techniques for analysis of 

societies), social organization and institutions (the specialized groups 

or social aggregates that make up society), population and ecology (both 

the composition and changes in the relationship between people and their 

environment), and social psychology (the preoccupation with the individual 

as a social unit and problems of personality and attitudes toward the 

surrounding world). 

Needless to say, this is a rather perfunctory way of describing the 

vast realm of a science, its areas of interest, its units of analysis, 

its epistemological premises, and the quest for an application of resulting 

knowledge to the pursuit of certain social policies. The social sciences 

enterprise seeks to understand and explain regularities or variations and 

interdependencies throughout all categories of social life. Social 

scientists follow patterns of organized social life diachronically. They 

J 

14 
also study how social change may destroy old social forms and create new 

ones. 

A final remark needs to be made on a question which divides quite a 

number of social scientists, namely whether they should work for practical 

ends. Beyond the use of accumulated scientific knowledge for an understanding of major social processes and an explanation of basic social 

problems, what is the role of "applied" social science and the perennial 

doubts as to how one can accommodate scientific objectivity with field 

implementation. This is particuarly pertinent for environmental studies 

where a high degree of application seems appropriate. In recent debates, 

there appears to be agreement, at least among a significant portion of 

social scientists, that with proper safeguards there is no reason why 

professionals cannot directly participate in the application of their 

special knowledge. On the other hand, many social scientists would argue 

that the possession of basic knowledge alone is not a sufficient preparation 

for engaging in "social engineering." Yet, it should be recognized that 

as social scientists become more and more involved not only in new analytical studies, but also in a more direct way in the affairs of society, they 

will inevitably have to answer some very sensitive questions as to whether 

their proper relationships to the people are with "clients" whom they are 

supposed to serve. 

At the same time, it should not be forgotten that there is definitely 

a danger of overselling the potentiality of help in practical affairs by 

believing that social scientists can come to the rescue of a society beset 

by social problems, conflicting goals, or contending power groups. The 

scientists in the discipline themselves are aware of the limitations of 

the field as well as of the great opportunities. It seems indeed appropriate that the field of environmental studies and the legal requirements 

for an immediate involvement in social cost estimation offer one of the 

keenest challenges both for advancing the field and for offering fresh 

perspectives to the social and behavioral sciences in contributing together 

with other disciplines to the understanding and solution of emerging 

environmental problems. 

15 
HUMAN COMMUNITY [Profiling, Modeling] 

2.0 

The title of this chapter is intentionally all-encompassing and general. 

By using the broad term "human community" as a catalyst for the following 

expositon, we want to underscore the circular argument of social impact 

assessment. It should be recalled that a distinction was made between 

inductive and deductive approaches. While the thrust and continuity of 

the argument remains the same as outlined in Figure 1 (profiling-projecting-assessing-evaluating), here we want to recast the concern of social 

sciences in other categories. Thus, after some general remarks on modeling, we can outline critical variables, elaborate the basis for assessment, 

and return through an analysis of interrelationships to the original 

question of a required framework for viewing systematically human 

community. In Chapter 3 and in the general presentation of methodological 

issues, we return to the question of assessment, keeping in mind the role 

of forecasting techniques. 

A model implies the conceptualization of a group of phenomena constructed by a rationale. This rationale can be constructed either 

through analogy, or in an iconic manner (constructed for scale to directly 

resemble a set of properties), or, finally, in a symbolic manner through 

the meaningful interconnection of concepts. A model, then, although less 

than the reality it depicts, is a map that may be simple enough to be 

grasped at a glance, a simple representation of more complex forms, processes and functions. 

Thus, ideally, we want to incorporate in social impact assessment a 

model-building capability to idealize reality in order to demonstrate 

certain of its properties, facilitate understanding, and enhance prediction. As models move from the real world (observation) to the highest 

level of elaboration (symbolic), information is lost and the model becomes 

more general. The ultimate purpose is to furnish the terms, components, 

relations, and propositions of a formal system, which, if validated, 

becomes a theory. 

Models (rationales), theories (axiomatized propositions), and paradigms (inductive visions about the world around us) are all part of the 

scientific enterprise of describing, analyzing, and predicting phenomena. 

Models, as maps organizing our understanding of social conditions, are 

important for starting a systematic assessment of technological actions 

upon social systems. Desirable as this may be, modeling in social 

sciences is plagued, among others, with such difficulties as: 

a. inadequacies in the knowledge of the state of the system, such 

as initial conditions, critical variables, external inputs, etc.; 

16 
b. simplifying assumptions about the social system which may lead 

to quite erroneous values or parameters, or misinterpretation of 

interdependencies; 

c. lack of, inadequate, or difficult to obtain data for model validation; 

d. problems of large systems (especially social systems) which so 

far -- and perhaps forever -- seem to transcend our ability to 

translate into complete and accurate description, especially in 

symbolic form; 

e. confusing causal links with interconnections sometimes spurious 

and other times difficult to separate, with a high degree of 

uncertain predictions; 

f. the decomposing of complex systems into smaller, more manageable 

elements, so that resulting models can be interconnected and 

aggregated; 

g. time and physical scales which may differ widely over the many 

hierarchical levels of large systems. 

Finally, one of the many efforts of modeling in social sciences 

involves the use of systems analysis. Systems theory is a vehicle for 

making meaning out of chaos and a means for showing the significance of 

various subsystems to the whole. Since systems analysis tends to 

concentrate on modeling and problem solving with less emphasis to problems 

of conceptualization and verification, one of the most important tasks 

is a statement of the assumptions characterizing aspects of social life 

and the limitations inherent in the qualitative dimensions of social 

phenomena. This is why in using a systems approach or analysis we should 

also be aware of certain inherent limitations, namely: 

a. the problem of reification, or treating theoretical constructs as 

real; 

b. the restricted determinancy of social systems models, in that 

they do not completely account for social behavior (i.e., the 

need for understanding the interaction with individual and physical systems); 

c. the emphasis on stability, since prevailing social systems models 

have built-in tendencies towards equilibrium (i.e., interpreting 

social systems in terms of status quo, rather than defining 

change and conflict). 

17 
2.1 Human Community 

General 

A key organizing concept for the description of ambient conditions 

and profiling in social impact assessment is that of "Human Community." 

The term human community in a broad sense covers groups with some degree 

of interrelatedness and interdependence that can be defined along a multidimensional continuum from the small, homogeneous and cohesive groups 

living and working together in the same territory to the metropolitan, 

state, regional or even world human community. As a rough approximation 

to such a continuum, it might be helpful for our present purposes to 

distinguish three broad levels of "community": 

1. The (human) ecological community. The impact area of water project may encompass, for example, adjoining parts of two states, a large 

metropolitan complex, and a dozen rural towns. All of these may constitute an "ecological community" in that they depend on the same water 

sources, the same industrial base, the same food distribution network, 

the same mass communication media, etc. 

2. The (social) structural community. A metropolitan area, or a 

county or state, for example, may be composed of a number of spatially 

and culturally distinct "communities," which are interrelated primarily 

by the more formal political, economic, and communication structures 

defined for the area. 

3. The cultural-phenomenological community. This term usually points 

to small groups interacting together informally as well as formally on the 

basis of common cultural (or subcultural) characteristics, such as in 

group identity, religion, race, region, or the like. Most political 

entities of any size, such as cities, counties, states, and the like, are 

made up of a number of such communities. This meaning is significant to 

impact assessment because important differences in public reaction to a 

project may derive from such community differences. 

Thus, terms such as "community," "social structure," "social system," 

"society," and "social organization" are part of diversified definitions 

as to how men organize their activities in some systematic fashion. Perhaps it would be appropriate to adopt another term, "social environment," 

as a more relevant definition in environmental studies whereby we recognize 

three key variables: the territorial variable (physical environment), 

the sociological variable (social interaction and organizational and 

institutional networks), and the cultural variable (common ties and the 

normative system). 

Given terminological variations (and underlying theoretical differences), 

there is no widespread agreement as to how to describe community as a 

specific entity because the character of social phenomena is itself 

elusive. This makes it difficult to study communities as a distinct 

form of social organization. We may avoid further semantic confusion, 

by identifying these elements of community: 

18 
People: a demographic base 

Place: a given geographic area 

Identify: feeling of belongingness 

Common culture: sharing of knowledge, beliefs, customs, laws, etc. 

A major definition of a community is a "combination of social units and 

systems which perform the major social functions having locality relevance," 

with the emphasis placed on a firm territorial base. Above all, communities are organizational patterns through which persons meet their daily 

needs in a local area. Thus, although there are disagreements concerning 

the description of "community" as a unit of social organization, there 

seems to be an underlying consensus that one of the best ways of presenting community is in terms of a social system, or as a network of social 

interaction. This emphasis on the social system makes possible the explication of many environmental affects of projects on social life, through 

a systems analysis that encompasses: 

a. Delineation of objectives and goals as well as of alternatives. 

b. Description of the system (boundaries). 

c. Techniques for systems analysis. 

d. Time constraints (short- versus long-range consequences). 

e. Constraints of the system (inputs). 

f. Evaluation of the performance of the social system. 

In adopting such an approach, we recognize a large scheme of impact 

assessment wherein certain prerequisites (inputs) as transformed through 

a given community organization (thruput) contribute to goals or objectives 

(outputs). Thus, a systems model is a model of a social unit involving 

the systematic exploration, analysis and evaluation of all the possible 

consequences of proposed alternatives to an on-going system. We can use 

this notion to organize our data and model a social system by trying to 

answer the following questions. 

a. What are the major variables involved? 

b. Can these variables be classified in any meaningful clusters? 

c. What are the major types of relationships that ought to be 

investigated? 

d. Against what criteria can the range, intensity, or severity of 

impacts be judged? 

19 
If the human community is the focal concern, we need to recapitulate 

the context of social impact assessment and the continuity of interrelated 

steps in environmental analysis. So far, however, discussion of an 

assessment process has been based on the obvious premise that any public 

project would have effects on the surrounding environment. We need a 

larger policy approach that is problem-oriented with an extended time 

horizon to accommodate unanticipated circumstances and future environments. 

Such a policy and framework of analysis emanates from the following five 

questions: 

1. What goal values are to be sought? 

2. What are the trends in the realization of water resources values? 

3. What broad physical and non-physical factors condition such trends? 

4. What projections characterize probable and possible course of 

future developments? 

5. What policy alternatives may bring the greatest net realization 

of water resources values? (Adapted from Lasswell, Politics: 

Who Gets What, When, How?) 

Thus, a proposed water resource project has impacts not only on the 

area within which social life takes place, but also on the people and 

organizational structures of the community. Such activities are related 

to, coincide, or may even conflict with values, goals, and objectives of 

the local as well as the larger society. In practical terms, these goals 

and objectives may be translated to norms and standards of a more technical level. Norms, standards, or criteria may, then, be incorporated in 

specific plans or programs, providing the basis for the execution, alteration or even abandonment of a proposed water project. At the same time, 

the water project is also affected from outside by state and federal 

policies; the availability of resources and the policies for their allocation and use; the state of resources; the state of technology (and the 

ability to meet stated objectives); and, finally, by political factors. 

Social impact assessment generally involves a contrast between present 

ambient conditions and probable or desirable future states. From the 

above discussion, three interlocking dimensions are used as part of the 

effort to describe the human community and provide the framework for an 

eventual assessment of impacts: 

1. Profile or the ambient conditions of the human environment. 

2. Criteria, exemplified in a variety of descriptive dependent 

variables under the general cover of Quality of Life/Social 

Well-Being. 

3. Impacts, or the effects and consequences from alteration to an 

on-going system, leading to a consideration of a range of alternatives. 

20 
The descriptive categories of Figure 4 supplement the approach of this 

document by emphasizing the sequence of how variables can establish profile 

features with relationships of variables permitting data structure within 

profile. The purpose of the profile is to establish a relevant planning 

setting and a framework for analysis. It provides a collection of relevant 

data about the social, economic, and environmental conditions within the 

area affected by or relevant to a given project. Criteria can be applied 

to evaluate impact as registered by indicator performance. Results of 

such an evaluation lead to formulation of alternatives and to the establishment of a basis for decision-making. 

We would like to concentrate in this discussion on an issue which is 

a part of the definition of the problem and also a key concern in developing methods to assess and evaluate social impacts. This has to do with 

the inclusion of all important variables (re: ambient conditions) which 

may be affected by any kind of large-scale project. In a number of 

agency guidelines (e.g., 122 Guidelines of the Corps of Engineers, Water 

Resources Council, Federal Highway Administration, etc.), lists of 

,important variables are offered. No study can include all the variables, 

since a selectivity always operates as to which ones are considered as 

important in any given project or at any given time. Thus we need to 

develop at least a list of priorities and a larger map as to those which 

we may want to consider important or central variables in any social 

analysis. Again it should be recognized that the selection of pertinent 

variables is part of the vision we have about society, the assumptions 

we make about individuals and nature, and, hence, of a model of reality 

that we may construct. 

The critical variables and their dimensions for the construction of 

a profile (the topic of the remaining pages in Chapter 2) have been 

clustered around four major categories: structural, cultural, interrelationships, and phenomenological. Each of these will be developed in 

some detail, but the point to be remembered is that, as also mentioned 

in many similar documents, the lists are indicative of wide array of 

variables. Such variables will vary of course from situation to situation, 

from time to time, and will necessarily differ with the scope of the 

study authority and nature of a proposed plan. At the same time, the 

combination of variables and their dimensions, collectively represented 

in a profile, both describe environments and indicate impacts. 

Thus, profile and impact categories relate to the evaluation phase 

through the use of appropriate criteria. In its simplest form social 

impact assessement can be summarized in the categories of Figure 5 

(upper portion). At the same time, the lower part of this figure 

expands on the argument of profiling existing conditions against which 

future changes and alternatives can be assessed. 

We can now examine a little bit closer some of the proposed key 

variables and indicators in the human community with some examples from 

water resources planning. 

21 
alternatives 

.11•■=. 40/10.•••■• M11.111••• 

•mgassat■ MINI■•■•■ •■•■ •■•••■•• 

Impact 

assessment 

Decision-making 

and 

trade-offs 

I---> Profile Evaluation 41-) 

FIGURE 4 -- Background of Social Impact Assessment 

/ I

4 IV 

tN) Problem definition 

I and 

I, critical variables 

I 
IMPACTS 

/ 

0 ALTERNATIVES 

PROFILE CRITERIA 

Human Community Variable 

PROFILE 

1 1 1 

1 

0— c 0 w 0 

E 0 , c 

a) — 

Re la t ionship s 

.c 

a_ 

2 

n 

C.) 

n 

.- 

0 

1... 

0 

4- 

- 

0 

(-) 

■ I o 

FIGURE 5 -- Community Profile, Assessment and Evaluation 

(a) 

( b ) 

Assessment 

of Impacts 

(Sets of indicators 

per profile categories) 

CRITERIA 

I. Personal, Individual 

2. Social System 

3 Cultural Normative 

1 

... 

. . .. 

. :: Significance% 

. %. I - Range 

: - Intensity i 

-. 

t.. - Magnitude ...1%■,%..... 

, /7..Probability.

1 ••••.......••• 

V 

Consistent Sets 

of Alternatives 

0.1 
2.2 Structural 

Structural parameters in human community have to do with the basic 

variables within a spatial/temporal location and indicate the essential 

arena within which social interaction takes place. Table 1 summarizes 

the most important structural variables in social impact assessment. 

The "check list" of Table I can be 

establishing the framework of analysis 

of effects on the human community. It 

describe briefly the meaning and range 

used as a starting point for 

and initial data, and the categories 

is important, therefore, to 

of effects of these categories: 

(1) Human Ecology 

Two major clusters of variables are delineated here: population 

variables and spatial arrangements. 

a. The demographic characteristics are the obvious factors that must 

be taken into account, since they provide the immediate elements 

in the structuring of any community. The total number of people 

involved, the component characteristics (biological, ethnic, and 

cultural), vital rates, trends of urbanization, and types of 

mobility must be taken into account. From the demographic structure one may be able to infer the ability of communities to absorb 

or accommodate to changes caused by a project. Types of effects 

to be particularly watched for are: 

i. Population density (number of people living in a given area), 

as it affects quality of life, range of economic opportunities, 

social activities, or forms of social disorganization. 

ii. Population mobility (the movement from one place to another) 

can be an advantage or a disadvantage. On the one hand, a 

project may attract more people because of increased opportunities. On the other hand, displacement of people, business and 

farms can adversely affect community life, social stability, 

and even community survival. 

iii. Population size and composition. This has rather obvious 

consequences. The size of a community may generate opportunities, but also dire consequences may result from rapid growth 

or altered population composition. For example, in a typical 

"boomtown" there is a dangerous lag between the ever-expanding 

needs of the community (result of population influx) and the 

proper development of a viable social and economic base. In 

the context of a highly mobile, heterogeneous population a 

split between old residents and new ones may cause increasing 

bitterness of local issues. 

24 
TABLE 1 -- Key Structural Variables in Human Community 

Human Ecology Characteristic Institutions Social Collectivities 

a. demographic 

- size (community growth) 

- composition 

- vital rates 

- mobility (including displacement of people, 

businesses and farms) 

b. spatial 

- land use 

I.) - housing 

u, - land ownership 

- rural-urban 

- core-suburban 

- "neighborhoods" 

- transportation patterns 

(accessibility) 

a. family 

b. education 

c. religion 

d. political 

- interest groups 

- community services 

- citizen participation 

- governmental administration 

e. economic 

- occupation 

- wage structure 

- income levels 

f. health (physical and mental 

- noise 

g. leisure and recreation 

a. formal 

- association 

b. informal 

- power groups 

- ethnic groups 

- class, 

stratification 
b. The spatial distribution reflects the concern that not all population and social uses are evenly distributed over the geographic 

area where a project is taking place. Severe disruption of the 

physical framework may create hardship for either an entire community or different groups within the community. The categories 

of concern in this cluster of variables are self-explanatory in 

the listing of Table 1. Let us highlight some key areas: 

i. Land use changes not only may change the economic character 

of a community, but have also far-reaching consequences for 

the social life of a community. The alteration in land use, 

as e.g., in suburban or industrial developments, promotes not 

only removal of crop production areas, but also encourages 

land speculation that results in land prices soaring and 

private lands passing into corporate hands. 

ii. Housing concerns not only the economics of availability and 

choice, but also safety, environment, neighborhood character, 

and social cohesion. 

iii. Transportation patterns, especially the accessibility of 

community functions to all segments of population affect the 

quality of community life and to other problems resulting from 

a highly mobile population over a large community area. 

(2) Characteristic Institutions 

This large category of variables may be subdivided into two groups, 

socio-economic characteristics and community organization and institutional 

networks. 

The first category exemplifies the importance of background characteristics of any impacted community or population. Communities and parts of 

a community are characterized by populations which have certain social, 

educational, occupational, religious, or economic backgrounds. The impacts 

of a public project on various communities, as for example among a predominantly elderly retired community and a more or less youthful university 

town, differ not only in the severity of economic dislocation or the 

opportunities for future growth, but also by the ability of the affected 

population to absorb the resultant shock. 

Community organization and institutional networks are concerned with 

organizational arrangements, the structuring of social relationships, and 

ways of doing things. Some communities have better organized institutions 

that permit a better handling of the effects of a project; others lack 

both the organizational preparedness or the institutional structure (be 

it financial, educational, or political) to be able to deal with the 

consequences of a project. 

26 
I 

Both these major categories of institutions are producing a vast 

array of specific variables and dimensions according to various studies. 

Most often the types of social effects include: 

i. Community cohesion (the most repeated dimension) as an expression 

of both unifying forces of people, groups, or subgroups and a 

major expression of social well-being. As will be discussed under 

cultural aspects of community, a project affects community cohesion 

by disrupting or impairing social proximity and by constraining or 

facilitating physical structures. 

ii. Political networks and administrative structures denote the 

mechanisms of support and coordination which make possible effective organization and handling of expected project effects. 

iii. Citizen participation as a means for project input and as a 

critical variable in estimating severity of impacts. The degree 

of public awareness, participation and involvement, the degree of 

consensus as to the utility of a project, and overall community 

cooperation produce different effects on the entire community and 

on segments of it. At the same time, however, public participation 

should not be equated with the broad spectrum of public opinion. 

iv. Noise, especially as it affects the physical and mental health of 

surrounding populations. Noise creates physiological discomfort, 

restlessness, and stress, and disrupts the serenity and quiet of 

pleasing environments. 

v. Leisure and recreation opportunities. In water resources planning 

there is special concern for project effects on leisure and recreation due to demands for more facilities, changing uses, access to 

hinterland, and social activities conducive to the pursuit of "the 

good life" or social well-being. 

(3) Social Collectivities 

Human community also has a variety of informal social aggregates. 

Voluntary organizations, fraternal societies, informal power groups, elites, 

social classes, or ethnic groups are each affected differently by a project. 

There are invisible costs resulting from the social dislocation of identifiable collectivities and from the destruction of viable groupings. 

Weighing the presence of special groups and recognizing power structures 

and interest coalitions are needed to understand differential project 

effects. At the same time, the possible interventions of official and 

unofficial groups in the unfolding of the impact process is an important 

variable, which though difficult to describe or predict, should be 

assessed where possible. 

27 
Communities as a whole, or parts of a community, have different social, 

spatial and institutional characteristics. Hence, a project has different 

effects and different chances of success given the diversified background 

and composition of the surrounding community. 

2.3 Cultural [Features of Culture Within Human Communities] 

"Cultural" pertains to philosophies and patterns of life shared by a 

number of interacting individuals. The group of interacting individuals 

who share the same philosophy and the same pattern of life may be an ethnic 

group, a professional group, a religious group, etc. There may be overlappings between groups in terms of some aspects of philosophy or life-style. 

There may be individuals who are able to shift between different philosophies 

or patterns of life. There may be individuals who belong to one culture 

according to one criterion, and to another culture according to another. 

In all cases, cultural considerations are considerations of different 

philosophies and patterns of life. 

When social scientists refer to the culture of a people, they do not 

mean the "fine arts" or "cultural opportunities," in the sense that many 

people say a community (or individual) is "cultured" or exposed to "the 

finer things in life." When people refer to "culture" in this fashion 

considering that certain qualities (such as an "appreciation of opera or 

classical music," a particular set of table manners, "stylish clothes," and 

"refined speech") indicate that people are "cultured," they are expressing 

an ethnocentric bias. That is to say, what some individuals consider to 

be the ideal qualities for the "good life" for themselves are not necessarily 

shared and enjoyed by others. Thus, in the mid-1930's, in a hamlet in the 

Southwest, contiguous to villages where Native Americans and people of 

Spanish and Mexican descent have lived for over 400 years, an Euro-American 

woman developed a "civic center" so that the Indians and Hispanos of the 

area could acquire "culture." What this woman failed to understand, and 

what many who make judgments about quality of life for others fail to 

comprehend, is that all people have their own unique lifestyles, their own 

beliefs, their own ways of coping with things, their own traditions, their 

own music and dance, their own language, etc., that is, their own unique 

culture. It is in this latter sense that the social scientist uses the 

expression the culture of a people. 

Social scientists diverse cultural and social enclaves to understand 

potential impacts on a community origin. Even though it may not be possible 

to mitigate all undesirable or adverse social impacts, it is still the 

responsibility of the impact assessment team to fully and completely investigate the possible impacts on all cultures of an area. The biologist considers 

diversity of life an important aspect of the environment and any action 

which reduces the number of life forms is considered a negative environmental impact. Likewise, the social scientist views cultural diversity 

as an important aspect of the social environment and any action which 

reduces the number of cultures in an area is a negative social impact. 

28 
To be a more specific discussion of culture, let us define culture. 

Culture is the system of knowledge, beliefs, practices and artifacts shared 

by a people and passed on from generation to generation. It is understood 

that the description of a given society's culture(s) is based not only on 

observation of contemporary social behavior, but on an analysis of the 

historical studies of this same society, thus providing a picture of social 

life, cultural beliefs and expression which have been passed on from 

generation to generation. 

The culture of a people includes the following traits which can be 

used as indicators for impact assessment: 

1. Lifestyles 

The way people live and act out their lives and the beliefs which, 

in part, govern their actions. Among these features of living we find 

the following: 

a. Subsistence -- forms of employment, occupation. 

b. Communications -- all those things used by humans to convey 

messages including: 

i. Language(s) (spoken) 

ii. Expressive media other than spoken languages (includes art 

forms, non-verbal languages on media, signs, newspapers 

and other forms of written languages, artifacts, and may 

include visual media such as television or other electronic 

communication facilities or media). What we are interested 

in here is the ways information is transmitted to and 

between members of society. While expressive media may 

be the most obvious in U.S. society, especially in the 

form of television, newspapers, posters, etc., we want to 

call attention to the fact that there are other expressive 

forms. For example, a street "celebration" or a native 

American ceremonial dance may contain messages that will 

be understood only to local people unless the outsider is 

willing to look beyond the gaiety of performance for the 

event's deeper meaning. 

iii. Transportation -- routes along which individuals travel to 

visit friends and relatives, to conduct business or trade, 

or take a "vacation," are important communication routes. 

iv. Proximity and other spatial variables -- these include not 

only the "proper" distances one is expected to maintain in 

face-to-face interaction, but also the size, dimensions and 

placements of rooms and furniture within a single household, 

as well as the placement or location of housing and other 

physical structures in a community, village, or town. 

29 
c. Religion -- belief in and worship of God(s). 

i. Beliefs. 

ii. Practices. 

iii. Sacred places, events and objects. 

iv. Places of worship. 

d. Housing 

i. Styles of shelter (includes preferences for design, etc.). 

Clusterings (i.e., spatial relationships). 

iii. Relationship to kin-networks, work or occupational needs, 

traditions. 

e. Geographic location of people, businesses and farms, and other 

physical structures of the community -- we are interested in 

the demographic features of the community, as well as with the 

relationship of people and places (this fits with the requirement that social impact assessment must take into account the 

possible displacement of people, businesses and farms). 

f. Institutional characteristics and relationships (includes beliefs 

in and practices of kinship and other features listed in 2.2(2) 

-- structural institutional characteristics). 

b . 

a Health 

i. Culture-specific definitions of health (including physical, 

psychological and social health or well-being as defined 

by people in the society). 

ii. Local health practices. 

iii. Local health facilities (this includes, as does 2. above, 

culture-specific practitioners and their places of practice, 

as well as other practitioners). In some communities then 

we will find cuaranderos, faith healers, medicine men or 

shamans, as well as medical doctors, nurses, osteopaths, 

etc. The former, as well as the latter, may practice 

medicine in their homes, but they may not be so conspicuous 

to people from outside the community. A development plan 

that called for the relocation of such a practitioner 

could result in extreme adverse reaction of the community 

people -- for example, they might become demoralized (or 

even hostile), community cohesion might break down, and 

the outsider who did not understand the high position of 

30 
the practitioner who was forced to leave would no doubt 

attribute the reaction to things, events, or characteristics 

of the community beyond his/her understanding. An accurate 

cultural analysis of the community can prevent this type 

of thing from happening. 

h." Education 

i. Formal -- that which is offered, given, received in a 

structured learning situation; there is usually a formally 

recognized teacher or other types of educators. Some 

examples: In a synagogue, there are often classes in 

Hebrew, history, social science, and other "subject-areas" 

taught by lay-people or the Rabbi or other temple people; 

in a Kiva in the Southwest, young adults may be instructed 

in specific tribal traditions; in a medicine woman's home, 

young people may be taught traditional medicine; in an 

Amish home in Pennsylvania or Iowa, girls may be formally 

taught women's work and women's total responsibilities to 

society; all of the above are examples of formal education 

in society. In U.S. society most communities also have 

head start, elementary schools, junior and senior high 

schools, and in many there are colleges of various sorts. 

People who are obtaining formal education in one of the 

former institutions are also obtaining education in these 

latter. 

ii. Informal -- that which is offered, given, received in a 

non-structured learning situation. Informal education 

includes "learning by example or participation." 

i. Leisure, cultural and recreational opportunities -- those things 

in which people participate, or which people attend, which do 

not have a specific subsistence purpose (although it may be 

indirectly related to subsistence). 

j. Politics -- systems of activities which result in government 

of the community (includes local governmental forms, such as 

village council, mayoral system, traditional Native American 

or Indian government, as well as district, state, and federal 

governmental controls in local areas). 

2. Historical (legacy) features 

a. Artifacts -- those features or items found to have historical 

significance to the population. 

i. Contemporary. 

ii. Archaeological. 

31 
b. Physical representations. 

i. Contemporary physical structures 

ii. Structures of antiquity (not reconstructed, or to be 

reconstructed, sacred grounds, etc.). 

c. History of the area. 

i. In some cases requires analysis of prehistory. 

ii. In others, requires close historical analysis of relatively 

recent times 

3. Worldviews, Beliefs, Perceptions and Definitions of Reality 

a. Cognitive and religious systems. 

b. Value systems. 

i. Historic values. 

ii. Aesthetic values -- what individuals in a community consider to be "beautiful," "pretty," attractive, pleasing, 

etc. 

c. Belief systems (may or may not overlap with religious system; 

for example: belief in supernatural beings that are not deified 

or worshipped, such as "witches"). 

d. Perceptions of own group (community identify), or of others. 

4. Intercultural Perceptions and Relations 

This includes "recognition" of cultural diversity, cultural conflicts, 

ways of handling differences between groups, etc. 

The preceding outline is an overview of some of the essential features 

of culture. To provide a good analysis and description of a culture(s), 

within an impact area, one would need to look for the basic traits in each 

category before one could understand what might happen if a project should 

be carried out of a given area. 

But even before we could understand potential effects, it is necessary 

to understand the interrelationships between aspects of the community(ies) 

in question. In the next section we look at some of these interrelationships; 

in the final section of this chapter we examine, in greater detail, the 

original question -- the perception of reality by human communities. 

32 
2.4 Interrelationships 

A few introductory remarks are needed on prevailing logics and the 

different paradigms and frames of reference affecting social impact assessment. 

A current term used for the analysis of cultural, social and psychological considerations is "impact analysis." This is based on the paradigm 

of unidirectional causality, which has been until recently considered as 

the "scientific" way of thinking. However, recent advances in science 

have produced a newer paradigm of multilateral mutual causality. This 

paradigm is applicable to many physical, biological and social processes, 

and is indispensible to their analysis. 

In public work planning, the notion of "impact analysis" is based on 

a wrong paradigm because social processes involve mutual causality. The 

notion of "impact analysis" must be replaced with the notion of causal 

loop analysis. For example, the construction of a highway or dam may 

become a part of a self-perpetuating or self-amplifying loop: e.g., the 

construction of a highway through a corn field may cause residential areas 

or factories to grow along the highway, and such developments make the 

highway more necessary than before. Or the construction of a recreational 

lake may draw a large population to the lake area; soon the lake becomes 

overcrowded and more lakes must be constructed. These are examples of 

two-element loops (construction and population). There are also manyelement loops, in which the causal effect comes back to the same element 

via a chain of several elements. 

In almost all cases the person who wants to perform an "impact analysis" 

begins with a list of categories. A typical list being used now consists 

of three large categories of "economic," "environmental" and "social," 

which are further divided into smaller categories or items. While we also 

have provided such lists above, we would like to place them in perspective 

by recognizing loop analysis. 

The preceding structural and cultural categories is intended to suggest, 

for most water projects, important social variables that might provide the 

basis of an impact community profile. However, a community is never 

adequately characterized by any list of variables, but is a dynamic system 

of on-going processes and transactions between individuals, subgroups and 

environmental objects and events. This may involve, not merely simple 

causal chains, but networks of interactions, and sometimes cycles of mutually 

reinforcing or mutually cancelling processes (i.e., positive or negative 

feedbacks). In general terms, we often find self-regulating processes 

that may lead to the development of new structures on the one hand, or 

resistive stabilizing processes on the other (morphogenesis or morphostasis, 

to use cybernetic terms). (See Figures 6-8.) Hence, any projections of 

possible impacts must keep such interactions in mind even though we now 

lack them. 

33 
FIGURE 6 -- Possible Impact of Planning Process Itself 

Initial State of 

System (profile 

data, etc.) 

Initiation of 

Water Project 

Planning 

Projection of 

system states 

after project 

Quality of 

Life 

Structural, 

cultural, 

psychological 

states 

Process of project 

discussion and planning, with community 

participation 

Structural, 

cultural, 

psychological 

states 

Social impacts: 

quality of life 

indicators 1•■• 

effects of project planning on community system effects of impacts on community system 
Community & 

Service 

1 1 Economic State 

structure of economy; 

occup'l distribution, 

wage levels, employment level, resource 

use, pollution levels 

State of Science 

and Technology 

local level and 

types of tecnnology, 

1k & D efforts, etc. u, 

-J 

C - 

i 

V) 

> - 

V ) 

) 

IL

L J 

C - 1 " ." • • 

C ) 

- 

\ 

\ 'Z1 

C 

-J 

C 

(1) 

C-) 

0- 

11% 

Science & 

Technology 

Political 

LIJ 

CD 

$ 

CulturalPsychological 

Economic 

political State 

structure of interest 

groups; level and 

types of citizen 

articipation, etc. 

State of Community 

and Services 

health, pub. safety, 

education, recreation, 

subgroup cohesion, 

esthetic concerns 

Cultural-Psychological 

State of Area 

attitudes, beliefs, 

expectations, goals, 

group identities, etc. 

FIGURE 7 -- Possible Routes of Impact Flow (Much Simplified) 

I. Initial State 

of Impact-Area 

II. Water Project Area III. Projection to 

Discussion and Later States of 

Planning Process System 

IV. Social Impacts-- 

Quality of Life 

Indicators 

Employment level)job 

distribution, skill 

levels 

 income level and 

stability 

 land use, housing 

state 

 participation level 

of citizens in pol. 

& economic decision 

level & types of community services--health, 

education, etc. 

population distribution 

and rates of change 

community crowding, 

noise, pollution, 

esthetics, etc. 

community and 

subgroup cohesion 

community and 

subgroup identity 

psycho]. & social 

ennancement: level of 

alienation, cognitive 

enrichment, social 

relationship opportunities, etc. 
Econ. 

Changes income level, employment opport. 

direct imRacts 

Science 

Technology 

Soc. 

Impact 

Indicators 

(Welfare 

or 

Quality 

of Life) 

---0 Political 

Action 

Community 

Services 

'areas 

1 Cultural 

L--"Psychological 

Effects 

17-1f-Intermediate Impacts 

Individ. 

Impacts 

via 

other 

Figure 8 

Model of Possible Separate Impacts of Each 

Set of Major State Variables 

Project 

One such scheme is needed for each of the five major areas, spelled 

out in more detail to suggest guidelines for making assessment. 

36 
Many of our profile variables or categories are not related in any 

necessary or obvious way to quality of life indicators that an impact 

assessment must be ultimately concerned with. And many variables in the 

list are, at best, potential intervening variables. Thus, it is crucial 

to attempt to trace the interrelationships of variables in order to follow 

the causal flow from project implementation, through intermediate impact 

variables, to indicators of important social needs and values. (Figures 

7 and 8). 

But more than this, the impact assessment process must make an attempt 

(incomplete as it must be) to go beyond a billiard ball causal model to 

capture the possible dynamics underlying a static profile describing the 

state of a community system at some point in time. 

Given the above conception of the complexities involved in carrying 

out a reasonable social impact assessment, a number of further suggestions 

may be made to those involved in the assessment. 

a. Because a community represents a cumulative process of development, 

it is important that the history of the area be studied. Although it is 

dangerous to assume that the future of a social system will result from a 

simple extrapolation of state variables of the past, the historical context often provides the best foundation on which to assess the future. In 

the absence of other reasons, past rates of change of variables may provide 

the best guess as to future performance. 

b. Though hazardous, an attempt must be made to relate the categories 

or variable listed in the structural and cultural categories. An initial 

technique is the matrix method of listing sets of variables along the two 

dimensions of a matrix and assessing the interactions of each possible 

pair. This may be helpful, but cannot do justice to the much more complex 

interactions that sometimes occur. 

If the direct consequences of a project involve substantial economic 

changes in an area, such as large shifts in occupational distribution, income opportunities, and the like, these in turn may generate significant 

changes, positive or negative, in cultural lifestyles, patterns of poverty, 

life attitudes and values, birth rates, structural features such as political organization and participation, educational organization, family 

patterns, and community cohesion. Similar ramifications may flow from 

initial impacts on political organization, or some other significant 

institutional area. Thus it might be helpful as a checklist guide to 

develop flow charts similar to Figures 7 and 8 listing initial potential 

impact areas of a broad nature and following their possible interactions 

with major institutional areas of the community through to the ultimate 

quality of life impacts. 

An important principle is that any category of potential impact, such 

as economic consequences, is not an end point of assessment but an intermediate point through which a project ultimately has a significant social 

impact. It is assumed that the endpoint of the assessment process is, 

37 
ideally, the most direct quality of life variables or indicators such as 

health, work satisfaction, pride in self and group identity, development 

of cognitive, moral and aesthetic potential, participation in social, 

political, and economic decision-making, etc. 

c. In dealing with social variables and quality of life indicators, 

where quantitative measures and analytic techniques are rather difficult, 

the assessment of the possible interrelations of variables and their net 

social impact can best be undertaken by experts in the fields involved, 

e.g., sociologists, anthropologists, social psychologists, etc. It would 

appear desirable that such social scientists become permanently related 

to the field offices, either to undertake such assessments themselves, or 

to define needs for outside contracting to such experts. 

d. It has often been pointed out that, in contrast to the passive or 

inert elements that make up the systems dealt with by physicists and 

engineers, the social scientist works with systems whose elements are 

active, deciding, interpretive individuals, and whose behavior -- though 

usually quite orderly and generally predictable -- can often defy any logic. 

Thus, besides the complexity in their own right of the interactions of 

structural and cultural variables, social impact projection and assessment 

is made even more difficult by the often unpredictable interventions of 

groups, formal and informal, in the causal matrix. That is, as the impacts 

of a water project unfold, individuals or subgroups may at any point take 

notice and intervene before the impact has gone any further. Thus, what 

may be reasonable assessment forecasts may not actually occur, or occur 

in a way not anticipated. Of course, the planner may make the community 

aware of possible impacts so that they may react appropriately to them 

when they occur, and thus the projection takes specifically into account 

the reactions of groups. But very often it can be expected that individuals 

or groups may react to impacts, more or less unconsciously, at points in 

the causal net earlier than anticipated. It is this kind of transactional 

dynamics that makes impact projection especially difficult. 

e. Consideration should be given to the possible social impacts 

resulting from even the initial discussion of a project or a problem. Any 

such discussion may lead to the development or shift in interest groups, 

subgroup involvement, changes in political and economic plans and structures, and in general generate conflict or other changes in community 

cohesion whether or not the project is eventually implemented. Consequently, 

the initial phase of project discussion should be carefully organized so 

as to minimize unnecessary confusion and disruption. 

2.5 Phenomenological[Constructing Social Reality] 

We use the term phenomenology to mean the social actor's perceptions 

of reality. That is how an agent defines and identifies the experiences 

that make up his social world. Thus, in doing social impact assessment 

it is important to have some understanding of the diversity of peoples 

and groups in society. How else is any kind of collective social order 

38 
possible? And if we can identify the processes that promote a semi-balance 

of order in society, can we better understand the mechanisms that produce 

social change? 

These questions are at the heart of the social science enterprise, and 

still remain largely unanswerable today, although there are some schemes 

of thinking which have tried to grapple with these complex questions. It 

is not our purpose to provide any definitive answers to these questions 

in this document, but to simply introduce a scheme of thinking which may 

be helpful in conceptualizing these issues when doing impact assessment. 

It is a sociological truism that the greater part of social life takes 

place more or less in accord with certain expectations regarding our own 

behavior as well as the behavior of those with whom we interact. At its 

most elementary level, social life can be thought of as people doing things 

together. In doing things together, individual people do what they do with 

an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and will likely do in the 

future. Furthermore, people ordinarily take into account what is going 

on around them and what is likely to go on when they decide what they will 

be doing. In effect, then, social life is a shared action of individuals. 

It is this sharedness and predictability of events which produces a 

reality perceived to be objective, and knowable to all participants. And 

it is this shared collective reality which is shaped by and shapes the 

culture and social structure. However, it is of utmost importance to 

comprehend the significance of the following statement. This shared world 

is not fixed or static but rather is shifting and dynamic. 

This statement helps us also understand the significance of the 

normality of change. In a broader context we can argue that since frequent dislocation is a normal part of Americans' experience, adjustive 

strain can be absorbed on the social psychological level. For example, 

there is a concern that some people (perhaps many) will be displaced or 

have adverse effects on their lives because of improper social impact 

assessment, that they will not be able to recover. But, humans are, on 

the whole, remarkably resilient creatures. We have managed to adjust to 

extreme climatological and sociological conditions with a rapidly increasing population. We are also relatively reasonable creatures and when we 

know that we are being taken into account, even in unpleasant situations, 

we are more likely to accommodate rather dramatic forced-change. 

Social meanings emerge from and are constituted by the interpretive 

processes of social actors. In making this statement, we are claiming 

that nothing is known to human beings except in the form of something 

that they can indicate or refer to. To indicate anything human beings 

must see it from their perspective; they must depict it as it appears to 

them. Given this assumption about the nature of social life, the charge 

to those responsible for doing social impact assessment is to describe how 

social meanings emerge, become shared, and form the foundation of collective 

reality. 

39 
In doing social impact assessments, the macro concepts of society, 

social structure, culture, institutions, social systems, etc., take on a 

new meaning if viewed from the perspective of the social construction of 

reality. Rather than conceiving of society as being relatively fixed and 

stable, this scheme emphasizes its fluid characteristics, showing the 

tremendous significance of the interactive and reciprocal characteristics 

of social life. In doing impact assessments, we have to realize that 

social structures and social systems work through human beings and human 

beings act and interact within these structural constraints. 

The ground has been set in Chapter 2 for profiling and modeling. 

Critical variables and impact categories can be identified, as well as 

relationships among elements of the "human community." Variables or 

impact dimensions can be seen as the backdrop of the assessment phase. 

To formalize the assessment and prepare for the evaluative phase we 

need the linkages of appropriate strategies and specific techniques. 

Chapter 3 discusses some general methodological issues relevant to the 

conduct of social impact assessment. This methodological framework is 

necessary for explicating challenging problems in the search for reliable 

social data. 

While impact assessment is introduced in Chapter 2, the argument continues in the context of evaluation and with relation to criteria or standards 

against which the significance of effects can be measured (Chapter 4). 

Some researchers would argue that evaluative criteria should be discussed 

as a beginning step of the assessment process, since they comprise the 

initial considerations or standards against which other steps can be 

compared and judged. Others would equally as well argue that criteria can 

be seen as "goals" towards which project activities are directed and whose 

fulfillment or approximation can provide guidance as to the significance 

of anticipated impacts. In either case, criteria are seen as the ultimate 

yardstick for judging the range and significance of anticipated project 

effects. In the present document, as indicated earlier, the assessment 

process is seen as circular with criteria or values operating both as 

initial points of departure and as ultimate objectives of project efforts. 

To put it in simpler terms: criteria/standards are both an expression of 

the goals of project activities and a basis for indicators of project 

effects. 

40 
METHODS- ANALYSIS 

3.0 

In the introductory chapter impact assessment was broadly understood 

as an appraisal of the effects of technological actions on the environment. 

Operationally, impact assessment can be described as compliance with the 

law; conceptually, however, it becomes a beginning point for an integrated, 

long-range planning process. 

As has been observed by many writers, no federal legislation of recent 

years bears greater potential significance for the management of the 

environment in the United States than the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969. The purpose of NEPA is to "encourage productive and enjoyable 

harmony between man and his environment and stimulate the health and welfare of man." NEPA recognizes throughout the profound impact of man's 

activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment 

and prescribes the use of all practicable means and measures to create and 

maintain conditions of productive harmony with the environment and fulfillment of social, economic and other requirements of present and future 

generations. 

Yet, this concern with the assessment of the effects of public projects' 

activity or program implementation did not start in 1969. It can be traced 

to a variety of interests, concerns, and legislative actions that tried to 

find out the effects of proposed interventions. The first substantial 

effort to promote a statement of environmental impacts in the area of water 

resources was in 1936. In response to a report from the Subcommitte on 

Drainage Problems and Program of the Natural Resources Committee, President 

Roosevelt required all federal agencies involved in land drainage and 

water storage projects to report impending projects to the Committee. A 

series of executive memoranda and executive orders (such as Executive 

Order 9384 of 1940) attempted to resolve conflicts involved in the preparation of such comments. A series of authorizing acts made provisions for 

actual survey and circulation of reports. The Water Resource Council 

created under the Water Planning Act of 1965 enforced and extended these 

procedures. 

These efforts resulted in the succinct imperatives of NEPA and similar 

documents which made more urgent than ever the need to account for environmental changes. At the same time, distinctively social impacts have tended 

to be implicit, indirect, and qualitative. It is only recent administrative regulations, legal interpretations, and public pressures that have 

broadened and deepened the social content implicit in many of the acts 

and the concern with higher order, unanticipated consequences of technological actions. 

41 
A 

In its broadest terms, impact assessment becomes a procedure for anticipating effects of purposive action and, thereby, forestalling or upsetting 

adverse consequences to which a particular project may give rise. In this 

sense, impact assessment is a hedge against uncertainty in the planning 

process. 

3.1 The General Modelof Social Science Research 

As was emphasized throughout the preceding text, social science research 

and social impact assessment depend on inferences that can be drawn from 

valid, reliable, and relevant data. In the general literature of assessment 

criteria have been prepared and in some instances certain refined indicators 

have been developed measuring the effects of a given project on various 

systems (ecological, economic, etc.). For example, in the construction 

of a dam repeated measurements have been made concerning the effects of 

the new water source on the aquatic life, the displacement of other animal 

populations, ecological perturbations, and the economic consequences for 

surrounding communities. Much less is known about the effects of a project on the social, cultural, and even aesthetic dimensions of a human 

community. The difficulties come from both disagreement as to what are 

the component parts (and overall structure) of a social system, and the 

elusive and subjective character of many of the scales used in measuring 

and interpreting social phenomena. For example, there is a temptation 

to equate cardinal with ordinal or metric scales without presenting or 

elaborating the assumptions underlying a particular technique. The 

literature of social sciences abounds in serious reservations and methodological cautions as to the very validity of various survey instruments, 

the transference and adoption of physical science models to social phenomena, and the counterintuitive character of social systems. 

A distinction can be drawn here between pre-methodological, methodological, and meta-methodological considerations. The pre-methodological 

considerations have to do with the assumptions and "models" characterizing 

a given social science approach, the visions about the world around us, 

and interpretations about the relationship of individual and society. 

Methodological considerations concern strategies and specific tactics 

involved in obtaining, utilizing and interpreting data. The meta-methodological involves teleology and ethical questions as to the ultimate use of data 

in the planning process. 

The general model of social science research does not differ significantly from other disciplines. They essentially have three major phases: 

1. The conceptual phase, or the definition of the problem and the 

development of a general "model" incorporating the essential questions of 

our inquiry, key concepts, and the array of crucial variables. 

2. The empirical or field phase which incorporates all of the efforts 

for finding the proper population, the strategies and techniques for collecting valid data. 

42 
3. The interpretative phase or the inferences that can be drawn from 

the data collected and the evaluation of the findings. 

There are many questions about how social scientists make inferences, 

ranging all the way from ambiguities in theoretical conceptualization to 

specific inadequacies in data collection, evaluation and interpretation. 

The following, however, seem to to be central concerns: 

A. General problems of measurement for both quantitative and qualitative aspects of data. Two specific problems are particularly acute, 

namely, the question of validity (how do we develop appropriate 

criteria free of systematic error), and the question of reliability 

(random error control, or how successive measures produce the same 

results). While there is a continual striving towards finding 

better techniques for collecting data plus sets of rules for using 

these data, the success of such an effort will depend on the development of criteria that will be characterized by: 

a. validity -- criteria free of systematic error, or criteria that 

measure what is supposed to be measured. 

b. reliability -- successive measures produce the same results 

(random error control). 

c. "refinability" -- the criteria used as a sensitive one that 

is able to make fine distinctions among categories 

(precision). 

d. comparability -- the definition of the criterion remains the 

same over time and space. 

e. permissibility -- the range of error to be tolerated. 

Of the above, the most important is validity since the main 

methodological problem remains the presence of constant errors. 

Here, more than any other field, the research is particularly 

concerned with the extent to which one is measuring and testing 

what is supposed to be measured, rather than some other variable 

or dimension. 

B. Questions of evaluation and trade-offs. It is not enough to 

describe or analyze the surrounding world through adequate, valid, 

and reliable data, it is also imperative to provide for some form 

of decision-making and trade-offs between various alternatives. 

This requires a clear specification of program goals, the measurement of program outcomes and unanticipated consequences, and some 

way of describing new states of affairs. Such questions focus 

attention on: (1) larger problems of evaluative research in the 

analysis of who benefits and who pays, (2) the need for adequate 

data both before the project begins (baseline data) as well as 

43 
longitudinal data that would permit diachronic "over-time" perspective, and (3) evidence supporting any attribution of cause since 

many programs aim at multiple effects rather than at a unitary 

objective. 

C. Social indicators. This refers to the increasing attempt to measure 

the diverse effects of a public project, with an emphasis on Quality 

of Life dimensions and an evaluation of intangibles relating to 

human welfare. Quite a number of studies have tried to develop 

intricate systems for arranging values in various social indicators. 

However, such efforts are plagued by doubts as to their use having 

to do not only with validity, but also with perception, time preferences, lack of value consensus, etc. Furthermore, the state-ofthe-art in social indicators is characterized by a highly demanding 

task of "instrumentation." Other than demographic and sociostructural variables, current literature has little on "attitudinal" 

or "behavioral" social indicator models (see, e.g., the repeated 

discussions on this concern in Land and Spilerman, 1975). In 

particular, the problem of calculating "social costs" is taxing 

the ingenuity of authors. It is not only that social costs are 

difficult to assess directly; often, they reflect larger questions 

of social policy transcending the immediate project and affecting 

wider segments of population beyond the immediate area of a given 

water project. 

At the same time, there is a wide variety of methodological efforts 

essentially in two directions. The first has to do with the extent, quality, 

and scope of the information available and the level of data; the second 

involves an improved capability of a reciprocal relationship between the 

researcher and the public and our responsiveness to public needs and perception of the surrounding world. The last implies also that various "publics" 

are to be brought forward not only as passive providers of data but also as 

key components in the decision-making process. 

We may accentuate some salient points of social science research and 

analysis by relating in Figure 9 the general thrust of the social science 

methodology paradigm to key steps of the SIA process outlined in the preface (Figure 1). The general argument of Figure 9 and the broad concerns 

of social inquiry can be further elaborated in a general model of social 

science research (Figure 10). The categories of Figure 10 are more or 

less explanatory and correspond to an unfolding sequence of logically 

related questions, namely, delineating the problem, obtaining appropriate 

data, and analyzing results. 

Simplified diagrams, such as Figure 10, must not detract attention 

from serious methodological questions haunting social sciences. Physical 

impacts may be more obvious, but social, cultural and psychological impacts 

will require a great deal of professional judgment that is not amenable 

to formal operational procedures. At the same tine, attention must also 

be paid to the shifting levels of analysis employed in social impact assessment -- from micro to macro -- and the implications for data collection, 

44 
EXPLANATION PREDICTION CONTROL 

FIGURE 9 -- Social Science Methodological Emphases and the SIA Process 

THRUST OF SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODOLOGY 

"What II "Why" 

DESCRIPTION 

"What next" " How " 

= Variables = Analysis 

., = Model = Causal links u, 

= Extrapolation = Mitigation 

= Forecasting = Alleviation 

L_________v__________J ■. v 

Interrelation Display Decision- making 

.V.- 

RELATION TO SIA KEY PHASES I 

PROFILING PROJECTING ASSESSING —EVALUATION 
EMPIRI CAL P

H ASE CON CEPTUALPHASE 

III ■•■, 

*ISM 

. 1 ■ 

•INNINo 

"Theories" 

te 

"Models" 

(Selection ) 

( Conceptualization- variables ) 

(Definition of Concepts ) 

DESCRIPTIVE 

....r.: 

ANALYTIC 

UNIVERSE 

i 

Finite 

Infinite 

i 

Random SAMPLE 

Non-random 

Research Strategies 

--• Laboratory 

—• Survey 

H.* Ecological + Demographic 

Cross- cultural 

h• Ethnomethodolgy 

1—• Case study 

Techniques 

i 

DATA \ -. Classification, Tabulation 

PROCESSING 

•..)-•• Analytical techniques 

DAT A.. 

 COLLECTION 

ill 1--• Available data 

r-• New data 

Observation 

Questioning 

Other 

1--• Measurement + Scaling 

I—, Computer applications i 

Practical 

Concerns 

PROBLEM/ Social 

Conditions 

IN TERPRET IVE PHASE 

111■11 

■■• 

ill 

111 

REPORT 

Inference 

Interpretation 

Evaluation 

FIGURE 10 -- General Model of Social Science Research 

46 
analysis, interpretation and evaluation. Finally, although the larger 

cultural and social structures are over long time periods largely independent 

of the particular individuals playing their roles in them at any one time, 

such structures work through and have their impacts on human beings. Both 

levels, and their mutual interrelationships, must be taken into account. 

What needs to be underlined at the end is the complexity of social 

impact assessment and the fact that judgment about effects will be based 

upon data that range from purely objective to highly subjective. Objective 

evaluations can be based on commonly accepted standards, or be expressions 

of simple arithmetical calculations (as, e.g., number of people, rates 

of population influx, income levels, etc.). Subjective evaluation, on 

the other hand, and the use of more qualitative criteria, seem to be the 

order and in many instances the only desirable method, for such phenomena 

as community preferences, values, aesthetic considerations, and similarly 

indirectly arrived at dimensions of collective life. In some cases objective and subjective evaluations may be also appropriate as, e.g., the 

density of population as an objective index of growth and at the same time 

as a subjective evaluation of indirect effects of crowding, social discomfort, loss of community character, or emotional stress. 

A concluding remark: even good data may be of little use unless they 

are also timely and relevant. 

3.2 Data Gathering 

The basic assumption in assessing the potential social impact of a 

proposed Corps of Engineers project is that any major change in an ecosystem 

(which includes humans) will have long-term, as well as short-term, effects 

on the socio-cultural systems of the area. Thus, social impact assessment 

attempts to predict what specific effects can be expected and to recommend 

means for mitigating potentially adverse (including stress-producing) 

changes. To accomplish these ambitious goals, the essential attributes 

of the human environment can be divided into basic social science categories 

which will allow the social impact assessor (or assessment team) to collect, 

analyze, evaluate, and organize for display data which depict baseline 

community characteristics. Baseline community characteristics help the 

planner/social impact assessor speak to the effect that a Corps project 

is likely to have on the noise, population mobility, population density, 

displacement of people, aesthetic values, housing, archeologic remains, 

historic structures, transportation, education opportunities, leisure 

opportunities, cultural opportunities, community cohesion, community growth, 

institutional relationships and health of a given community (as on Section 

122 (PL 91-611), ER 1105-2-105 and ER 1105-60-105). 

In Chapter 2 we discussed some of the essential features of human 

communities and attempted to provide a background for the assessor(s) to 

understand the procedures for community analysis that we have. Although 

the last chapter discusses the desirable job specifications of social 

impact assessors, we want to restress at this point that the people of 

47 
the community should be actively involved from the outset in the data 

collection, analysis, evaluation and display. This would be in cooperation 

with the social scientist who leads a team for social impact assessment. 

a. Identifying, Locating and Plotting Impact Population or Communities 

Defining the potentially impacted human populations is a difficult 

problem facing the assessment team. At the outset, when a site has been 

chosen for construction of a dam, or other engineering project, it is 

usually fairly easy to determine who will be the obviously affected people. 

They are the people along the waterway which currently exists or will exist 

after construction. But, because it is impossible to accurately predict 

the exact reaction which will occur when a project is completed, it is 

necessary to consider the "outside" impacts most likely to occur. Thus, 

we begin by attempting to delimit primary, and secondary areas of impact. 

The terms "primary" and "secondary" refer here to the obviousness of 

impact, not the order or magnitude. For example, primary impacts can be 

ascertained, in part, by looking at a map, or remote sensing imagery, or 

other visual display of the area. Secondary areas can be discerned when 

the investigator begins to follow networks of trade, transportation and 

interpersonal relationships, by talking with and tracing linkages of the 

people in the zones affected. The social scientist also depends a good 

deal on the expertise of the physical scientist who is simultaneously trying to determine how the water will behave when construction has been 

completed. The identification of impacted populations is not a one-time 

process, but must continue throughout all stages of a project. In fact 

it is also necessary to conduct impact study of projects after they have 

been completed. 

b. Sources and Types of Data 

Social scientists try to understand future responses to planned (directed) 

and unplanned (natural or evolutionary) change. But human nature is so 

unpredictable that social scientists usually study post facto or sometimes 

current circumstance of sociocultural adaptation and change. In many 

instances, one can only speculate as to the cause of a particular social 

or cultural shift. Social scientists have to rely on people's accounts 

and expressions of 'the way things used to be," "the way they are (perceived 

to be) now," "the way things ought to be," and on what people believe is 

likely to occur in the future, as well as on statistical data collected 

in the process of counting human activities (e.g., births, deaths, enrollments in schools, tax reports, etc.). This data may be obtained from 

previous researchers, from published statistical and other written reports, 

from specific types of interactions with community people and from various 

professional experiences that gives the social scientist a trained perspective on human behavior. 

48 
There are essentially two sources of data for constructing a community 

profile: primary and secondary data. Primary data are obtained directly 

from contact with people in the community; secondary data are obtained 

from published reports, or other documents which have been compiled by 

conducting direct contact research. While data is to be collected prior 

to project construction to obtain a "before project" community profile, 

it is necessary to keep collecting sociocultural data throughout the 

planning, evaluation and implementation stages so that social and cultural 

change may be recorded and analyzed. This helps in project evaluation, 

and in finding ways to mitigate adverse (predicted and unanticipated) 

effects. It should also provide useful data for predicting effects of 

other projects. 

Some means of obtaining primary data include: participant observation; 

in-depth interviews (face-to-face) with samples or total population; surveys 

(face-to-face, telephone, mail, etc.) with samples or total population; 

remote sensing and other aerial data. 

Participant observation is the research technique used most frequently 

by anthropologists and sociologists who believe that a knowledge of other 

people can be gained only by living with and participating in the everyday 

activities or life of the people who are the object of study. While the 

social scientist participates in community life, he/she also makes a 

detailed record of all that he/she observes during his/her stay in the 

community. The latter includes not only details of all activities in the 

cultural and structural categories, but also the researcher's reactions 

to and thoughts about those activities. This is important so that the 

biases of the researcher (which influence data collection, selection and 

analysis) can be understood. In this holistic approach a total view of 

the community may emerge. Further, it is relatively easy to have community 

members involved in the assessment process when the social science team 

actually participates in the life of the community. 

In-depth interviews may be used in conjunction with participant observation. In a small community, it may be possible to interview everybody, 

while in a larger community it is necessary to use a sample. The interviews may be "subject/topic-oriented" or broad-based. That is, the 

researcher may have a specific interest and wish to query the total population as regards this or he/she may wish to know as much as possible about 

life-ways and perceptions of life as these are defined by informants. An 

in-depth interview requires that the person interviewed have more than one 

opportunity to discuss the issues. 

Sampling procedures vary according to research topic, size of population, 

interview schedule, time and funds, and the confidence level desired. It 

is important to stress that, if sampling is done, it must include representation or samples from the varieties of people within a given community, not 

just those in particular sociocultural "classes." 

49 
Surveys are most often used independently of other research techniques. 

They are usually single purpose and require only a single contact with 

informants. There is usually a questionnaire or "survey schedule" that 

has been pretested on a sample of the population, and it may be administered 

by direct face-to-face contact, telephone, or mail. A survey is usually 

a superficial scan of opinion, but whether given to a selected sample or 

a total population, the same procedure for administering it and the same 

process for its analysis must be used to control or minimize interviewer 

error or bias. As with the method for in-depth interviewing, it is 

possible for the social scientist to train community people in the assessment process. This becomes especially important in writing up a community 

profile, and in public presentations of findings. 

Remote sensing and aerial imagery depend on the use of photographs 

for plotting demographic, physiographic, geographic, and physical structural characteristics of an area. Observations and knowledge of the 

physical elements of the depicted study are essential in attempting to 

describe human activity. Through the use of maps and aerial images, the 

macro-scale relationship and balance of man to his environment can be 

better understood. The technique of remote sensing can be useful in the 

identification of human networks and establishments and a population's 

spatial structure in a study area. This medium serves as a composite 

indicator of current status and changes occurring in an area. Thus, it 

provides the researcher with clues as to where informants are likely to 

be aggregated and where population shifts and other mobility trends are 

occurring. 

Other means of obtaining primary data include walks through a community, 

windshield surveys, on-the-ground photography. These activities are merely 

intended to give a sense of place and spatial orientation to the outsider 

researcher suggesting areas for more intensive research. 

Secondary data have many sources some of which are summarized in Table 

2. This list is self-explanatory. We wish to record as much information 

as is germane to finding the questions we want to ask in our search for 

primary data. We can also get evidence on historical conditions and 

activities of a community from using secondary sources, and following our 

collection of primary data, begin to understand (by diachronic or historical present comparative analysis) some of the dynamic features of the 

community. 

The above sources and types of data can help us answer questions that 

we must ask in order to construct community profiles. Given the outline 

of cultural and structural characteristics presented in Chapter 2, we 

would ask questions relating to each "category" in those outlines, and 

those that would be discovered in the field. Two examples are offered 

for clarification of this point: 

50 
- 

TABLE 2 -- Selected Sources of Secondary Data 

United States Bureau of the Census 

Census of Governments 

Census of Transportation 

Directory of Federal Statistics for States 

Directory of Non-Federal Statistics for States and Local Areas 

Fourth Count--Minnesota Analysis and Planning System (or other) 

General Housing Characteristics 

General Population Characteristics 

General Social and Economic Characteristics 

Other 

State Sources 

Governor's Office of Human Resources 

State Offices of Planning and Analysis 

Superintendent of Public Instruction 

State Department of Agriculture 

State Department of Business and Economic Development 

State Departments of Conservation 

State Departments of Finance 

State Department of Public Health 

State Department of Employment 

State Department of Public Works, Buildings and Highways 

State Department of Highway 

State Departments of Environmental Quality 

State Library 

Historical and Archaeological Commissions 

Regional Planning Commissions 

City (or Municipal) Planning Commissions 

Departments of Public Health 

Social Service Agencies 

Boards of Education (or School Districts) 

Social Science Research Laboratories (private and public) 

University and College Libraries (theses and honors papers, as well as 

archives, journals and books, etc.) 

Public Libraries 

Local or Regional Water Resource Councils 

Computer Centers 

Agricultural Extension Centers (or Farm Labor Bureaus) 

Others 

State Highway Maps 

U.S.G.S. Maps 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

etc. 

51 
Example 1: We ask, "What is subsistence/economic base of the areas?" 

We want to know, not only the principal subsistence base, 

but all subsistence practices. The categories we elicit 

might fall into the following major groupings: 

Subsistence/Economic Bases 

-- Agricultural 

Tenant farming/non-tenant farming 

Types of products 

Other 

-- Ranching 

Cattle 

Chicken 

Other 

-- Labor-Industrial, plus Agricultural or Ranching 

Cotton Mills 

Soybean Products Plants 

Canneries 

Slaughterhouses/other animal processing 

Other 

-- Labor-Industrial, Small Businesses 

Plants: Assembly; Manufacturing Types 

Small Businesses (essentially "service" or 

principal economic base) 

-- Labor-Industrial, Large or Big Business 

Manufacturing 

Assembly 

Other 

-- Natural Resource Exploitation 

Mining and Export of Raw Materials -- includes 

Processing Plants if associated 

Oil, Gas Drilling and Export 

Timber 

Fish 

Human (e.g., artist "colonies" such as Taos, N.M.; 

University "towns") 

Other 

52 
-- Military (e.g., Norfolk, Va.) 

-- Tourist (e.g., Orlando, Fla.) 

While we can obtain some detail on subsistence/economic practices by using 

secondary sources (such as state departments of agriculture, business and 

economic development), we will still need to obtain first-hand information 

from community inhabitants in order to learn exactly how these systems of 

subsistence work, and how they interrelate with other sociocultural systems 

in the community. 

Example 2: We ask, "What are the basic institutions in the area?" We 

might find categories like the following: 

Social Organizing Institutions 

-- Ethnicity (language and cultural heritage) 

Homogeneity (e.g., principally Native American 

or U.S. Indian; principally Spanish-speaking; 

English-speaking European-American; etc.) -- 

indicators of common heritage 

Heterogeneous (ethnic-mix) 

(Note: details can be described by display of 

statistics, as well as by narratives which give 

historical and present characteristics of intragroup activities and interrelationships). 

-- Social Organization 

Familial (nuclear, simple extended, large extended, 

clans, moieties, tribal, etc.) -- described both 

as kinship relationships that are recognized 

locally and as constitution of households 

Religious systems and structures 

Political systems and structures 

Educational systems and structures (all socialization mechanisms used, both formal and informal) 

As with the subsistence/economic data, we can obtain some information from 

secondary data. However, we must obtain first-hand information from people 

in the community. Even if there are rather descriptive publications for a 

given community, still the impact assessor should obtain current information 

from the inhabitants themselves. Further, such publications may not have 

had a Corps project in mind and so may lack a helpful perspective. 

Even "grass-roots" people can be trained to assist in research, present 

findings, and evaluate research reports about their communities. Further, 

planners profit from working actively with people in the community. Finally, 

methods for data collection and analysis have to be tailored to the situation, 

53 
since each project and community has its own requirements. Thus research 

for social impact assessment must be flexible. 

3.3 Data Organization 

Essentially, how data are organized depends on the frame of reference 

used. Though there are many such frames we may point out two which provide 

a clear contrast. If we label them FrameA and FrameB, we may contrast 

them as follows: 

FrameA 

Categorical (Classifications) 

Enumerative 

Exhaustive 

Immanent 

Universal 

Objective 

Hierarchical (ranking) 

FrameB 

Rational (patterns) 

Gestaltist 

Relevance-selective 

Contextual 

Situational 

Trans-spective 

Interactive (network) 

Confusing as this terminology may look, it points out some essential 

differences. In FrameA data are divided and coded into mutually exclusive 

categories, which are as exhaustive as possible. These categories are also 

considered to be universally valid and objectively measurable and this 

framework is closely akin to analytical techniques of the physical sciences. 

Frame B patterns are allowed to emerge from the data without preconceived 

categorization. This approach makes the researcher perceive the whole 

first, recognizing at the same time that there are infinite ways of categorizing data, with categories depending on the situation, "meaning" derived 

from the context, and variables seen to be interactive rather than causally 

hierarchical. 

The first approach is closely related with the scheme of analysis 

proposed in Chapter 2. If we assume at this point that social data tend 

to favor the second approach we may suggest some alternatives for data 

organization. 

a. Identify the cultural composition and components of the community. 

Examples: Irish, Italian, Polish, Mormon, American Indians. 

b. Learn their philosophy, religion, world views, beliefs, lifestyles, 

tastes and other intangible background elements before studying 

the more material, tangible types of data: i: If such information 

is available, learn as much of it as possible; ii: regardless of 

whether it is available the indispensable next step is to talk to 

some members of the cultural group(s) person-to-person, in order 

to learn further about these intangibles. (Caution: Observe and 

follow the modes of communication used in the cultural group. Do 

not rely on the so-called "leaders" recommended by outsiders. Go 

into the community yourself, and meet ordinary people whom you 

54 
find there, not pre-selected or pre-arranged people); iii: If 

sociological or anthropological books and articles on the cultural 

group are available, read them. 

c. After obtaining a background as above, look through the entire 

data first before sorting them out. It is important to spend as 

much time as needed in this step. Look at the data back and forth 

several times to see overall connections and patterns. Formulate 

a tentative pattern and several alternative patterns if possible. 

Go back to the data again to see if any pattern fits the data. If 

not, change it. 

d. Go to the community again, and talk with people under b.ii. Find 

out what categories are meaningful from their point of view. This 

is the endogenous relevance. 

e. Choose what seem to be relevant considerations from the point of 

view of the relationship between the outside community (including 

the entire nation) and the project community. This is the exogenous relevance. 

f. Organize the data around the endogenous relevance. This should 

be done in cooperation with someone from the community. 

g. Interpret each item in the data in terms of the cultural context. 

If the data do not make sense, suspect that you are not sufficiently 

aware of the cultural context. Even if the data make sense, still 

suspect that the "making sense" may be an illusion due to consistent 

misinterpretation on your part. Always check the interpretations 

with people in the community. 

h. Check whether the data and their interpretations depend on situational factors, and whether the "answer" may change if the situation 

changes. 

i. Try to enter into the thinking of the people in the community: 

use their logic, and frames of reference in describing and explaining the data. 

j. Study the interrelations between the variables in the data. Study 

mutual causal relations, and identify mutually reinforcing causal 

loops as well as mutually counteracting causal loops. 

k. Return to the exogenous relevance. 

1. Interpret the data in terms of the context external to the community. 

m. Check whether the "answer" may change if the situational factors 

external to the community change. 

55 
n. Study the interrelations between the variables in the community 

and the variables outside the community. 

To sum up: a flexible framework combining inductive and deductive 

approaches, continuous iteration, and sensitivity to all parties involved 

must be established. Such an iterative scheme of increased detail with 

continuous feedback and anticipatory steps is outlined in the approximate 

stages of SIA of Figure 11. Implicit in this figure is the notion that 

despite emphasis on any particular stage there is a constant interplay 

between data collection and interpretation. 

3.4 Displayand Analysis 

As each phase of data collection proceeds, data is to be presented to 

the public. Raw data with a minimum of processing might be prepared after 

the very first stage (windshield surveys, aerials, etc.). These presentations can be used by public and Corps planners to decide what other data 

and question should follow in the next stage. As each stage is reached, 

the data are presented in a form appropriate to that stage. 

In organizing social data, two principles can be used: 

a. It should be most useful in impact assessment. 

b. It should be sufficiently standardized or indexed so the reader 

can easily extract what he needs or wants. 

Because the social impacts may vary so widely among different segements, 

proper attention to the first principle may imply the second principle. 

Data are organized and analyzed for two sets of people: a) planners 

and other professionals, and b) the lay public. Ordinarily, the former 

group can more readily use sophisticated approaches than can the latter. 

Numerical summaries, mathematical models, indices, matrixes, and complicated graphs may be used for the former group. 

For the lay public, while sophisticated approaches may be used, the 

planner should attempt to present implications in narrative language. For 

the past this is a history. For the present it is a snapshot of today, 

a tour-guide. For the future it is a set of scenarios and projections. 

Normally, the amount of detail increases in the course of planning, 

though some social data is analyzed in detail even in early stages. 

Qualification: if there is a large number of details, some ranking 

of importance should be established so the reader does not spend most of 

his time on the less important factors. Profile displays that facilitate 

value judgments by public segments, planners, and decision-makers seem to 

be favored by many planners today. Yet, when the planner does the weighing 

or when too much use is made of numerical rating, the significance of the 

numbers is lost. 

V. 

56 
r-- 

I I * 

Continue collecting 

and begin organizing 

secondary data. 

Collectprimary 

Collect preliminary 

and secondary data. 

Analyze maps, photos, 

statistical reports,etc. 

Windshield Surveys 

data. 

4 

1 ___J 

V 

r-- 

IIT 

Scenarios. 

Describe how people/ 

community might evolve 

IIwith II project how they 

r-- 

III 

.---- 

ii 

See what the data 

tells you about the 

people /community 

Identify gaps in 

Get more data. 

Organize data to 

describe people / 

community "without" 

project. Make 

preliminary 

scenarios. 

might evolve 

" without" 

the project 

______J the data 

t 

FIGURE 11 -- Approximate Stages in Pre-Project Social Impact Assessment 
The last remark emphasizes again all the methodological pitfalls 

involved in the handling of the social science data (sometimes scornfully 

referred to as "soft" data). Incidentally, in trying to adopt a general 

scientific posture, many practitioners develop a passion for "objective" 

(re: "quantifiable") data and suspicion of "subjective" data. The preoccupation may yield a lot of objective but not particularly relevant 

data, (irrelevant objectivity). Some critical problems in finding indices 

are: 

a. Perception. The perception of the environment varies not only , 1 from person to person, but it is also subject to change in the 

person himself in accordance with changing situations. Even more, 

a person's perception and attitude towards an environment is 

influenced by broad socio-cultural processes as well as by specific situations. 

b. Reversibility. Another factor which affects the construction of 

indices refers to those circumstances where evaluation is based 

on the possibility of action, i.e., certain situations which have 

the same effect may be evaluated differently according to different 

degrees of reversibility or retrievability. The above implies 

that the higher the degree of reversibility, such as for example 

the invention of new, cheaper, and/or more efficient techniques, 

the higher the degree of acceptance of a legitimate risk in the 

introduction of a given public project. 

c. Time preferences, or those environmental situations in which improvements of present comfort can be obtained only at the price of giving 

up future comfort and vice versa. Various societies and communities have different "discount-factors" for evaluating future 

situations which depend on their time horizon, the acceptability 

of risk, and their commitment to long-range planning. 

d. Value consensus. Here the difficulty exists in that in order to 

construct an index we have to ask ourselves whose values are we 

taking as a basis. Indeed, there is limited agreement on preferences, 

standards, taste, and other abstractly conceived community values. 

Conditions which are perceived as "good" or "bad" depend very much 

on a consensus and are often not even fully compatible. 

e. Incompatible conceptual systems. Indices and aggregate measures 

relate to concepts and models about the individual and society 

and to some theories about the structure and functioning of social 

systems. But there still exist incompatible conceptual models 

and contending theories of society and a bewildering number of 

key concepts regarded by various social scientists as essential 

in the discussion of society. 

In many respects the above reiterate reservations expressed in the 

first part of this chapter. Flaws in aggregation and indexing contribute 

to errors in data organization and inference by reinforcing "tabloid 

58 
thinking" or preferences for the familiar (stereotyping), contribute to 

"halo" prestige through false authority, and lead to incorrect analogies 

through inappropriate models and relationships. 

Extremely important are also fallacies committed when inferences made 

at one level of aggregation or on any subset of observations are applied 

to other levels or sets. Social scientists have long been aware of the 

difficulty in moving from a consideration of total communities to an 

examination of individual behavior (cross-level fallacies). We cannot 

easily infer individual behavior from a knowledge of how men act or what 

characterizes them in the aggregate (the so-called ecological fallacy). 

Finally, the researchers' views should not deter them from presenting 

an unbiased and objective analysis. This implies that they must resist 

the temptation of providing only marginal data because they fit a special 

model or their intellectual bias. At the same time, one should estimate 

carefully the degree of sophistication of audiences and be aware how -- 

even with good intentions -- data can be used inappropriately as a means 

of influencing other colleagues or the community at large. 

More specifically, as far as the presentation of data are concerned, 

the display of data must perform several functions: 

1. Show clearly what has been found; 

2. Facilitate interpretation and evaluation; 

3. Facilitate verification; and 

4. Serve as basis for discussion among segments of public. 

Consider the second and third points first. Unlike physical data, 

such as topography and streamf low, the accuracy of certain kinds of social 

data is not always verifiable from internal evidence or from scrutiny of 

the process used to obtain it (though both these approaches are useful). 

For such data as social profiles, it is good practice to give the social 

segment being described the opportunity to comment on its accuracy. People 

may and usually will find out things about themselves they never knew 

before but, on the other hand, they may improve the profile after it has 

been presented to them. 

Collecting social data presents certain problems that do not accompany 

collecting physical data. The data collector himself affects the accuracy 

of the data. His/her personality and the way he/she approaches data collection in some ways distort the data he/she receives. There are several 

reasons a person may not give accurate data to the interviewer. They may 

be "talking different languages," he may feel exploited and give phony 

information, or he may think that he will be harmed in some way if he gives 

accurate information. 

59 
By presenting the collected and partially compiled data to members of 

the social segment being described, the data collector can overcome at 

least some of the difficulties. People can see how their statements were 

decoded, compiled and stated, thus verifying the accuracy of data transmission. 

The data collector can also show how the data fits into the study and 

thus, perhaps, benefit the interviewees. Finally, threatening data can be 

excised (and usually should be excised) before it gets widely disseminated. 

In some cases, the interviewees may come to see that data they originally 

considered threatening actually is not because of the way it is compiled 

and used and, thus, may be willing to give more information to the data 

collector. 

To be explicit: Sensitive social data compilations should be discussed 

with members of the social segment before widespread dissemination. This 

is both an ethical principle and a practical point. The ethical principle 

is that the data collector should not violate the confidence of an interviewee. The practical point is that if members of the social segment feel 

their confidence has been violated, they will refuse to give more information and may influence members of other segments to do likewise. 

We return now to the first function, "showing clearly what has been 

found." In most respects, this is a technical matter of choosing the 

proper communication channels, using clear language, comprehensive graphs, 

and following-up to find out whether one has been understood. For messages 

other than those transmitted in face-to-face dialogue, it is very desirable 

to pretest them on persons similar to those in the target audience. 

Because information flows to the members of a social group in stages, 

with intermediaries performing much of the communication, the planner should 

attempt to facilitate message transmission through the intermediaries, 

perhaps by supplying extra copies of graphic and printed materials. 

Social impacts are likely to have a substantial amount of emotional 

content. Such content can partly be displayed and communicated by printed 

and graphic materials but it is generally desirable to have a direct, faceto-face talk between planner and affected group. Dialogue can enhance 

understanding of the main issues, plus such side issues as may be relevant. 

It also reduces the image of impersonality in the planning organization. 

A second dimension of showing what has been found is that of display 

by the social scientist to the engineer/planner. The task here is to show 

relevance of the information to the study and how it can be used in planning. 

Because the terminologies of the social scientist and engineer/planner are 

somewhat different, a gap in understanding may develop. The means of 

bridging such a gap are discussed in Chapter 5, under mutual education of 

social scientists and planners. 

60 
The fourth function of data display, serving as a basis for discussion 

among segments of the public, is somewhat different. In evaluating alternatives, the effects of each must be compared. These comparisons cannot 

be well done by the planner alone. Tradeoffs, compromises, and alternative 

modifications may come in part from the public segments themselves. In 

order for this to happen the various groups need to know something about 

other groups and how they are affected. Such comparisons are especially 

important when an alternative presents major effects, either negative or 

positive, on some group, and relatively minor effects in the opposite 

direction for other groups. In displaying data to perform this function, 

the planner should point out such instances and stimulate discussion among 

those groups. 

3.5 Forecasting, or Using Assessment as a Predictive Process 

This presentation centered about present-oriented accounting of a 

project's effects. Given, however, the explicit legal imperative that 

any project assessment study other alternatives as well as long-range 

consequences of a proposed project, it is equally important to consider 

assessment as a predictive process. A new multi-dimensional, multiobjective, multi-disciplinary, long-range model of impact analysis has 

brought about additional considerations concerning technological changes, 

a necessary ingredient of a more complex strategy of assessment and evaluation. 

Increasingly, water resources project assessments look to the future. 

First, in terms of scope, the time horizon has been extended from the 

present to not only the near, but also to the more remote future. At the 

same time, the range of effects has increased to include higher-order, 

unanticipated and indirect consequences. On top of these, the space 

affected has been enlarged (result of the preoccupation with "ripple 

effects"). Finally, environments other than the physical are considered. 

We are asked to assess the project's significance for some future 

environment. Even more difficult, and the legal requirements here have 

been increasing, we are also being asked to imagine how communities will 

fare without our intervention or to account for unanticipated and higherorder consequences on the social system from the decision not to proceed 

with a proposed project. Here forecasting alternative futures could respond to the present charge that there is only an interest in historical 

growth and in technical fixes, and that planned use of water resources 

should be directed by considerations of future states that emanate from 

articulated, shared goals. 

In trying to mold a new planning ethos, there is a fruitful new combination of traditional project considerations with "futuristic" methods. 

This is the natural culmination of trying to assess long-range effects on 

future environments within which projects will be operating. 

61 
New planning principles may be developed based on heterogeneity and 

symbiosis as well as new methods particularly suited to non-linear thinking 

about such items as quality of life, aesthetic integration, solidarity, 

and other intangible or incommensurable dimensions of collective life. 

In this context one examines the whole field of forecasting. Two 

basic approaches to the study of the future are: The exploratory or extrapolative approach in which through a historical, predictive model we ask 

ourselves what trend or event forecast can be made with regard to existing 

social, political, economic, and technological situations that may lead to 

future states. The second approach called normative or teleological involves a delineation of desired goals and future objectives. In other 

words, in exploratory forecasting, one moves from the present (with knowledge of the past) towards the future, while normative forecasting implies 

a "backward" move from idealized or desired future states to the present. 

In exploratory forecasting we emphasize trajectories and extrapolations, 

in normative we strive to achieve desired states. 

Increasing research has been concentrating on the utility of technology 

assessment and social forecasting, not only about the impact of a public 

project but also about future consequences of technological changes. Key 

impact questions that have been raised in the context of technology assessment involve such characteristics as: 

• Affected groups 

• How they are affected 

• The likelihood of effects 

• The timing of impact 

• The magnitude of effects 

• The duration of the impact 

• The breadth and depth of impact, or the difusion of effects 

• The source of impact, or the origination 

• The controllability of the impact generated by given technologies. 

Since we are adopting a futuristic posture in our assessment methodology, we need to raise a question that has tormented mankind from time 

immemorial: "How can one foresee the future?" We all realize that in 

what appears an erratic and chaotic world there are some threads of continuity and stability. Throughout history, what has been considered the 

."logical" planning or the traditional approach was one that proceeded from 

the past and the present towards the future through prediction, projection 

and extrapolation in trying to develop a model of the "probable" future. 

"Teleological" planning, on the other hand, starts from desired goals of 

future states and moves backward towards improving the basis of knowledge. 

■•• 

62 
There is a tremendous number of continuously improving and expanding 

methods for forecasting and extrapolation and the planner must become 

aware of its jargon and techniques. A descriptive table summarizes some 

of the types of forecasting currently being used under the titles of 

exploratory and normative (Table 3). This classificatory scheme of Table 

3 is at least somewhat relevant, since a particular technique may belong 

to either approach, depending on purpose or emphasis. In our discussion 

we need only to indicate some that may be useful for water resources 

planning. 

A. Exploratory forecasting 

a. Intuitive forecasting, especially Delphi studies 

The Delphi technique is a method of seeking group consensus which 

avoids some of the problems of face-to-face confrontation. This technique 

is directed toward the systematic solicitation of expert opinion whether 

rather than achieving a consensus by open discussion. It uses a carefully 

planned program of sequential individual interrogations interspersed with 

information and opinion feedback derived from consensuses from earlier 

parts of the process. 

b. Trend extrapolation and correlation 

These are forecasts based on the assumption that factors contributing 

to trend in the past are more likely to remain constant than to change in 

the time period of future consideration. There are quite a number of 

trend extrapolations such as simple extrapolation, curve fitting with 

judgment modifications, trend curves, "envelope curves," and other means 

of monitoring changes in the surrounding environment. 

c. Metaphors and analogies, especially simulation 

These involve all techniques that assume that a new technology or 

situation may emerge in a manner, pattern and/or rate of change analogous 

to some preceding event, or existing natural or social phenomena. Simulation, on the other hand, is the approximation of complex systems by 

dynamic models, such as mechanical analogs, mathematical analogs, metaphorical analogs, and game analogs. Today one of the more outstanding 

technology forecasting attempts by modeling is the culmination of the 

systems dynamic approach used by J. Forrester and his students to study 

world problems. The Corps has been using successfully KSIM in a number 

of studies and training efforts. 

d. Scenarios 

Scenarios are a projection of the future from present conditions, 

taking account of stated assumptions. Such assumptions include economic, 

political, social, and technical possibilities. Scenarios, or "future 

histories," are narrative descriptions of potential courses of developments. Scenario writing can be effectively used for generating some 

63 
Table 3 -- Types of Forecasting 

EXPLORATORY [predictive] NORMATIVE [teleological] 

-Intuitive Forecasting 

=Conjecture 

=Brainstorming 

=Heurestic programming 

=Consensus (Delphi) 

-Trend Extrapolations 

=Trends 

=Monitoring 

=Breakthroughs 

-Trend Correlation 

=Precursor events 

=Correlation and regression 

-Metaphors and Analogies 

=Growth 

=Historical 

=Simulation 

-Scenarios 

=Surprise-free 

=Canonical variations 

-Morphological Analysis 

=Socio-technological planes 

-Network Techniques (network logic) 

-Technology Scanning 

-Contextual mapping 

=Functional array 

=Graphic models 

-Mission networks dnd functional arrays 

=Mission flow analysis 

-Decision theory 

=Decision trees 

=Relevance trees 

-Cross Impact Matrix Methods 

=Cross-impact gaming 

-Dynamic Modeling ' 

=Gaming 

Supporting Efforts 

.---------"V 

-----1 

Input-output analysis 

System analysis 

Operations research 

Learning models 

Structural models 

Iterative system projection 

64 
major assumptions for many water resources projects and proceeding to 

explore various options. 

B. Normative forecasting 

In the normative forecast, goals, needs, 

specified and the forecast works backward to 

examine what capabilities now exist or could 

future goals. Of the many new techniques of 

indicate a few that seem to be prevalent. 

a. Decision trees 

objectives, or desires are 

the present in order to 

be extrapolated to meet 

normative forecasting, we 

Decision trees are graphic devices which display the potential results 

of alternative approaches to crucial decisions. 

b. Cross-impact matrix methods 

The cross-impact matrix method is an experimental approach by which 

the probability of each item in a forecasted set can be adjusted in view 

of judgments relating to potential interactions of the forecasted items. 

Such an approach analyzes cross effects through an elaboration of potential 

interrelationships in terms of direction of the interaction, strength of 

the interaction, and time delay of the effect of one event or another. 

The methodological issues and host of strategies and techniques 

relevant to the task of social impact assessment may be summarized in 

Figure 12. Figure 12 should be seen in conjunction with Figure 1, in 

that it not only extends the general argument introduced in the preface, 

but also emphasizes a future-oriented preoccupation. At the same time, 

Figure 12 attempts to indicate the methodological interconnection between 

the primacy of model generation and variable specification (referred to 

earlier as a difference between the deductive and the inductive approach). 

The following Chapter attempts to provide an initial framework for 

assessment and evaluation, by stressing more the criteria against which 

the assessment of effects can be made and to a lesser degree the specific 

format that such an evaluative and decision-making scheme may take. 

65 
• PROFILE 

[Problem Problem definition - 

critical variables] 

[Structure of the problem] 

• Model Generation 

I • Systems analysis 

2 Input- output tables 

• I NTERRE I NTERRELATIONSH I PS 

A. Variable Specification 

I. Check lists 

2. Surveys 

3. Public input and analysis 

• ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

[ Analysis of significant impacts 

and consequences] 

ANALYTI CAL TE CHNI QUES ( ex ampl es) 

• GENERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

[Projecting, range of alternatives] 

C. Forecasting Techniques 

I • Extrapolative 

2. Normative 

D. Assessment 

I. Impact analysis 

2. Social indicators 

3. Factor profiles 

4. Trade -off accounts 

• EVALUATION 

[Measurement scales 

and models] 

E. Basis for 

Decision-making 

I. Direct evaluation 

2. Weighting procedures 

3. Consistent sets 

of scenarios 

4. Display formats 

PROCES S O F ASS ESSM ENT 

FIGURE 12 - Assessment Steps and Selected Analytical Techniques 
ASSESSMENTAND EVALUATION 

4.0 

When all is said and done, the final task of an impact assessment 

must include someone's evaluation of perceived effects, of alternative 

actions, and of options expressed in diversified scenarios. Similarly, 

a decision or recommendation must be made as to which of the above to 

adopt and under what circumstances. Such an evaluation is not necessarily 

performed by the impact analyst: quite often it is a matter of social 

choice, performed by politically responsible officials, or even by public 

referendum. Yet, the evaluative process must be discussed, since usually 

a selectivity process operates through the presentation of a few highly 

developed alternatives to politicians, authorities, or the public. Thus, 

a judgment is always made as to effects to be included, alternatives to 

' be discarded, and major options to be considered. 

There are a variety of methods in the general literature of natural 

resources research on evaluative schemes representing a combination of 

information organization, data management schemes, and specific evaluative 

techniques. These three elements are of vital importance for a cogent 

and meaningful evaluation that permits an understanding of the dimensions 

of the problem, the range and intensity of effects, and the desirability 

and feasibility of certain solutions. 

Particularly pertinent for water resource projects are the following 

points on evaluative methods: 

a. An evaluation method should be able to deal with multiple objectives 

and assessment criteria which are both quantitative and qualitative 

in nature. 

b. The process should provide flexibility and monitoring mechanisms for 

considering new goals and criteria as improved insight is gained into 

the problem and as the values of assessors, decision-makers, or 

affected parties change. 

c. Evaluation should provide an objective framework for analyzing 

phenomena such that (although subjective in nature) their underlying 

logic and process of choice can be followed by third parties. 

d. The output of the evaluation should lead to visual displays of 

results so final judgment can be supported by evidence in a manner 

that delineates both the procedures and the end result of the information collection and analysis. 

e. The evaluative method selected should include both monetary and 

non-monetary aspects for each alternative and consideration of 

other costs beyond the benefit-cost analysis. 

67 
f. In any evaluative effort, a balance must be struck between time, 

cost, and effort invested in reaching a decision and the potential 

gains (the "decision reward") in having this information in time 

for resolving problems. 

Ideally, an evaluation presentation involves four major concerns: a) 

sources for making evaluation; b) evaluation criteria and procedures; c) 

relationship of social to other "environments'; and d) trade-offs, mitigating 

circumstances and feasible design. It is obvious that the last two transcend 

the present document, since they reflect concern with broader principles of 

environmental planning. Thus, selected remarks in the following pages are 

addressed to the variety of evaluation sources (notably public participation), 

and even more to the evaluation process itself, especially to its criteria. 

4.1 Sources of Evaluation 

In any evaluation effort five different sources of judgment coalesce 

towards effects, assessment and decision as to alternatives: 

a. standards and criteria as developed in laws, guidelines, and similar 

documents; 

b. court interpretations and legal precedents; 

c. legal interpretations of elected officials; 

d. professional judgments and disciplinary input; 

e. public participation and involvement. 

The above sequence is not hierarchical, since in an ideal evaluation 

process all are crucial components in arriving at decisions on alternatives, 

costs and environmental effects. Of particular importance here is public 

participation, since all other sources of judgment fall beyond the scope 

of the present document. (On the professional judgment of the social 

scientist, general methodological principles were presented in Chapter 2, 

with evaluation criteria further discusserin 4.2.) 

In recent years, it has become quite fashionable to talk about the role 

of public participation in evaluating and making decisions on public projects. 

Ultimately one is led to ask, "which public?". If the answer is "well, let's 

go to the grass-roots," again we are led to ask "which grass-roots?" For, 

as certain as low-income people are the grass-roots to be affected by the 

construction of low-income housing plans, so are businessmen the grass-roots 

of a development scheme intended to revitalize a decaying inner city. So, 

for Corps projects who should be invited to participate and when? 

68 
We can (using scientific criteria) classify publics (to whom invitations 

should be extended) into discrete and non-discrete categories. If we use 

cultural models for these classifications, we might find that we are 

approaching a given area on the basis of ethnic groups. That is, we would 

expect to invite public participation from all people from the Chicano, 

Native American (or Indian), Black, Asian, or other (stratified) ethnic 

communities. If we use an economic model of these aggregations, we would 

expect to invite public participation from all people in the following 

categories: business people, professional people, low-income people, 

middle-income people, upper-income people, and so on. On the other hand, 

we may wish to use a social-geographic model, which may or may not allow 

a cross-cutting of ethnic and/or economic variations within a given area. 

The criteria for classification by economic/employment group or any other 

criteria will of course bias the cluster we ultimately confront. 

The main point to be emphasized is that because of the intrinsic 

heterogeneity of the U.S., a project's impacted areas are more than likely 

going to have within them a diversity of people, and thus a diversity of 

vested (or non-vested) interest groups. None of the people should be 

ignored, or left out of the opportunity for participation in planning, 

implementing and evaluating a project. It is not expected that by including 

(representatives from) all people that none will be hurt. Rather, by 

confronting all people throughout the planning process those who may be 

hurt can more easily be identified and be, themselves, involved in the 

mitigation efforts. Their involvement should come at the beginning, for 

. • . it has become increasingly clear that action agencies 

designing (major stream-control devices). . . and directing 

their construction • . • should become more aware of the wide 

range of potential effects on the local culture, in order to 

advise local residents how to anticipate such impact. In 

cases of Kentucky reservoirs recently filled, effects on many 

location institutions were not foreseen. Last minute, inefficient 

solutions were made to deal with situations. Stresses and 

tensions thus created could have been avoided if, at the 

public meetings held by the Corps to point out possible 

economic and recreational benefits from the dams, attention 

had been directed to such potential costs. By warning against 

such difficulties, and suggesting sources of assistance if 

needed in solving reservoir-created problems, the Corps and 

similar agencies could reduce tensions and improve their own 

relationship with the people whose ecosystem they so drastically 

alter (emphasis mine). 

(Drucker in Smith 1973, p. ii). 

There are those who will argue that it is impossible to have representative involvement from the diversity of communities that may exist in a given 

impact area. We argue that by involving people from the outset, it is 

possible to insure a representative involvement from various communities. 

How can this be accomplished? By several means. Before the research 

69 
begins, it is useful for the principal investigator to make personal contact with various community people. (In some locales, it is going to be 

necessary for the research team to obtain permission from, for example, 

the village council or leaders, before interviewing in the community can 

be conducted.) If the principal investigation is to use community residents 

in the research, running a descriptive ad in the classified section of the 

newspaper may encourage residents to seek more information on the project. 

General announcements about the research, and the project that is being 

contemplated, may also be run in local newspapers, discussed on local radio 

and television stations, placed in meeting halls, churches, schools, and 

other public areas. Job and project descriptions might also be placed on 

bulletin boards in employment offices, social service agency offices, grocery 

stores, libraries, department stores, etc. These measures also alert people 

to be at public hearings. Copies of research reports should also be made 

available to the general public for their scrutiny and criticism, and a 

mechanism for revision of reports to accommodate such input should also 

be incorporated. In addition to the use of "lay-publics," it will be 

valuable to have criticism and evaluation of the reports from "professional" 

researchers. 

The discussion on sources of evaluation, especially public participation, could be expanded to incorporate remarks on the methodology of public 

involvement, critical inputs, feedback mechanisms, etc. It is imperative 

at this point, however, to turn attention to the evaluation process itself 

and, finally, discuss some of the criteria by which cogent judgments about 

a project's effects can be made. 

4.2 Evaluation Criteria and Procedures 

Recall that in Figure 4 and 5 (Section 2.1) an overall scheme of social 

impact assessment was advanced. These figures and the discussion that 

followed involve two levels of abstraction at the same time. On the one 

hand, we have been deductively developing a model of a social system, its 

mechanisms and its interface with other subsystems. At the same time, we 

have been talking about inductively identifying particular variables (and 

their indicators), clusters of variables (and their indices), and producing 

a profile that depicts and displays significant social factors and their 

effects. Planners are then supposed to be able to begin assessing and 

evaluating this amalgam of information to decide the overall social impact 

of any given public project. 

Criteria are needed here against which effects of a proposed project 

can be measured. The most widespread expression and summary of such an 

effort comes under the label Social Well-Being/Quality of Life (SWB/QOL). 

The variety of legislative enactments (particularly NEPA, Section 122 and 

209 of the River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1970, as well as such 

interpretive schemes as the Principles and Standards of the Water Resources 

Council as revised on September 10, 1973) all point out broadening objectives 

in public water resources planning, especially as they refer to the so-called 

"fourth account", namely social well-being. 

70 
The quest for SWB/QOL is elusive since it involves many value judgments 

on the very purpose of a planning activity. Ideally, against a broad 

criterion of social worth and collective survival one can juxtapose present 

conditions and potential consequences, and, thus, arrive at a judgment as 

to the advisability of a proposed plan. The utility of this approach was 

briefly indicated in Chapter 2. There, impacts were discussed in the context 

of relevant social and cultural variables. These impacts provided also a 

first analysis of dimensions of social well-being. But still the question 

remains: against what ultimate criterion do we evaluate a project's short 

and long-term effects? 

One way of proceeding toward such a criterion is the delineation of 

goals and objectives. Goal formulation is a long, painful process of 

getting people to state desired values and objectives in terms that are 

clear, specific, and ideally, measurable. However, goals are not formulated 

by clear, rational, logical debate involving all groups concerned, but rather 

evolve from a complex history of vaguely expressed public opinion, faulty 

interpretations, and political opportunism. Thus ambiguity in project goals 

is a common phenomenon. Its explanation lies in the practitioner's preoccupation with concrete matters of program operation and the general pragmatic 

mode of operation. Sometimes, however, this ambiguity may serve the purpose 

of masking underlying divergences or disagreements as to the very premises 

on which the entire project is based. 

Whatever the above concerns and reservations, the overall purpose of 

formulating goals is to: 

a. provide a means to organize, compare and delineate sets of criteria 

in water resources projects; 

b. become part of the information necessary to evaluate the demands 

and requirements placed on water resources development and to 

resolve competing and sometimes conflicting demands; 

c. establish a basis for examining the relationships between sets of 

goals and to order priorities among various water uses; 

d. create a background for open discussion of the larger aims of 

society and for reconciling political decision-making with the 

desires of the public and professional analysis. 

A starting point for the establishment of goals and criteria is the 

revised Principles and Standards which not only recognizes what the Water 

Resources Council refers to as the Four Plan Formulation test, namely: 

a. acceptability to the public and compatibility with institutional 

constraints; 

b. effectiveness in meeting component needs; 

c. efficiency in meeting component needs and least-cost needs; 

71 
elements through which values and goals are expressed in terms of direct 

outputs or expected results from the operation of specific water projects, 

but not necessarily in terms of ultimate effects and long-range consequences. 

Objectives concern specific accomplishments and purposes. Since they are 

limited in scope (and much more specific than goals), they can be looked 

at as sub-goals dealing with shorter time periods. They are generally 

quantitatively measurable, permitting -- because of their preoccupation 

with direct effects -- a better evaluative scheme of the performance of 

the system. At the same time, since they are not as general and as ambitious 

as the broad goals, they require less collective public agreement and they 

sometimes may represent interests of specific groups. 

Standards and criteria are the means and screening mechanisms for making 

decisions concerning the relationship of goals, objectives and policy intentions in the context of immediate and long-range effects on environments. 

Thus, decisions on a program are guided and constrained by criteria provided by authorities, legal texts and interpretations, professional judgment, 

and, increasingly in recent years, public participation. 

Some of these criteria are quantitative in nature, while others are 

highly subjective resulting from evaluative judgments and decisions concerning more intangible dimensions of life. At the same time, with 

continuously changing goals and objectives, as well as policies, new criteria 

continuously emerge. One should be highly alert to the demanding task of 

choosing explicit, systematic, and clearly stated standards and criteria 

that would permit monitoring and careful evaluation of originally stated 

goals. 

Clear definitions of goals, objectives, policies, and criteria help 

one evaluate long-range consequences. Ideally, we may see the connection 

between values, goals, objectives, criteria, and indicators in a continuum 

representing an effort of reduction and of increased detail from the more 

general level to the specific, and from desired broad ends to specific 

means. This organization of a systematic hierarchy of levels may be seen 

in Figure 13, where two parallel ideas are explicated: the generation of 

specific variables from general values, and the process of goal reduction. 

However, it should be noted that the dividing line between various levels 

of specificity are highly arbitrary and are nothing more than part of a 

generalized effort of problem-solving relating ends to means. 

Each level in Figure 13 represents a goal from a point of view of the 

level below it, but a means from the point of view of the level above. It 

is in this sense that goals and means (or ends and means) may be interchangeable depending upon how one views the hierarchy of values and when 

one intervenes. What may be a goal in one program may be simply a means 

to another. For example, the construction of a water reservoir may be the 

goal of a given community in expanding recreational facilities and, therefore, this particular project may be an end in itself. However, from a 

regional point of view (and from a total inter-basin exchange program) this 

may be only a means for a larger overall program of providing water supplies 

or flood control for a much larger area or region. 

73 
-• 

elements through which values and goals are expressed in terms of direct 

outputs or expected results from the operation of specific water projects, 

but not necessarily in terms of ultimate effects and long-range consequences. 

Objectives concern specific accomplishments and purposes. Since they are 

limited in scope (and much more specific than goals), they can be looked 

at as sub-goals dealing with shorter time periods. They are generally 

quantitatively measurable, permitting -- because of their preoccupation 

with direct effects -- a better evaluative scheme of the performance of 

the system. At the same time, since they are not as general and as ambitious 

as the broad goals, they require less collective public agreement and they 

sometimes may represent interests of specific groups. 

Standards and criteria are the means and screening mechanisms for making 

decisions concerning the relationship of goals, objectives and policy intentions in the context of immediate and long-range effects on environments. 

Thus, decisions on a program are guided and constrained by criteria provided by authorities, legal texts and interpretations, professional judgment, 

and, increasingly in recent years, public participation. 

Some of these criteria are quantitative in nature, while others are 

highly subjective resulting from evaluative judgments and decisions concerning more intangible dimensions of life. At the same time, with 

continuously changing goals and objectives, as well as policies, new criteria 

continuously emerge. One should be highly alert to the demanding task of 

choosing explicit, systematic, and clearly stated standards and criteria 

that would permit monitoring and careful evaluation of originally stated 

goals. 

Clear definitions of goals, objectives, policies, and criteria help 

one evaluate long-range consequences. Ideally, we may see the connection 

between values, goals, objectives, criteria, and indicators in a continuum 

representing an effort of reduction and of increased detail from the more 

general level to the specific, and from desired broad ends to specific 

means. This organization of a systematic hierarchy of levels may be seen 

in Figure 13, where two parallel ideas are explicated: the generation of 

specific variables from general values, and the process of goal reduction. 

However, it should be noted that the dividing line between various levels 

of specificity are highly arbitrary and are nothing more than part of a 

generalized effort of problem-solving relating ends to means. 

Each level in Figure 13 represents a goal from a point of view of the 

level below it, but a means from the point of view of the level above. It 

is in this sense that goals and means (or ends and means) may be interchangeable depending upon how one views the hierarchy of values and when 

one intervenes. What may be a goal in one program may be simply a means 

to another. For example, the construction of a water reservoir may be the 

goal of a given community in expanding recreational facilities and, therefore, this particular project may be an end in itself. However, from a 

regional point of view (and from a total inter-basin exchange program) this 

may be only a means for a larger overall program of providing water supplies 

or flood control for a much larger area or region. 

73 
Goals 

Policies 

Programs 

Objectives 

Criteria-standards 1 

Action Variables 

Indicators - indices 

I 

t... 

4:- 

FIGURE 13 -- The Process of Goal Reduction and Indicators' Development 

1 

.

i 

Social Values v. 

74 I 
Together with a variety of other documents and related literature, the 

Principles and Standards is one of the most widely used means for developing coherent goals and objectives in water planning, and permits planners, 

affected publics, Congressional members, and others the opportunity to 

evaluate a given project in terms of environmental quality (EQ), national 

economic development (NED), regional development (RD), and social well-being 

or quality of life considerations (SWB) 

These principles are becoming the basis and vehicle for systematic water 

planning and evaluation. In addition, the principles and standards have 

strong policy overtones in that they: a) help assist in the allocation of 

scarce resources; b) delineate a system and criteria for displaying tradeoffs in the form of alternative plans; c) recognize both quantifiable and 

non-quantifiable benefits and costs; d) demand public participation; e) 

require interdisciplinary input; and 0 afford greater detail in the 

evaluation process and rational decision-making. 

We still need to clarify the meaning and implications of Social WellBeing, which increasingly we are called upon to apply to water and other 

natural resources development. One way is to list from the Principles and 

Standards and from other documents components of this concept. In view, 

however, of conceptual vagueness and overlapping our approach for the 

establishment of "criteria" follows the scheme proposed in Figure 14. 

In this figure, we recognize that the ultimate goal of any project, 

of any planning activity is survival and the enhancement of "fulfillment" 

understood as the "good life" ("man does not live by bread alone"). Assuming 

that the system of accounts can be used as a further elaboration, our effort 

should be concentrated primarily on the social well-being dimension, or QOL, 

recognizing at the same time overlapping with other areas (as, e.g., effects 

of increase in real income). The objectives indicated in Figure 14 (and 

they are only indicative of many similar objectives) can be separated into 

clusters of related specific variables and refined indicators. 

Generally, a measure of the QOL can be carried out in a number of ways. 

While a number of important variables affecting objectives of SWB/QOL were 

outlined in Chapter 2, the quest for social well-being can be summarized in 

the simplistic diagram of Figure 15. 

This figure schematizes a methodology for arriving at social well-being 

dimensions. But what about indices of social well-being themselves? One 

point needs to be noted, namely the implicit and explicit emphasis of the 

literature and guidelines on schemata that emphasize progressive human growth 

from an "immature" or basic to more "mature" or higher level. In such 

schemes, social well-being and quality of life are understood as part of an 

attainment of increasingly higher needs through such stages as survival, 

security, belonging, esteem, knowledge, understanding, aesthetics, selfactualization. Indices in such an approach tend to emphasize psychological 

satisfaction and "cultural" fulfillment, as contrasted with many of the 

structural dimensions discussed in Section 2.2. 

75 
CRITERION 

1 

SURVIVAL FULFILMENT 

, I 1 1 

Economic Regional Environmental 

Development Development Quality 

1 

SOCIAL 

WELL-BEING 

--Equitable distribution of educational, cultural and 

recreational opportunities 

--Increase in normative stability and solidarity 

--Decreases in perceived social isolation or alienation 

--Community cohesion 

--Esthetic integration 

--:-Security of life, health, and safety 

--Enhancement of freedom and variety 

-- Other 

FIGURE 14—Generation of evaluation criterion 

through social well-being goal emphasis 

76 
FIGURE 15 -- Determining Social Well-Being Dimensions 

SWBNOL Quest 

exemplified in 

survival I fulfilment 

I [ reflecting incorporating 

BASIC LEDS "HAPPINESS," QULATY DIMENSIONS 

I 1 

1 resulting to 

CHARACTERISTIC VARIABLES 

delineated through 

I I 1 I 1 

MEASUREMENT RANKING RATING "QUALIFICATION" 

I 1 I I 

I 

which through analysis 

resulting in 

INDICATORS AGGRITE QUALIFYI1 STATEMENTS 

1 values 

facilitatins 

EVALUATION 

leading to consideration 

RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TRADE-OFFS MITIGATION OR ALLLVIATION 

DECISION MAKING 

77 

1 

building the basis of 
Thus, more important at this point is the question of social indicators 

themselves. Social indicators have been increasingly recognized as important 

forms of evidence for assessing goals, for evaluating specific programs, 

and for determining their short and long-range effects. Such important 

socio-economic indicators require selection of the unit of analysis; 

specification of the areas of concern and, collection of statistics 

relating to these sensitive indices. 

Some studies have developed rather intricate systems for assigning 

values on various indicators. If we can quantify some of the dimensions 

involved, then we may be able to provide a value analysis which incorporates 

a benefit curve and a detriment curve and an optimum way of calculating the 

"total efficacy" of various combinations of parameters in the total design. 

The process that generates indicators may be derived from a model of 

the particular study (which delineates critical variables) or from a breakdown of goals and objectives to such a level of specificity that they 

themselves become indicators. However, all current social indicators 

primarily express structural conditions and are not directly meaningful 

for consideration of broader social effects or unanticipated consequences. 

No good indicators exist dealing with net social benefits (benefits minus 

costs or losses in some sense). Similarly, rates of change require also 

additional indicators for assessing intensity or variations of given effects. 

Studies have been made that try to breakdown goals into specific social 

indicators for monitoring and evaluating the effects of water resource projects on the environment. The most extensive study of this type is the 

so-called "Techcom Hierarchy" (formerly known as the "Strawman model") 

as it appears in the final report "Water Resources Planning, Social Goals 

and Indicators: Methodological Development and Empirical Test" (1975). 

There, a tremendous variety of social indicators, ranging all the way from 

internal security through environmental security to individual security, 

and from economic opportunity to aesthetic opportunity, exemplify the 

process of disaggregation and the question of developing sensitive indices 

to describe survival and fulfillment as the largest attainable goals. 

The vast list generated in the above report as well as similar lists 

in other studies show concerted effort to develop social indicator models 

and systems of indices that can monitor the quality of life concept and the 

far-reaching effects of water resources projects. (See among others, Andrews, 

1973; Fitzsimmons and Salamo, 1973). 

Similarly, federal projects have been constantly subject to a systematic 

review in terms of relevant criteria. Beginning with the benefit-cost 

accounting of the "Green Book" of 1950, subsequent documents such as Bureau 

of the Budget Circular A-47 (1952), and Senate Document 97 (1962) have 

gradually increased the comprehensiveness and scope of water resources 

planning. Such efforts culminate in a variety of laws, regulations, administrative guidelines, and explanatory documents, and especially in the key 

provisions of the new Principles and Standards and their "four account" 

system. Yet, even in this document (although the broad concept of social 

78 
well-being is stated as an overall goal in federal water resources activities) 

no specific methodology is mentioned, nor are any specific indicators 

suggested. 

Let us proceed, however, to develop a scheme of "measuring quality of 

life" with emphasis on appropriate social indicators, Figure 16 presents 

a truncated view of the process of separating out goals and generating 

social indicators with a few examples of characteristic sub-goals. Each 

particular sub-goal can be further broken down, analyzed, and disaggregated to such a level as to provide highly specific variables and indicators. 

For example, recreational opportunity may involve categories such as variety, 

quality, and ability to use facilities. The last may include available 

leisure time, access, income, and capacity of recreation activities each 

of which can serve as specific social indicators of the category "facilities." 

It has been indicated previously that any social system (and for that 

matter any ecological system) is composed of sub-systems. It is important 

to note larger distinction between outputs of a water project or direct 

effects and total effects. The last reflect the effort for implementing 

an original decision (generated in the context of given social values and 

goals), and also indirect effects and unanticipated consequences. 

Let us articulate the difference between primary and secondary effects. 

"Primary" are usually defined as first in time, first in order of development, first in importance. In other words, as primary effects one may 

define those original factors that can be directly attributable to the 

project under consideration. 

"Secondary" effects are of less than primary importance, second in time 

or in order. Secondary effects are derivative of primary ones, being either 

induced by or stemming from primary effects. Secondary consequences are 

related more to primary consequences than to the project itself; they are 

those impacts that are the indirect consequences triggered by the project 

but not in themselves "necessary" to the project. (This distinction often 

involves other similar terms such as direct-indirect, intended-unintended, 

first-higher, anticipated-unanticipated, tangible-intangible, etc.) 

Needless to say, it is important to notice that there is really a fine 

line separating primary and secondary impacts and the placement of that line 

is mainly a value judgment and is quite often arbitrary. For example, we 

may know that activities related to the construction of a dam can be 

described as primary in terms of the loss of wilderness area, influx of 

construction workers, increased economic viability, etc. However, related 

land developments are difficult to determine as primary or secondary. The 

last case can be made as a result of the presence of the dam and the potential 

of a recreation area which stimulates further expansion. 

To make such distinctions more precise, one may conceive of primary 

impacts as effects resulting from well-stated goals incorporated in the 

rationale of the project, in any supplemental guidelines, or in any other 

79 
Goal Sub-goals 

Economic 

Security 

a. offenses per crime classes 

b. % of population committing serious offenses 

c. accident rates 

a. persons per home 

b. % of houses with electricity 

c. plumbing facilities 

Personal 

Safety 

Housing 

Conditions 

amount of waste per various categories 

amount and type of emissions by source 

quality of natural areas 

number of recreational facilities 

types of recreational activities 

accessibility of natural beauty areas 

Pristine 

Physical b. 

Environmeni c. 

Recreational 

Opportunity 

a.

b.

c.

FIGURE 16 -- Process of Developing Social Indicators 

Social Indicators 

a. % of population unemployed 

b. % of workers covered by pension benefits 

c. job turnovers 

Health 

a. length of life 

 b. infant mortality 

c. disease vectors and morbidity rates 

Quality 

of 

Life 
explicit manifestations of articulated objectives. The peripheral boundaries 

of secondary impacts are determined mainly as significance which is a function 

of the magnitude of the effects, the number of people affected, and the area 

affected by a water resource development. Finally, a further consideration 

should be the degree of irreversibility or irretrievability of the consequence. 

It is interesting to notice that the distinction between primary and 

secondary consequences helps us also delineate an interactive scheme of 

T! causes" and "effects" and of cross-relationships in the modeling of a given 

community system. Figure 17 outlines a paradigm of how social scientists can 

trace "causal sequences" and probable paths between direct impacts and 

indirect consequences. For each variable or category of effects a whole 

series of indicators can be developed that ideally can measure both the 

extent and rate of change. 

Having delineated the criteria for assessing and evaluating impacts, 

our next concern is the process of evaluation itself. Evaluation is a 

derivative of "valuation," a term connoting not only a number of more or 

less objective considerations but also commitment to some normative 

purposes and definitive value orientation. In a simpler language, we are 

asking the following question: "To what extent does the project succeed 

in reaching its goals?" If we ignore for a minute methodological questions 

raised in Chapter 3, the evaluation process revolves around the following 

steps: 

1. Find out a project's goals. 

2. Translate the goals into measurable indicators of goal achievement. 

3. Collect pertinent data. 

4. Analyze and compare data on outcomes, participants, etc., with the 

goal criteria. 

In practice, however, such a simple operation stumbles against several 

overt and covert considerations. To mention a few: 

a. Project goals are often ambiguous, elusive, or too broad to pin 

down. There are doubts as to what stated goals are. Are we, for 

example, interested in maximizing physical output in an efficient 

way, or providing a more equitable distribution among project 

beneficiaries? 

b. Projects do not accomplish only official goals. They also accomplish 

other things, sometimes in addition and sometimes instead. Serendipitous effects tend to confound the evaluative efforts. Time is 

an important factor since some projects may show immediate effects, 

while others create a 'sleeper" effect that shows up at a later 

time. 

81 
Influx of Workers 

t 

Creation of 

.4 Recreational 

Facility 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Congestion 

i 

More Campgrounds 

Service Stores Increasing 

Land Values 

Loss of Wildness 

11/ 

Community Facilities 

Law Enforcement 

Problems 

Community Cohesion 

Land Development 

/ 

Residential Sprawl Access Highways 

Increased 4.– 

Capital 

Increased 

Spending -.11111-0.- 

FIGURE 17 -- Selected Examples of Probable Cause-Effect Consequences in Reservoir Construction 

(From Evan Vlachos and David W. Hendricks, TechnologL, Assessment for Ilew Water 

Supplies—Report, in press.) 
c. At whom is the project primarily aimed? Who are the potential 

"clients?" Are we seeking to influence or affect individuals, 

groups, or whole communities? How do we measure a series of changes 

and their differential effects among segments of the population? 

d. Many times projects aim at multiple effects. How do we measure 

and evaluate effects differing, among other things, in terms of 

type (direct, indirect), order (first, higher), magnitude (severe, 

light), importance (anticipated, unanticipated), timing (short-range, 

long-range), and reversibility (retrievable, irretrievable). 

We need to recall all the above to emphasize the key role of goal specification in any evaluation effort and to indicate that even under the best 

conditions, good evaluation studies of projects are relatively rare. Furthermore, even if we come close to learning how well a project is reaching its 

goals, participants or members of a project may differ in expectations. 

Any model of a social system must take into account that the latter is 

a system of complexly interrelated components or subsystems, such that changes 

in one of them may effect one or all others. These subsystems can be analyzed 

in terms of the main divisions of the society or community, i.e., the political, 

economic, educational, religious, kinship, military, etc. (as exemplified in 

Figures 6-8, Chapter 2). 

A difficult problem may often arise in the evaluation of multiple 

impacts. Thus, a project may be assessed to have a positive impact on the 

economic sector but a negative impact on community cohesion and political 

integration (for example, through a disruption of neighborhood residential 

areas and a strong shift to suburbs, outlying towns or new political units). 

In addition, the educational system may be stressed by an influx of new 

workers' families and a demand for new types of job training. • 

Consequently, the evaluation of project impacts and goals cannot be 

confined narrowly. For example, a project's immediate goal may be to provide clean water, a deep enough river channel to permit navigation, and a 

family recreation area. But an evaluation of the project in terms of these 

health, economic, and social goals must also extend to a comparative 

evaluation against impacts in other subsystems of the community as well as 

in other environments outside that community. 

The problem of making comparative assessments of values, goals, and 

preferences still plagues us. Where possible, of course, objective figures 

need to be given -- numbers of dollars, of persons, of acres, of students, 

of unemployed, etc. But there is no completely objective way to compare 

such units; the numbers do not speak for themselves in any way common to 

all groups of people. Although a benefit-cost type of comparative evaluation 

and balancing of trade-offs may provide some guidance under certain conditions, 

most social effects are inherently nonobjective and incommensurable. Thus, 

any benefit-cost analysis and balancing of trade-offs involving different 

subgroup values, goals and preferences reflects the biases of the analyst: 
any final assessment and balancing can only be done through a fully participatory decision process involving the impact groups and institutional 

representatives, and a variety of both quantifiable and nonquantifiable 

measurements. 

Although the Corps planners may weigh pro's and con's in terms of some 

particular well-defined criteria, any attempt by any group to force a value 

judgment on the whole community has no objective and defensible basis. 

Put in other terms, the Corps cannot be expected or allowed to be at once 

executor, advocate, judge and jury. 

84 
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPERATIONALIZING 

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

5.0 

This report so far has been directed primarily at those responsible 

for social impact assessment and secondarily those responsible for overall 

impact assessment. This section is directed more specifically at those 

personnel responsible for supervising the former. 

As engineer/planners become involved directly or indirectly in assessing social impacts for Corps projects, they inevitably become involved in 

social science. This is bound to be somewhat frustrating initially for 

individuals trained to expect hard data and clearly delineated alternatives. 

Anyone who has read this far in the present document realizes that social 

science does not have methods of producing easily categorized hard data. 

Boundaries are never hard and fast, either in data and analysis within 

social science. 

5.1 The World of Social Science 

While there is an area of study called social science, all social 

scientists are trained in a specific social science discipline such as 

sociology, anthropology, social psychology, psychology, economics or 

cultural geography. There is a great deal of overlap between these fields, 

but each has different orientations to research and methods for data collection. 

Social sciences can be best understood in terms of two dimensions: 

cross-institutional analysis and institutional analysis. Under institutional analysis can be classified those social sciences which focus on the 

study of a single major institutional area. 

Social Science Sub-Field 

criminology 

geography 

political science 

economics 

Institutional Area 

deviant behavior 

land ownership and use 

government 

economy 

Note that while economics is usually classified as a social science, economic 

considerations are subject to separate analysis outside social impact analysis. 

Additionally, there are social sciences which focus on a particular type 

of social phenomena in all institutional areas. 

85 
Social Science Sub-Field 

psychology 

sociology 

anthropology 

Type of Phenomena Studied 

sociopsychological 

(attitudes, perceptions) 

social structure 

(social organization) 

sociocultural 

(shared values) 

Each social science has developed its own conceptual frameworks and 

methods for analysis. But most social scientists are aware of methodologies 

in related social sciences. Thus a cultural geographer has special skills 

in social impacts related to changes in land use. But the anthropologist 

and the sociologist could also contribute in this area. However, because 

of the focus on attitudes and perceptions, the social psychologist could 

probably contribute little to the determination of changes in land use, 

but he would be particularly suited to determine how people might respond 

to these changes. Thus the selection of a particular type of social 

scientist for involvement in social impact assessment can be expected to 

vary somewhat depending on the nature of anticipated project impacts. 

An increasing number of academic departments in the social sciences 

are recognizing the need for broadly trained applied social scientists to 

meet the need for social science expertise within a variety of agencies. 

Social scientists with such an applied focus are likely to be more broadly 

trained than the more traditional social scientist regardless of field of 

specialization. For this reason, in selecting individuals to participate 

in social impact assessment, breadth of training and experience are probably 

more important than the particular disciplines. 

5.2 Levels of Competency in Social Science 

Given that a social scientist from any of several disciplines could 

make a contribution to social impact assessment, there remains the question 

of varying qualifications of social scientists at the bachelors, masters 

or doctoral levels. The higher degree of training and resulting specialization may have equipped the Ph.D. more for a role of researcher, or 

specialized consultant, than for day-to-day work for the Corps, particularly 

at the District office level. At the same time, it must be acknowledged 

that not all persons with B.A. training in the social sciences have the 

breadth of expertise and methodological skills to assess the range of potential 

social impacts stemming from Corps projects as required for adequate multidisciplinary impact assessment. 

5.3 The Social Scientists in the Multidisciplinary Impact Assessment 

Existing legislation recognizes and encourages multidisciplinary 

coordination and interdisciplinary research. Further, legislation exemplifies 

an underlying planning ethos which incorporates not only integrated approaches, 

86 
but also a futuristic orientation and evaluation of a wide spectrum of 

alternatives to solutions. 

In this context, the Corps may utilize social scientists capable of 

performing tasks such as: 

1. Preparation of studies, particularly at the early formulation stage, 

by collecting and analyzing relevant data, identifying appropriate 

populations and communities, describing historical and cultural 

features of the surrounding social environment. 

2. Presentation of perspectives on social issues involving a variety 

of populations, exchanges and balances between natural and social 

systems and difficulties involved in estimating nonmonetary factors. 

3. Continuous review and monitoring of reports and project implementation, alerting planners of the potential social consequences of 

proposed activities. 

4. Review of projects that have been activated, being constructed, or 

completed for better understanding of impacts. 

5.4 Integration of Social Science Expertise into the Corps 

The diversity of the social sciences, the varying scale and circumstances 

of Corps projects and the scope of social science involvement in multidisciplinary impact assessment seems to dictate a variety of alternatives 

for integration and utilization of social scientists. 

The first alternative is for employment of social scientists on staff 

positions within the Corps. Ph.D. social scientists may be better utilized 

at Division level or higher, where they could provide technical assistance 

and support for the social impact assessment at the District office level. 

B.A. or M.A. level social scientists, particularly if they had solid training or experience in applied research, could be utilized at the District 

office and perhaps the Division office level. 

A second alternative for utilization of social science personnel would 

be through contracts for social impact assessment as part of a general contract for project assessment. However, even if the contract is through a 

private firm, the Corps would be well advised to look beyond the qualifications of the firm to require actual experience of the social scientist to 

be employed under the contract. 

Thirdly, the Corps might contract for base studies to provide background 

data on the basic population and social trends in an area to be affected by 

a project. 

87 
Finally, individual social scientists or a panel of social scientists 

might be utilized by the Corps to evaluate, review or advise as to the 

current status of social impact assessment for a project, or the overall 

operation of social impact assessment in a Corps office. 

It is probable that a mix of the above alternatives would be required 

to meet the diversity of needs in any Corps office. A small project, with 

few alternatives, relatively short project life and limited impact would 

probably best be carried out by a single person with a B.A. or M.A. in 

social science employed in a staff position at the District office level. 

An alternate solution might well be to secure cross-training for an existing staff member with an interest in social science. Intermediate scale 

projects with a greater range of potential impacts would seem to dictate 

utilization of someone with specific training in social science and a 

demonstrated skill in organizing research. Lacking a qualified staff 

member, the Corps might choose to contract the total effort of impact 

assessment to a multidisciplinary team. Finally, there are large scale 

projects which have a multigeneration impact on an entire region. While 

social impact assessment for an intermediate scale project could probably 

be carried out by a single broadly trained individual, the large scale 

project would probably require a multidisciplinary team of social scientists 

in order to adequately carry out the social impact assessment. At this 

level, each social scientist would be working more nearly as an expert 

within his own subdiscipline in a coordinated research effort. The scope 

of expertise required for large projects is beyond the probable social 

staffing potential of Corps District offices for the foreseeable future, 

dictating contracting for base studies and quite possibly for the social 

impact assessment as well. 

It is obvious that at each project level there are alternatives for 

social science input. Probably in the long run a balanced mix of types of 

inputs and level of integration will occur in each District office according to local needs. It should be noted that full social impact assessment 

cannot be implemented without a significant increase in staff time and 

funding. Thus, the fuller integration of social science in the Corps 

planning effort must be viewed as a developing effort. 

5.5 Mutual Educationof Engineer/Plannersand Social Scientists 

Likewise, the mutual education of engineer/planners and social scientists 

must be viewed as a developing effort. Most social scientists are not fully 

aware of water resources planning and of the roles played by engineer/planners 

in that process. Not all engineer/planners are fully knowledgeable of the 

capabilities and best means of utilizing social scientists. The current 

professional literature of each discipline needs to be shared. The social 

scientist might well read such journals as "Engineering News-Record" and 

"Water Resources Bulletin," while the engineer/planner might examine "Human 

Organization" and "Society." Gilbert White's "Strategies of American Water 

Management" offers the social scientist a view of the history of water 

management, while Douglas James' "Man and Water" could introduce the engineer/ 

88 
planner to the potential contributions of the diverse social science fields. 

The possibilities for developing specialized short courses or in-service 

training for existing personnel should be examined. In the long run, however, mutual education is most likely to take place through informal 

discussions that are part of everyday work. The utilization of outside 

social science consultants can be an important factor in introducing new 

ideas into such discussions. Finally, the ideal situation for mutual 

education lies in the formation of working teams in which the planner and 

the social scientist each makes his contribution to the planning process 

in an ongoing effort. 

89 
SUMMARY - RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. Summary Remarks 

As stated in the Preface, the consultant team did not intend to provide 

a field testable "manual" or social impact assessment. Instead, the 

emphasis of the writing above has been primarily on the establishment of 

a frame of mind and a discussion of methodological approaches of social 

scientists. 

Looking back at what has been discussed, one may detect key themes 

and preoccupations, some of which can serve as highlights. Among these: 

1. Social impact assessment is become part of the planning process 

of water resources projects. This implies: 

a. identification of the types of social scientists needed for a 

project; 

b. delineation of the kind of social information most appropriate 

for the project; 

c. commitment to interdisciplinary communication and efforts; 

2. Contending theories and assumptions about society and social systems 

result in sensitizing rather than in operational models of impacted areas or 

communities. This realization (and the complexity of multiple impacts) leads 

to a tentative character of proposed community analysis, and also to: 

a. recognition of the role of contending frames of reference; 

b. long and often conflicting lists of critical variables; 

c. acknowledgement of sociopolitical realities and conflicting 

interests; 

d. awareness of the dynamic, iterative character of the social 

system; 

3. Increasingly, water resources project assessment is acquiring a 

future-oriented emphasis. This movement reinforces: 

a. wider recognition and application of technology assessment and 

social forecasting techniques; 

b. commitment to an extended time-horizon and appropriate methodologies for multidimensional, multiobjective, multidisciplinary 

long-range models of impact analysis. 

1 

90 
4. Assessment and evaluation will require more sensitive social indicators and sources of evaluation ranging from legal standards and professional 

judgments to public participation and involvement. Desired characteristics 

of social assessment and evaluation include: 

a. clear, specific, and, ideally, measurable goals and objectives; 

b. coherent schemes and hierarchies of criteria and indicators; 

c. the demanding task of "instrumentation" and quantification; 

d. specification of the areas of concern for which indicators are 

to be developed; 

e. recognition of the important difference between primary impacts 

and secondary consequences; 

f. collection and aggregation of basic statistics for the construction of sensitive indices. 

To conclude, some broad recommendations must be made as to how the viewpoints of social sciences can be integrated into the entire impact assessment 

process. These recommendations include overall suggestions concerning the 

general Corps of Engineers social impact assessment effort and a few specific 

remarks for potential further work to be sponsored by the Institute for Water 

Resources. 

B. Overall Recommendations Concerning the Corps of Engineers Social Impact 

Assessment Effort 

1. Implementation of social impact assessment within the total planning 

process of the Corps of Engineers will require a much greater allocation of 

planning funds and staff time. 

a. In the short run, the most immediate improvement in social impact 

assessment can be made through expanded contracting by the Corps 

for both base studies and full social impact assessment„ together 

with training courses for lower level personnel and orientation 

sessions for supervisory personnel. 

b. In the long run, a wiser use of available funds for social impact 

assessment may call for increased employment of social scientists 

within the Corps and indepth cross-training of existing personnel. 

2. Use of advisory or review boards of social scientists may provide an 

essential mechanism for evaluation of the social impact assessment carried 

out by Corps personnel and by outside contractors. 

91 
3. A few selected Districts and Divisions should form a Social Science 

Advisory Group to work with the District over a period of time to improve 

understanding of social sciences in Corps programs, 

4. Effective utilization of social scientists by the Corps must be 

based on the professional needs of both social scientists and the needs of 

the Corps. 

a. Continued close contact between Corps social scientists and 

other social scientists is required to overcome the current 

limited state-of-the-art in long-range social impact assessment. 

b. Organizational structures must be evolved to facilitate the 

productiveness of social scientists within and outside the 

Corps, similar to those being developed in other fields. 

5. At the District office level, there is a need to begin building a 

broad data base for social impact assessment reaching beyond the individual 

project. 

6. Social impact assessment must be recognized as essential to all 

aspects of long-range planning by public agencies, and the efforts of the 

Corps and of social scientists working with the Corps must be directed 

toward improving the predictive quality of social impact assessment. 

7. A conference of relatively high level Corps personnel (District or 

Division planning chiefs, OCE, BERH, District and Division Engineers) should 

be held to show how the social sciences fit into field level planning. In 

preparation for such a conference, trial field studies should be made in 

order to present a variety of actual situations and a realistic examination 

of the spectrum of problems encountered in social impact assessment. 

C. Recommendations by the Team of Consultants to the Institute for Water 

Resources for Potential Further Work to be Sponsored by_ IWR 

1. A series of pilot sites representative of the scale and variety of 

Corps projects should be selected for utilization of this background report 

under more or less controlled conditions, or at least monitored as "natural 

experiments." This might serve as a preliminary field check of the report 

and as a basis for revision in terms of the needs of the field. 

2. Long-range social forecasting is a new area of study in social science. 

It would seem appropriate to carry out a state-of-the-art study of the use 

of social forecasting in concrete situations. 

3. In light of 2 above, a long-range research plan could be formulated 

to try to provide standardized instrumentation for social forecasting and a 

series of social indicators particularly applicable to water resources projects. 

92 
-• 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following selected titles are only indicative of the 

vast literature in the area. Works selected emphasize 

"environmental social science," society and water 

resources, and methodological principles. 

AO 

.., 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRARRY 

Abell, Peter, "Model Building in Sociology." New York: Schocken Books, 

1971. 

A thorough survey and succinct introduction to modeling attempts 

in sociology. The author discusses a logical framework for model 

building which involves a well-structured hierarchy of scientific 

sophistication. In addition, the presentation of causality merits 

particular attention. 

Ackoff, Russell L., "Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to 

Societal Problems." New York: John Wiley, 1974. 

A recent textbook on social problems with many illuminating 

examples on the use of systems approach for a variety of responses 

to rapid social change. 

Andrews, Wade H., et al (eds.), "The Social Well-Being and Quality of 

Life Dimensions in Water Resources Planning and Development." Proceedings 

of the Conference at Utah State University. July 10-12. Logan, Utah: 

Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources, 1973. 

This rich collection of papers attempts to define QOL/SWB dimensions by tracing governmental efforts and contributions of research. 

The conclusions are that this is a rather difficult and ill-defined 

task at present and that more work is needed. 

Baier, Kurt and Nicholas Rescher (eds.), 'Values and the Future: The 

Impact of Technological Change on American Values." New York: The Free 

Press, 1972. 

A useful and succinct compilation of research on the nature, 

dimensions, and forecasting of values in American society. The volume 

develops appropriate categories within which one can describe or 

analyze the values of a person or a group and study changes over time. 

Barker, Roger G. and Phil Schoggen, "Qualities of Community Life. Methods 

of Measuring Environment and Behavior Applied to an American and an English 

Town." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973. 

A truly massive volume describing and measuring the character and 

quality of community life. Highly specialized, but useful for the 

researcher who wants to see the results of an intense, longitudinal 

study of the human habitat. 

Bates, Alan P., "The Sociological Enterprise." New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 

Co., 1967. 

A small but useful little volume introducing the variety of sociological models. The overview is supplemented by considerable information 

on sociology as a profession. 

93 
Bauer, Raymond A. (ed.), "Social Indicators." Cambridge, Massachusetts: 

The MIT Press, 1967. 

One of the original volumes on social indicators by a major 

practitioner and theoretician in the field. It remains the classic 

in setting up the stage and problems of social indicators in American 

society. 

Bauer, E. Jackson, "Assessing the social effects of public works projects." 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia: Army Corps of Engineers, Research Paper No. 3, 1973. 

A small monograph incorporating the opinions of the author concerning the potential of sociology for assessing social effects in Corps of 

Engineers programs. 

Blalock, H. M., Jr., (ed.), "Measurement in the Social Sciences: Theories 

and Strategies." Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1974. 

A large volume containing an exhaustive (occassionally exhausting) 

variety of readings of different levels of difficulty on the problems 

of measurement in social sciences. Together with his previous work, 

"Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research" (Chapel Hill: University 

of North Carolina Press, 1964), they are part of the most cogent effort 

to develop formal causal models in social sciences. 

Bradburn, Norman, "The Structure of Psychological Well-Being." Chicago: 

Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. 

One of the few works that attempt to explicate the dimensions of 

individual well-being. This is a result of a series of interviews of 

the National Opinion Research Center emphasizing that self-reports of 

happiness have considerable validity when measured against objective 

standards. 

Brim, John A. and David H. Spain, "Research Design in Anthropology: Paradigms and Pragmatics in the Testing of Hypotheses." New York: Holt, Rinehart 

and Winston, Inc., 1974. 

This book is recommended as a valuable tool for designing, evaluating 

and presenting research for social impact assessment. The authors are 

concerned about the use to which social scientific research is put. They 

also offer suggestions for research strategies which allow (even require) 

rigorous collection and analysis of data. 

Brokensha, David and Peter Hodge, "Community Development: An Interpretation." 

San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1969. 

A useful compendium of general information on perspectives of 

community change. 

94 
Brown, Carl, J. G. Monks and J. R. Park, "Decision-Making in Water Resources 

Allocation." Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1973. 

This slim volume contains an interesting model of the decision 

process whereby water resources are allocated. Adds to the library 

of those who attempt to develop quantitative models or delineate and 

assess economic and noneconomic inputs to water resource decisions. 

Brown, Robert, "Explanation in Social Science." Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1963. 

An early pioneering volume for developing the rationale and background of explanatory schemes in social science. 

Brubaker, Sterling, "To Live on Earth: Man and His Environment in Perspective." Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press (RFF), 1972. 

This book stands out as a sober and interesting reflection on the 

relationship of man to the natural environment. It suggests shortand long-range choices for meeting environmental threats. 

Buckley, Walter, "Sociology and Modern Systems Theory." Englewood Cliffs, 

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967. 

The early standard book on the use of systems analysis in sociology 

with strong critical comments on the mechanical equilibrium and organismic 

models of society. 

Burch, William R., Jr., et al (eds.), "Social Behavior, Natural Resources 

and the Environment." New York: Harper and Row, 1972. 

An uneven collection of material concerning the "sociology of 

natural resources.' Most of the material tends to be along traditional 

lines with heavy emphasis on rural cultures and with little insight 

about any breakthrough of current social impacts research. 

Campbell, Angus and P. E. Converse (eds.), "The Human Meaning of Social 

Change." New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. 

A companion volume in the series of social indicator material 

generated by the Russell Sage Foundation to be read in conjunction 

with the book by Sheldon and Moore. It expands the original argument 

and contains a variety of readings on the use of social indicators 

and social policy, with particular emphasis on the attitudes, expectations, and values of the American population. 

Caulfield, Henry P., et al (eds.), "Manual for Training in the Application 

of the Principles and Standards of the Water Resources Council." Fort Collins, 

Colorado: Environmental Resources Center (December), 1974. 

This large monograph is the result of a special course undertaken 

at Colorado State University with the help of a variety of experts to 

95 
define and interpret the principles and standards of the Water Resources 

Council. The manual is the companion text of a series of television 

tapes supplementing the course. 

Chartrand, Robert Lee, "Systems Technology Applied to Social and Community 

a Problems." New York: Spartan Books, 1971. 

This is a hardbound edition of a series of hearings of the United 

States Senate containing useful material on the use of systems analysis 

for social and community problems, as well as an analysis of governmental 

activities in applying systems technology. 

Chinoy, Ely, "Sociological Perspective." Second edition, New York: Random 

House, 1968. 

A small classic volume containing perspectives, methods and approaches 

in sociology. It is a good introduction for the beginner, especially 

because of its succinct presentation of a variety of sociological concepts. 

Connor, J. Richard and Edna Loehman (eds.), "Economics and Decision-Making 

for Environmental Quality." Gainesville, Florida: The University Press of 

Florida, 1974. 

A large volume on the implications of decision-making for environmental quality with particular emphasis on balancing economic benefits 

and costs with larger social considerations. The section on ''Decisionmaking problems in land and water development" is particularly useful 

for outlining aspects of the assessment process. 

Dakley, Norman C., et al, "Studies in the Quality of Life: Delphi and 

Decision-Making." Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1972. 

Uneven chapters explore the Delphi approach and the methodological 

questions in the development of techniques of systematic group judgment. 

Experiments and studies discuss the capabilities and limitations of 

this method. 

DeGreene, Kenyon B., "Sociotechnical Systems: Factors in Analysis, Design, 

and Management." Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 

This relates problems of systems approach and integration between 

social and technical systems. Particularly useful is the discussion of 

systems methodology, modeling, projecting, and forecasting. 

Diesing, Paul, "Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences." Chicago: 

Aldine Publishing Company, 1971. 

The author concentrates his arguments on the use of qualitative 

approaches, especially the case study, for discovering patterns and 

regularities of phenomena in the social sciences. Turbid writing 

detracts from the main argument as to the use of models for improving 

social-psychological research. 

96 
Dogan, Mattei and Stein Rokkan (eds.), "Quantitative Ecological Analysis 

in the Social Sciences." Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1969. 

A panorama of studies of the so-called "ecological approach" in 

the social sciences. The volume relates primarily to current research 

on the ecological conditioning of behavior. Particularly important for 

anyone interested in the use of quantitative analysis, and the aggregation of social phenomena, and the structure of empirical research. 

Environmental Protection Agency, "The Quality of Life Concept: A Potential 

New Tool for Decision-Makers." Washington, D. C.: EPA, 1973. 

A small summary document which in addition to a broad discussion 

attempts to define a process for determining the quality of life concept. 

Field, Donald R., J. C. Barron and B. F. Long, "Water and Community 

Development: Social and Economic Perspectives." Ann Arbor, Michigan: 

Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1974. 

A variety of topics on the interrelationship of water and society 

are discussed in this volume. It is mostly a traditional analysis of 

community reaction to public projects, with limited information as to 

planning and comprehensive assessment. 

Finsterbusch, Kurt, "A Methodology for Analyzing Social Impacts of Public 

Policies." Vienna, Virginia: The BDM Corporation (Report BDM/W -75 -079 -TR), 

May 1975. 

A characteristic attempt for quantification and for developing 

specific methods for social impact assessment. 

Fitzsimmons, Stephen J. and 0. A. Salama, "Man and Water: The Relationship 

Between Social Psychological Systems and Water Resources Development." 

Cambridge, Massachusetts: ABT Associates (A social report prepared for the 

Bureau of Reclamation), 1973. 

This large study is on the relationship between social-psychological 

systems and water projects. It is most useful for social-psychological 

indicators and functions of water resource development. 

Freeman, Howard E. and C. C. Sherwood, "Social Research and Social Policy." 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970. 

A small but very succinct volume introducing the relationship between 

research and social policy, the dynamics of research and planning, and 

the context of program development. 

Freilich, Morris (ed.), "Marginal Natives: Anthropologists at Work." 

New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970. 

Vignettes on the experiences of anthropologists in a variety of 

cultural settings. 

97 
Gordon, Theodore J. and Robert H. Ament, "Forecasts of Some Technological 

and Scientific Developments and Their Societal Consequences." Middletown, 

Connecticut: Institute for the Future, September, 1969, IFF Report R-6. 

Compendium of trends and developments affecting future environments. 

The work of Gordon shows the usefulness of forecasting in natural 

resources. 

Hawley, Amos H., "Human Ecology: A 

York: The Ronald Press, 1950. 

A classic in the field that 

the entire "ecological" approach 

Theory of Community Structure." New 

has influenced many sociologists and 

to human community. 

in Fieldwork." 

maintaining 

quite fond 

Henry, Frances and S. Saberwal (eds.), "Stress and Response 

New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969. 

A good book on problems of establishing rapport and 

a sense of responsibility to the task at hand even while 

of the people one is working with. 

Hetman, Francois, "Society and the Assessment of Technology." Paris: OECD, 

1973. 

This is a more recent survey of the variety of methods in technology 

assessment and forecasting and of their use in academic and industrial 

work. This book is considered a continuation of an earlier volume by 

Erich Jantsch entitled "Technological Forecasting in Perspective" 

(Paris: OECD, 1967). 

Honigmann, John J. (ed.), "Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology." 

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. 

A standard textbook on the methods and approaches of anthropology. 

Hoos, Ida R., "Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique." Berkeley: 

University of California Press, 1972. 

An insightful critique of the blind application of systems analysis 

in today's life. This volume warns anyone who might attempt to uncritically 

transfer the model of systems analysis in social phenomena and public 

policy. Occasional sweeping generalizations mar some important questions. 

Inkeles, Alex, "What is Sociology? An Introduction to the Discipline and 

Profession." Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967. 

Very succinctly written with a thoughtful analysis of the capabiliities and potentialities of sociology as a discipline and as a profession. 

The brief section on models of society in sociological analysis is very 

lucid. 

98 
James, L. Douglas (ed.), "Man and Water: The Social Sciences in Management of Water Resources." Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky 

Press, 1974. 

The volume contains both theoretical and practical aspects of the 

analysis of water resources projects. Most of the writing tends to be 

highly abstract and of little use for practical applications. 

Kane, Julius, et al., "A Primer for a New Cross-Impact Language--KSIM." 

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 4: 129-142, 1972. 

One of the standard references for this particular simulation 

technique. 

Kaplan, David and Robert A. Manners, "Culture Theory." Englewood Cliffs, 

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972. 

A solid work for understanding culture theory. 

Klausner, Samuel Z., "On Man in His Environment." San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1971. 

A very thoughtful essay on the social aspects of the environment. 

It provides a cogent discussion of the historical roots of present 

environmental problems and a much larger framework for the interrelation 

of physical and nonphysical aspects of the environment. 

Kneese, Allen V. and B. T. Bower (eds.), "Environmental Quality Analysis: 

Theory and Method in the Social Sciences." Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins 

Press (RFF), 1972. 

Despite its general title this book should be particularly useful 

for all who are interested in economic analysis of environmental programs 

and the designing of political and legal institutions for meeting goals 

of environmental quality. 

Kuhn, Alfred, "Unified Social Science." Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey 

Press, Inc., 1975. 

This is a recent introductory book that attempts to present general 

propositions on the communalities of social science approaches. For a 

more formal, and at the same time formidable, work of the same author 

one should consult the volume "The Logic of Social Systems" (San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass, 1974). 

Land, Kenneth C. and S. Spilerman (eds.), "Social Indicator Models." New 

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975. 

This recent book has an excellent discussion of developing models 

of social indicators and delineating the diverse array of both objective 

and subjective indicators. Of particular use is the introduction and 

overview which set the tone and approach for general social indicator 

models. 

99 
Lanford, H. W., "Technological Forecasting Methodologies: A Synthesis." 

New York: American Management Association. 

One of the better textbooks and overview of the variety of forecasting methodologies. 

Lazarsfeld, Paul, H.W. Sewell and H. L. Wilensky (eds.), "The Uses of 

Sociology." New York: Basic Books, 1967. 

This large volume explores the actual and potential role of 

de sociology and sociologists in virtually every area of modern life. 

LeVine, Robert A. and D. T. Campbell, "Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, 

Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior." New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 

1972. 

Theories and experiences of a variety of group relations. 

Lof land, John, "Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis." Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 

1971. 

This little volume is one of the definitive field guides for 

doing what is known as "natural sociology"--dealing with people in 

the context of their environment and letting them lead the researchers 

to the Data. The chapters on intensive interviewing, participant 

observation, and materials mechanics and analysis are quite detailed 

and excellent. 

Meehan, Eugene J., "Explanation in Social Science: A System Paradigm." 

Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968. 

Another paperback attempting to develop a general paradigm of the 

variety of explanatory schemes in social sciences, with emphasis on 

the system paradigm and value judgment. 

Mitchell, Arnold, et al., "An Approach to Measuring Quality of Life." 

(Report prepared for the Stanford Research Institute Research and Development Program). SRI Projects 90414 and 48953102AME. Stanford: SRT, September, 

1971. 

One of the many studies and reports in the field having to do with 

the attempt to quantify dimensions of the quality of life. 

Moore, Frank W. (ed.), "Readings in Cross-Cultural Methodology." New 

Haven: HRAF Press, 1961. 

A wealth of material for sensitizing one in the varieties of 

cultural experiences. 

100 
Morrison, Denton, et al (compilers), "Environment: A Bibliography of 

Social Sciences and Related Literature." Washington: EPA, Report 600/5- 

74-011, 1973. 

A voluminous collection of social sciences references on the 

environment. The bulkiness of the bibliography and the all-inclusiveness 

of the term "environment" make this bibliography difficult for immediate 

use. 

Motz, Annabelle B., "Social Science Data Banks and the Institute for 

Water Resources." US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR 

Pamphlet No. 1, 1975. 

Author examines the potential use of social data banks for use 

by water resources planners. Contains interesting examples of data 

bank usage. 

Murdoch, William W. (ed.), "Environment: Resources, Pollution and Society." 

Stamford, Connecticut: Sinauer Publishers, 1971. 

Another good example of a useful collection of material relating 

to the larger problem of environmental studies and the relationship 

of ecology to society. 

Pelto, Pertti J., "Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry." 

New York: Harper and Row, 1970. 

Probably still one of the most thorough research guides for conducting sociocultural research, covering major aspects of entering 

the field, selecting informants, deciding on specific research tools, 

and the quantification of qualitative data. 

Phillips, Derek L., "Knowledge from What: Theories and Methods in Social 

Research." Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1971. 

Pitfalls involved in the blind acceptance of the physical sciences 

model in social research. The author challenges many of the sacred 

assumptions concerning the collection of sociological data in his 

later work, "Abandoning Method" (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973). 

Poetner, Herbert G. and the ASCE Committee on Research, "Impact of Civil 

Engineering Projects on People and Nature." New York: American Society of 

Civil Engineers, 1973. 

An attempt of a special committee of the American Society of Civil 

Engineering to determine the requirements for cogent analysis of the 

impact of public projects on society and the environment. 

Aru 

101 
- 

AG 

Proshanksy, H. M., W. H. Ittelson and L. G. Rivlin, "Environmental 

Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting." New York: Holt, Rinehart, 

and Winston, 1970. 

One of a begining series of textbooks (and readers) in the new 

field of environmental psychology with particular emphasis on 

theoretical conceptions, the organization of space, and basic psychological processes and the environment. 

Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature of Human Values." New York: The Free Press, 

1973. 

This describes attitudes, values, and belief systems. Data from 

a national sample of American adults and from numerous special studies 

provide the basis for value profiles and a series of hypotheses on 

attitudes, behavior, and subsets of values. 

Rosenberg, Morris, "The Logic of Survey Analysis." New York: Basic 

Books, 1968. 

This remains the standard textbook on survey analysis with particularly useful discussions on the varieties of critical variables that 

one encounters in the research effort. A variety of examples enlighten 

theoretical principles and methodological particularities. 

Sharp, Virginia L., "On the Measurement of Social Impacts. A Social 

Indicator Approach." Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State 

University (February 4), 1974. 

As the title indicates, another attempt to measure social impacts 

with particular focus on spatial distribution. 

Sheldon, Eleanor B. and W. E. Moore (eds.), "Indicators of Social Change: 

Concepts and Measurement." New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968. 

One of the first volumes in a series on social indicators. The 

emphasis is on large and national efforts for developing ways of 

measuring the performance of the social system. The original contributions of several social scientists are directed toward the analysis 

and control of major social change in the U.S. 

Smith, Charles R., "Social and Cultural Impact of a Proposed Reservoir on 

a Rural Kentucky School District." Lexington: University of Kentucky. 

4' Water Resources Institute, Research Report No. 60, 1973. 

One of the many reports coming out of Smith's work at the University 

of Kentucky which began even before the legislation which now requires 

assessments to be done. These reports are part of long-term studies 

and can be viewed as valuable guides for conducting social impact 

assessments in diverse settings. 

102 
Stober, Gerhard J. and D. Schumacher (eds.), "Technology Assessment and 

the Quality of Life." Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 

1973. 

What could have been a useful work in bringing together technology 

assessment and considerations of social well-being turns out to be an 

uneven collection of writings. Yet book is useful in presenting 

the variety of examples of futuristic studies in the use of natural 

resources, the role of social technology, and of efforts measuring the 

quality of Life concept. 

Suchman, Edward A., "Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in 

Public Service and Social Action Programs." New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. 

The standard book on evaluation. A rigorous analysis of the 

principles and problems involved in setting up schemes of evaluating 

public programs or actions. 

Sutherland, John W., "A General Systems Philosophy for the Social and 

Behavioral Sciences." New York: George Braziller, 1973. 

A very useful volume concerning the use of systems analysis in 

the social and behavioral sciences, with incisive criticisms on the 

failure to make appropriate use of the variety of scientific tools. 

The part on methodological and instrumental implications of general 

systems theory should be profitable reading. 

Technical Committee of the Water Resources Research centers of the Thirteen 

Western States, "Water Resources Planning, Social Goals, and Indicators: 

Methodological Development and Empirical Test." Logan, Utah: Utah Water 

Research Laboratory Publication PRWG-131-1, December 31, 1974. 

This is the final report of what earlier was known as the "Strawman" 

model (now known as Techcom). In addition to the principles of disaggregating social goals )objectives and indicators. This report also contains 

a series of studies on the practical applications of social indicators. 

Van Gigch, John P., "Applied General Systems Theory." New York: Harper 

and Row, 1974. 

A thoroughly useful introduction on the use of systems theory in 

formulating problems, in evaluating performance, and on developing the 

basis for decision-making and implementation. Of interest to both 

theoreticians and practitioners. 

Wagner, Richard, "Environment and Man." Second Edition. New York: W. W. 

Norton, 1974. 

The lucid writing and careful approach of this standard textbook 

enhances the even-handed argument about environmental problems, the 

effects of technology, and the overall relationship of man to his 

environment. 

103 
Warren, Roland L., "Studying Your Community." New York: Free Press, 

1965. 

This early methodological volume (which is out also in paperback) 

contains very practical information and guiding principles for studying human communities. Long lists of important variables in community 

•

analysis make it a useful working manual for laymen and serious 

• researchers. 

1111 Wilcox, Leslie D., et al., "Social Indicators and Societal Monitoring: 

An Annotated Bibliography." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1972. 

Essentially a bibliography on social indicators and a handy 

reference for the researcher. 

Williams, Thomas R., "Field Methods in the Study of Culture." New York: 

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1967. 

One of the first "field guides" that came out in the late sixties 

when there was a sudden emergence of concern for systematizing field 

procedures and approaches. It is still one of the best applicable 

to diverse situations. 

Wohlwill, Joachim, and D. H. Carson (eds.), "Environment and the Social 

Sciences: Perspectives and Applications." Washington, D.C.: The American 

Psychological Association, Inc., 1972. 

This is a rather traditional approach and discussion of the 

potential role of psychology in environmental studies. Yet, it remains 

one of the few statements from a psychologist concerning environmental 

studies, although heavily slanted towards problems of crowding, 

institutional settings, and behavioral responses to pollution. 

•4 

104 
i 

1 84 - 73,727—AG —Ft Be/voir