Streamlining social impact assessment and disaster risk assessment for the 21st century

Abstract

Spanish

French

Despite considerable improvements in social impact assessment practice, the shortfalls and neglected status of social impact assessment persist. Integrated impact assessments have been suggested to address some of these shortcomings. Due to its transdisciplinary nature, disaster risk assessment has been identified as an emerging area that could assist social impact assessment in managing social changes and risks and improving community resilience. Emerging research from South Africa and abroad have shown that social impact assessment–disaster risk assessment integration offers opportunities for streamlining and improved practice across four areas, that is, theoretical discourses, legislative and statutory provisions, practitioner perspectives and combined methodologies. The resulting streamlined social impact assessment and disaster risk assessment will be more suitable for 21^st-century challenges, allowing for enriched social impact assessment practice, contributions to social sustainability and strengthening of the social resilience of at-risk communities. From observations of the South African context, we suggest that streamlined social impact assessment and disaster risk assessment will optimally address the challenges of developing sustainably and enhancing the resilience of at-risk societies in the 21st century in South Africa, the global south and also the rest of the world.

Keywords

Disaster risk assessment integration resilience social impact assessment streamlining sustainable development

Introduction

The goal of sustainable development was formalised 50 years ago in 1972 at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm (World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987). Since then, the aspiration to a sustainable and thriving future that balances environmental protection, economic growth and the social well-being of society has been a driving force for world leaders and policymakers (Aucamp, 2015; Barrow, 2006; United Nations (UN), 2012). The implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is still ongoing, where the emphasis continues to be placed on developments that are sustainable and that safeguard at-risk communities (SGD 11) (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2016). Moreover, the increased frequency and intensity of experienced disasters in recent years, such as the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020–2022, earthquakes, collapse of mine tailings dams, floods and the war in Ukraine, have placed an increased focus on enhancing community resilience globally.

The third priority of action of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) of 2015–2030 also specifically highlights the need for impact and risk assessments, like social impact assessment (SIA) and disaster risk assessment (DRA),¹ to be streamlined for the strengthening of community resilience (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 2015). In addition, 4 years after the publication of the SFDRR, the Global Assessment Report of Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR19) re-emphasised the streamlining of risk assessments in complex-systems thinking by encouraging integration, transdisciplinary and multi-sectoral research, and further stated that ‘. . . risk assessment and decision-making efficiency can be improved, duplication of efforts reduced, and connected collective action facilitated’ (UNDRR, 2019: v). Further impetus has been lent by the increasing use of environmental and social safeguards or frameworks including those of the Development Bank of South Africa, other regional banks, the World Bank and the World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF). These safeguards

. . . provide guidance on how to systematically manage unintended social and environmental project impacts, such as restrictions on local people’s access to or use of natural resources. To avoid, mitigate or compensate for these unintended or undesired impacts on the local population and environment, safeguards define processes and minimum requirements in project work on various topics, such as stakeholder engagement or the protection of indigenous groups. (WWF, 2019)

However, the question persists whether these global agreements and management frameworks and tools will ensure positive change for future generations (Fischer, 2022), or whether they will remain aspirations only.

Therefore, the aim of this article is twofold: first to explore the streamlining² of SIA³ and DRA⁴ as one potential routeto sustainable development and enhanced community resilience, and second to investigate the potential improvement of SIA practice by streamlining. In doing so, in this article, we explore the validity of SIA and DRA theoretical and conceptual frameworks; then, the emerging areas in SIA are discussed, with specific focus on recent studies conducted in South Africa; and finally, streamlined SIA-DRA is explored as a potential avenue to optimise SIA in the 21st century.

Streamlining SIA and DRA

The development of SIA internationally dates back to the 1970s along with the origin of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). A similar path has been followed in South Africa, where SIA is conducted as a specialist study in the broader EIA process (Du Pisani and Sandham, 2006). The effectiveness of SIA in South Africa has been a specific topic of research interest, with focus on the widely observed neglected state of SIA (Du Pisani and Sandham, 2006; Hildebrandt and Sandham, 2014; Kruger and Sandham, 2018). These studies have highlighted some of the shortcomings which might have exacerbated the weak performance of SIA, including the lack of skilled and experienced social experts, poor quality of SIA reports and the lack of flexible methodological guidance fit for developing countries with a unique and complex⁵ social context, like South Africa and many other developing countries.

In order to ensure that proposed interventions⁶ are sustainable, there should be a clear understanding of these interventions, the disaster risks they pose and the impacts they hold (Usman et al., 2013). SIA can therefore be instrumental in the link to understand disaster risk, to enhance community resilience and socioeconomic outcomes. In return, DRA (in the broader thrust of disaster risk management (DRM)) can strengthen and optimise the functioning of SIA in development planning, leading to more favourable resilience outcomes. In this article, we refer to SIA as a project-specific tool, and also as a generic tool for wider application. Moreover, SIA can function pro-actively as well as retro-actively, for example, to assess social impacts after an intervention, such as a disaster.

Compared to SIA, the historical development of DRM dates back to the early 1950s, when disasters were still acknowledged as unmanageable phenomena. Following global agreements for DRR, South Africa was one of the first countries in Southern Africa to formalise DRM (Van Niekerk, 2014), and its legislative and policy provisions continue to play a vital role in the South African disaster risk context.

However, it is evident through the SIA-DRA history that they have developed as two distinct fields of practice, mandated under different jurisdictions, but demonstrating considerable overlap (Alcántara-Ayala et al., 2022; Kruger et al., 2020). Due to their multi- and transdisciplinary characteristics, it has been suggested to ‘tackle them simultaneously’ (Domínguez-Gómez, 2016; Imperiale and Vanclay, 2016; Mahmoudi et al., 2013; Wisner et al., 2012b: 16), that is, an indication of the need for integration. This integration should occur in complex systems which, in turn, need a holistic and integrated understanding (Coetzee et al., 2016). People’s vulnerabilities should be at the forefront of development concerns and should therefore be addressed through the collaboration of fields like environmental management (EM), DRM, and sustainable development (Wisner et al., 2012a). Yet, their streamlining has been sparsely investigated.

In view of the historical and current state of SIA and DRA, we suggest that the broader SIA and DRA theoretical and conceptual frameworks are still valid, as long as there is continual improvement of approaches in view of the complexity of social systems. It is against this background that researchers have started to investigate SIA-DRA integration internationally and in South Africa (Cottrell and King, 2011; Domínguez-Gómez, 2016; Imperiale and Vanclay, 2016; Kruger et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Mahmoudi et al., 2013; Usman et al., 2013). The discussion now turns to this emerging area of streamlined SIA and DRA to address the developmental challenges of complex systems in the 21st century.

Emerging areas for streamlined SIA and DRA

Four areas of potential streamlining have emerged recently: (1) theoretical discourses, (2) legislative commonalities, (3) practical discourses and (4) methodological comparisons. In order to show how SIA and DRA can be adapted innovatively to address global changes and threats to the social landscape, each of these is discussed in turn below. The work of Kruger and others was the first such work in South Africa, and in previously published work has investigated each of these aspects in depth (Kruger et al., 2020, 2021, 2022).

In this article, we present a coherent overarching view of the potential streamlining, drawing from the previously published details.

Theoretical discourses

The theoretical bases of SIA-DRA integration highlighted three areas of potential integration, namely, focus, approach and regulation (Kruger et al., 2022). First, we argue that SIA and DRA have a shared ‘people-centred’ focus towards the achievement of sustainable development outcomes. This shared focus is emphasised in the core definitions and understanding of SIA and DRA, where people are placed at the forefront of future sustainable interventions. Similar commonalities regarding their focus are also found in the sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) to achieve better outcomes towards sustainable development and enhanced community resilience.

Second, SIA and DRA share similar approaches in that they both are pro-active and form part of planning processes to inform decision-making. Furthermore, both SIA and DRA are transdisciplinary in nature and involve an ‘all systems approach’ that encourages the collaboration of multiple stakeholders and embracing complexity.

Third, the theoretical discourse for regulation emerged as a potential area for streamlining. In South Africa, both SIA and DRA are mandatory, and there is considerable overlap between SIA provisions in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and DRA provisions in the Disaster Management Act.

A global historical overview of SIA and DRA shows that these fields have developed separately from each other, but in practice their development has resulted in areas of overlap that allow for potential streamlining (Kruger et al., 2022). Hence, the integration of SIA with other fields of impact and risk assessment in order to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities of communities, and subsequently increase their resilience, has, on the one hand, been supported (Barrow, 2000; Becker, 1997; Cottrell and King, 2011; Domínguez-Gómez, 2016; Freudenburg, 1986; Mahmoudi et al., 2013; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2014; Usman et al., 2013), but, on the other hand, also contested (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2014; Vanclay, 2014).

Despite these arguments, and the isolated evolution of SIA and DRA, the theoretical discourses suggest that their streamlining should be encouraged to address community resilience through an all-systems approach.

Legislative commonalities

A second area of potential SIA-DRA streamlining is suggested in terms of regulation and statutory provisions. A legislative comparison of SIA and DRA in South Africa revealed significant commonalities as well as a need for improved SIA regulatory provisions (Kruger et al., 2020). These findings are broadly categorised under two themes: first, the exclusion of explicit social features in SIA legislation as opposed to the more pertinent inclusion thereof in DRA, and second, the shared motives of these two fields of assessment.

The legislative comparisons re-emphasise the shared vision of SIA and DRA with respect to risk reduction, community resilience and sustainable development. However, explicit and descriptive details pertaining to ‘social impacts’ were found to be lacking in the legislative and statutory provisions for South African SIA, but we argue that it could have been implied in definitions elsewhere in the legislative provisions. For example, the definition of the term ‘environment⁷’ in the NEMA No. 107 of 1998 is very broad and refers to the social dimension of the environment by including people and their livelihoods (Republic of South Africa (RSA), 1998: 8). The investigation also found that a strong biophysical focus prevails in EIA legislative provisions, with limited explicit inclusion of the social dimension of EM (born out by Parsons, 2020 in Australia), whereas social aspects featured more prominently in DRA regulatory requirements.

Despite SIA and DRA being distinct fields of practice, there are clear commonalities in their shared drive (1) to reduce social risks and impacts, (2) to increase community resilience and ultimately (3) to achieve the required sustainable development outcomes. These findings are corroborated by evidence in literature that has recognised the interrelationships and interdisciplinary nature of SIA and DRA, and supported their streamlining (Aucamp et al., 2018; Barrow, 2010; Esteves and Vanclay, 2009; Tajima et al., 2014).

Practical discourses

The third area of streamlining is the practice of SIA, which has been investigated through many lenses, with its neglected position in the broader EIA process as a prevailing area of research interest (Burdge, 2002, 2003; Chadwick, 2002; Glasson and Heaney, 1993; Hildebrandt and Sandham, 2014; Kruger and Sandham, 2018). As an emerging trend internationally and in South Africa, and as a component of their potential integration, four practical discourses regarding SIA and DRA are explored – that is, (1) expertise of specialists, (2) practical hindrances, (3) methodological guidance and (4) integration. To do so a mixed-methods approach was followed to explore the perspectives from a sample of SIA and DRA experts, utilising a structured questionnaire designed around these four practical discourses (Kruger et al., 2021).

The first practical discourse regarding the expertise of social and disaster risk specialists revealed that experts in these fields come from diverse backgrounds and varying years of experience, which most likely contributed to them operating in silos. However, their diversity has demonstrated the potential for streamlining the future practice of both fields. The second practical discourse deals with perceived obstacles in SIA and DRA practice, where an array of hindrances to optimise practice was observed, similar to those reported elsewhere (Arce-Gomez et al., 2015; Aucamp and Lombard, 2017; Imperiale and Vanclay, 2021; Kruger and Sandham, 2018; Van Riet, 2009; Vermaak and Van Niekerk, 2004). Although considerable improvements have been made thus far in both fields, these hindrances typify the prevailing practical impediments in SIA and DRA. A few of these hindrances included limited timeframes and budget constraints, lack of skills and expertise, experts working in silos and the absence of prescriptive requirements.

The third practical discourse emerged as one persistent observed hindrance and is focused on the lack of flexible methodological guidance for SIA, coupled with the need for more rigorous risk assessment guidance in SIA, which was in line with the findings from Hildebrandt and Sandham (2014), and Kruger and Sandham (2018). However, experts have demonstrated that this was not a barrier and encouraged the application of guidance from other risk and impact assessment fields to complement current existing guidance. Presumably this could include the various environmental and social safeguards or frameworks.

The fourth practical discourse concluded that despite the distinct differences and hindrances, both fields offer opportunities for collaboration and streamlining in the quest to optimise practice. Hence, the integration of impact assessments was broadly supported by both fields of practitioners.

Following from the third and fourth practical discourses, the streamlining of SIA-DRA methodological approaches was a fourth area for further investigation which is discussed in more detail below.

Methodological comparisons

An emerging theme from the practical discourses was the absence of flexible SIA guidance that both provides guidance of less experienced practitioners, while not constricting those with more experience. Noticeably absent was the guidance for conducting social baseline surveys.

An investigation of such methodological optimisation for South Africa revealed considerable scope for cross-fertilisation and consequent streamlining. The investigation was done by comparing and evaluating similarities as well as differences between South African SIA and DRA methodological guidance, and then comparing to international best practice guidelines (Kruger et al., 2023). The investigation comprised a document analysis of purposely selected SIA and DRA guidance documents (Barbour, 2007; National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC), 2016; Vanclay et al., 2015).

It was found that although the SIA guidance (Barbour, 2007; Vanclay et al., 2015) was helpful and in line with international best practice guidance, it fell short in terms of adequate guidance for social baseline studies, and is likely to fail in complex, dynamic disaster-prone social contexts as encountered in some developing countries. Moving to DRA guidance, the South African DRA guideline document (NDMC, 2016) is comprehensive and rigorous, but with enough flexibility for adaptation to specific contexts. This suggests using an integrated social risk baseline study, following the broad DRA approach, but allowing adjustments for particular social contexts. For example, social assessment variables suggested in the SIA guidance are treated as potential social hazards for which disaster risk is assessed. Furthermore, the methodological integration between aspects of SIA and DRA is supported to improve and streamline SIA guidance and best practice, enhance social resilience and contribute to the broader sustainable development drive.

It is against some of these emerging areas in South African SIA research, together with other recent developments in the field of impact assessments, that the last section provides our view of and recommendations for a streamlined SIA-DRA and following from that an optimised SIA in the 21st century.

Towards a streamlined 21st-century SIA-DRA

Earlier in this article we posed the question of whether the global advances towards a sustainable and resilient future will remain as mere aspirations, or whether they will become the driving force behind change in the 21st-century impact assessment agenda. Internationally, advances in the guidance for assessing social impacts have been made (Parsons, 2020), and the use of Environmental and Social Safeguards is becoming more prevalent. Moreover, guidelines for conducting resilience impact assessments have been developed and strengthened in recent years (Robertson et al., 2021; Vanclay et al., 2015).

However, Arnold et al. (2022) demonstrated that complex social systems often need to be better accounted for in a biophysically dominated impact assessment arena. They further argued that social impacts are ‘accompanied by a unique set of challenges’; therefore, evaluation and development in guidance, methods and tools are continuously required (Arnold et al., 2022: 8; Parsons, 2020). This dovetails with the arguments of Coetzee et al. (2016) on DRA and complex adaptive systems.

In line with the global agenda for a more sustainable and resilient future, emerging trends in SIA have been investigated, including the integration of DRA to optimise SIA. Globally, governments aspire to simplify or expedite various forms of impact assessments, where the focus seems to be more on the streamlining of specific aspects of impact assessments, but whether these reforms address any real-world problems is being questioned (Fischer, 2022; Fischer et al., 2023). Despite the potential obstacles to strengthening impact assessment, Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014: 2) also support complementary, interdisciplinary integration. They argue that the ‘proliferation of impact assessments’ has resulted in silo-based thinking on a regulatory, theoretical and practical level, which create confusion for practitioners, project proponents and regulators alike, and thus undermine the fundamental principles and effectiveness of impact assessment for sustainable and resilient decision-making.

In order to link from the theoretical to practical, we suggest that the use of the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) be strongly considered in the streamlining process. While the GISTM is targeted at mining and specifically tailings, it has sufficient generic relevance to be useful in a wider SIA-DRA context. The Standard consists of 15 principles, grouped into six key topics, of which the following are of relevance here, since they deal with the fields of SIA and DRA (Global Tailings Review, 2020):

PRINCIPLE 1: Respect the rights of project-affected people and meaningfully engage them at all phases of the tailings facility lifecycle, including closure.

PRINCIPLE 3: Use all elements of the knowledge base – social, environmental, local economic and technical – to inform decisions throughout the tailings facility lifecycle, including closure.

PRINCIPLE 13: Prepare for emergency response to tailings facility failures.

PRINCIPLE 14: Prepare for long-term recovery in the event of catastrophic failure.

Meaningful engagement with these principles in SIA and DRA should be a useful point of commencement for streamlining.

In conclusion, we argue that simplification and streamlining are vital to optimally address social issues in complex systems, and that silo-based SIA and DRA expertise should be merged. The integration of DRA with SIA is proposed as an avenue to optimise SIA in the 21st century, in terms of theoretical and practical discourses, legislative provisions and methodological guidance. However, there is an ongoing need for more vital awareness of unique social contexts and interdisciplinary training, coupled with guidance and frameworks for decision-makers, regulators and practitioners that provide a better reflection of the realities of the impact assessment process to guide future streamlined SIA-DRA (Arnold et al., 2022: 8). We suggest that a more simplified and streamlined approach to SIA and DRA can assist in addressing 21st-century developmental challenges to develop sustainably and enhance the resilience of at-risk societies, and to enhance SIA practice.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Luke Sandham

Notes

Author biographies

Leandri Kruger (PhD) is a senior lecturer at the North-West University with more that 10 years’ research experience. She has a transdisciplinary research focus in Social Impact Assessment and Disaster Risk Science. the North-West University.

Luke Sandham (PhD) is an extraordinary professor of Geography at the North-West University. His research focus is on Environmental Impact Assessment effectinvess, including the interface of Social Impact Assessment and Disaster Risk Assessment.

Dewald van Niekerk (PhD) is a professor in Geography and head of the African Centre for Disaster Studies at the North-West University. His research interests include disaster risk governance, early warning and multi-sector Disaster Risk Reduction.

References

Alcántara-Ayala

Gomez

Chmutina

, et al. (2022) Disaster Risk. London: Routledge.

Arce-Gomez

Donovan

Bedggood

(2015) Social impact assessments: Developing a consolidated conceptual framework. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50: 85–94.

Arnold

Hanna

Noble

, et al. (2022) Capacity needs for assessing the cumulative social effects of projects. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 41: 35–47.

Aucamp

(2015) Social impact assessment as a tool for social development in South Africa: An exploratory study. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Aucamp

Lombard

(2017) Can social impact assessment contribute to social development outcomes in an emerging economy? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 36(2): 173–185.

Aucamp

Retief

King

(2018) Chapter 23: The social dimensions of environmental management. In: King

Strydom

Retief

(eds) Environmental Management in South Africa, 3rd edn. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta, pp.1177–1212.

Barbour

(2007) Guideline for involving social assessment specialists in EIA processes. Prepared for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province, South Africa. Available at: https://www.westerncape.gov.za/Text/2007/9/guideline_involving_social_assessment_specialists_eia_process.pdf

Barrow

(2000) Introduction. In: Barrow

(ed.) Social Impact Assessment: An Introduction. London: Arnold Publishers, pp.1–21.

Barrow

(2006) Environmental Management for Sustainable Development. London; New York: Routledge.

10.

Barrow

(2010) How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 293–301.

11.

Becker

(1997) Social Impact Assessment: Method and Experience in Europe, North America and the Developing World. London: UCL Press.

12.

Burdge

(2002) Why is social impact assessment the orphan of the assessment process? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(1): 3–9.

13.

Burdge

(2003) Benefiting from the practice of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(3): 225–229.

14.

Chadwick

(2002) Socio-economic impacts: Are they still the poor relations in UK environmental statements? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45(1): 3–24.

15.

Coetzee

Van Niekerk

Raju

(2016) Disaster resilience and complex adaptive systems theory. Disaster Prevention and Management 25(2): 196–211.

16.

Cottrell

King

(2011) Disasters and climate change. In: Vanclay

Esteves

(eds) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.154–167.

17.

Domínguez-Gómez

(2016) Four conceptual issues to consider in integrating social and environmental factors in risk and impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 56: 113–119.

18.

Du Pisani

Sandham

(2006) Assessing the performance of SIA in the EIA context: A case study of South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26: 707–724.

19.

Esteves

Vanclay

(2009) Social development needs analysis as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community investment: Applications in the minerals industry. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 137–145.

20.

Esteves

Franks

Vanclay

(2012) Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1): 34–42.

21.

Fischer

(2022) ‘Simplification’ of environmental and other impact assessments – An international trend? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 40(5): 355.

22.

Fischer

Fonseca

Geißler

, et al. (2023) Simplification of environmental and other impact assessments – Results from an international online survey. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 41(3): 181–189.

23.

Freudenburg

(1986) Social impact assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 12: 451–478.

24.

Glasson

Heaney

(1993) Socio-economic impacts: The poor relations in british environmental impact statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 36(3): 335–343.

25.

Global Tailings Review (2020) Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM). Available at: https://globaltailingsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/global-industry-standard-on-tailings-management.pdf (accessed 19 July 2023).

26.

Hildebrandt

Sandham

(2014) Social Impact Assessment: The lesser sibling in the South African EIA process? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48: 20–26.

27.

Imperiale

Vanclay

(2016) Experiencing local community resilience in action: Learning from post-disaster communities. Journal of Rural Studies 47: 204–219.

28.

Imperiale

Vanclay

(2021) Conceptualizing community resilience and the social dimensions of risk to overcome barriers to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. Sustainable Development 29(5): 891–905.

29.

International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) (2003) International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(1): 5–11.

30.

Kruger

Sandham

(2018) Social Impact Assessment: Practitioner perspectives of the neglected status in South African SIA. South African Geographical Journal 100(3): 394–411.

31.

Kruger

Sandham

Van Niekerk

(2020) Improved SIA through DRA integration: Lessons from a South African legislative comparison. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(1): 71–82.

32.

Kruger

Sandham

Van Niekerk

(2021) Optimizing SIA: Discourses in South African SIA and DRA practice. South African Geographical Journal 103(2): 163–182.

33.

Kruger

Sandham

Van Niekerk

(2022) SIA and DRA integration for increased resilience. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 40(1): 20–26.

34.

Kruger

Sandham

Van Niekerk

(2023) Integrating risk assessment for increased social resilience: Lessons from South Africa. Sustainable Development. Epub ahead of print 22 July. DOI: 10.1002/sd.2689.

35.

Mahmoudi

Renn

Vanclay

, et al. (2013) A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 1–8.

36.

Morgan

(2012) Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1): 5–14.

37.

Morrison-Saunders

Pope

Gunn

JAE

, et al. (2014) Strengthening impact assessment: A call for integration and focus. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32(1): 2–8.

38.

National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) (2016) Conducting Comprehensive Disaster Risk Assessments. Part 1: Hazard Identification, Analysis and Prioritisation. Available at: http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Guidelines/Conducting%20Hazard%20Analysis%20-%20PART%201.pdf (accessed 19 December 2022).

39.

Parsons

(2020) Forces for change in social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(4): 278–286.

40.

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1998) National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998. Cape Town, South Africa: Government Gazette.

41.

Robertson

Jenkins

Jones

, et al. (2021) Resilience Assessment International Best Practice Principles (Special publication series no. 11). Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment. (IAIA)

42.

Sandham

Retief

Alberts

. (2022) EIA best practice in Africa. pp. 319-335. In: Fonseca

(Ed) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar publishing ISBN 978 1 80037 963 3 (eBook). http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800379633

43.

Senécal

Goldsmith

Conover

, et al. (1999) Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment, Best Practice. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), pp.1–4. Available at: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/Principles%20of%20IA%2019.pdf

44.

Tajima

Gore

Fischer

(2014) Policy integration of environmental assessment and disaster management. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16(3): 1450028.

45.

United Nations (UN) (2012) The Future We Want: Outcome Document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf (accessed 19 December 2022).

46.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2010) Disaster Risk Assessment. Available at: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/ly/2Disaster-Risk-Reduction—Risk-Assessment.pdf (accessed 19 December 2022).

47.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2016) Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals (accessed 19 December 2022).

48.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2015) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf (accessed 19 December 2022).

49.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2017) Words into Action Guidelines: National Disaster Risk Assessment. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

50.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2019) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva. Available at: https://gar.unisdr.org/sites/default/files/reports/2019-05/full_gar_report.pdf (accessed 19 December 2022).

51.

Usman

Olorunfemi

Awotayo

, et al. (2013) Disaster risk management and social impact assessment: Understanding preparedness, response and recovery in community projects. In: Silvern

Young

(eds) Environmental Change and Sustainability. Rijeka, IntechOpen, pp. 259–2374.

52.

Van Niekerk

(2014) A critical analysis of the South African Disaster Management Act and Policy Framework. Disasters 38(4): 858–877.

53.

Van Riet

(2009) Disaster risk assessment in South Africa: Some current challenges. South African Review of Sociology 40(2): 194–208.

54.

Vanclay

(2014) Integration and focus from the perspective of social impact assessment: A response to Morrison-Saunders et al. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32(1): 11–13.

55.

Vanclay

Esteves

Aucamp

, et al. (2015) Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA).

56.

Vermaak

Van Niekerk

(2004) Disaster risk reduction initiatives in South Africa. Development Southern Africa 21(3): 555–574.

57.

Wisner

Gaillard

Kelman

(2012a) Framing disaster: Theories and stories seeking to understand hazards, vulnerability and risk. In: Wisner

Gaillard

Kelman

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. New York: Routledge, pp.18–33.

58.

Wisner

Gaillard

Kelman

(2012b) Introduction to Part I. In: Wisner

Gaillard

Kelman

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. New York: Routledge, pp.11–17.

59.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/document/5987our-commonfuture.pdf (accessed 19 December 2022).

60.

World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) (2019) Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework (ESSF) World Wide Fund For Nature. Gland. Available at: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/essf_network_implementation_11_2020.pdf (accessed 19 July 2023).

Streamlining social impact assessment and disaster risk assessment for the 21st century – Perspectives from South Africa

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Streamlining SIA and DRA

Emerging areas for streamlined SIA and DRA

Theoretical discourses

Legislative commonalities

Practical discourses

Methodological comparisons

Towards a streamlined 21st-century SIA-DRA

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biographies

References