Impact assessment studies the effects on society of proposed projects, programs or policies. It is perhaps best known in the forms of technology assessment and environmental impact assessment. Here the institutionalization of impact assessment, the principal features of impact assessment and its performance are discussed, keynoting interdisciplinarity as a critical factor. Substantial progress in performance has occurred over the past decade, especially in environmental and social analyses, pointing to some critical issues for the decade ahead. Within studies, integration across disciplinary components, between contributions from professionals and parties-at-interest, and between producers and users must be improved. Across studies, practitioners of impact assessment need to intercommunicate to advance the state of their art.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Several germinal pieces appeared in the late1960s, triggered by Congressman Emitio Q. Daddario, cf. E. Q. Daddario, Technology assessment: Statement of Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development. 90th Congress, 1st Session (1967); US National Academy of Engineering, A Study of Technology Assessment, Committee on Public Engineering Policy (COPEP), document prepared for House Committee on Science and Astronautics, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1969); US National Academy of Sciences, Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice, Committee on Science and Public Policy (COSPUP), document prepared for House Committee on Science and Astronautics, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1969).
2.
KashD. E., WhiteI. L., BergeyK. H., ChartockM. A., DevineM. D., LeonardR. L., SalomonS. N. and YoungH. W., Energy Under the Oceans: A Technology Assessment of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Operations, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK (1973), supported by the National Science Foundation, For a discussion of the process of performing this study, see Don E. Kash, Observations on interdisciplinary studies and government roles, in Adapting Science to Social Needs, pp. 147–178. American Association for theAdvancement of Science, Washington, DC(1977).
3.
CoatesVary T., Technology Assessment in Federal Agencies: 1977–7976, George Washington University, Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, Report to the National Science Foundation, Grant ERS 7517449, Washington, DC (1979).
4.
MaloneyJames, impact assessment in the private sector: The state of the art. In Integrated Impact Assessment: State of the Art and Future Prospects, edited byRossiniF. A., PorterA. L. and WolfC. P., North-Holland, New York(in press).
5.
EnzerSelwyn, Some Impacts of No-fault Automobile Insurance – A Technology Assessment, Institute for the Future, Middletown, Connecticut (1974).
6.
US Council on Environmental Quality, Eighth annual report: USGovernment Printing Office, Washington, DC (1977).
7.
US Council on Environmental Quality. National Environmental Policy Act – Regulations for implementation of procedural provisions. Federal Register43, part 6, 55978–56007(November 29, 1978).
8.
CoatesJoseph F., What is a public policy issue?Interdiscipl. Sci. Rev. 4, 27 (1979).
9.
US Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental impact statements: An analysis of six years experience by seventy federal agencies. USGovernment Printing Office, Washington, DC (1976).
10.
HetmanFrançois, Society and the Assessment of Technology, OECD, Paris (1973); and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Methodological Guidelines for Social Assessment of Technology, OECD, Paris (1975).
11.
HahnWalter, Technology assessment: Some alternative perceptions and its implications outside the United States. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the House Committee on Science and Technology, mimeo (August 3, 1977).
12.
ChenKan and ZacherLech, Toward effective international technology assessments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change11, 97–105 (1978),
13.
For instance, a conference on ‘technology assessing’ organized by Bruce Koppel at the East–West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1977, and another conference held in India in 1978.
14.
KennedyW. V., Environmental impact assessment in the Federal Republic of Germany. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1, 92 (March 1980).
15.
Wandesforde-SmithG., International perspectives on environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1, 53 (March 1980).
16.
M. Francis illustrates urban impact assessment with the fascinating case of the John F. Kennedy Library in Cambridge, MA–also an example of participatory impact assessment; Urban impact assessment and community involvement: The case of the JFK Library, Environ. Behav. 7, 373 (1975).
17.
PorterAlan L., RossiniFrederick A., CarpenterStanley R. and RoperA. T., A Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis, North-Holland, New York (1980).
18.
See for instance, FinsterbuschKurt and WolfC. P.(Eds), Methodology of Social Impact, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (1977), for treatment of methodological issues;WolfC. P.(Ed.), Social Impact Assessment (newsletter), Environmental Psychology Program, CUNY Graduate Center, New York for professional developments.
19.
OtwayH. J. and PahnerP. D., Risk assessment. Futures8, 122–134 (April 1976).
20.
StarrChauncey and WhippleChris, Risks of risk decisions. Science208, 1114 (June 6, 1980).
21.
The so-called Economic Impact Statement program of1974–76 required federal (US) agencies to consider the economic implications of their regulatory and legislative proposals. Executive Order No, 11821, 3C.F.R. 926 ( 1971 – 75 compilation), as amended Executive Order No. 11949, 3C.F.R. 161 (1976). See also Davis and Nejelski (Ref. 22) for consideration of other state and federal legislative impact assessment requirements.
22.
DavisRobert P. and NejelskiPaul, Justice impact statements: Determining how new laws will affect the courts. Judicature62, 18 (June–July 1978).
23.
Robert Lyle Butterworth, The arms control impact statement: A programmatic assessment, Pol. Stud. J. 8, 76–84 (1979).
24.
HarmanWillis, Integrated impact assessment: The impossible dream? In Integrated Impact Assessment: State of the Art and Future Prospects, edited byRossiniF. A., PorterA. L. and WolfC. P., North-Holland, New York(in press).
25.
SusskindLawrence E., The uses of negotiation and mediation in environmental impact assessment. In Integrated Impact Assessment: State of the Art and Future Prospects, edited byRossiniF. A., PorterA. L. and WolfC. P., North-Holland, New York(in press).
26.
They noted the seven steps ofJonesM. V., A technology assessment methodology; some basic propositions. Report MTR6009, Vol. 1, for theOffice of Science and Technology, The Mitre Corporation, Washington, DC(June1971).
27.
BergM. R., BrudneyJ. L., FullerT. D., MichaelD. N. and RothB. K., Factors Affecting Utilization of Technology Assessment Studies in Policy-Making, University of Michigan, Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, institute forSocial Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1978).
28.
The use of scenarios in Willis Harman et al. Solar Energy in America's Future: A Preliminary Assessment, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (1977) provides a fine example.
29.
ClippingerJohn, A case study and framework for assessing the social and cognitive effects of technological change: A summary. In Integrated Impact Assessment: State of the Art and Future Prospects, edited byRossiniF. A., PorterA. L. and WolfC. P., North-Holland, New York(in press).
30.
Sarah Taylor has prepared a fine example in Binghampton Wastewater Management Study: Institutional Analysis Appendix, USArmy Corps of Engineers, BaltimoreDistrict (1976).
31.
PorterA. L. and RossiniF. A., Evaluation designs for technology assessments and forecasts. Technol, Forecast. Soc. Change10, 369–380 (1977).
32.
RossiniF. A., PorterA. L., KellyP. and ChubinD. E., Frameworks and Factors Affecting Integration Within Technology Assessments, report to the National Science Foundation, Grant ERS76–04474, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta (1978).
33.
HammondKenneth R., MumpowerJeryl, DennisRobin L., FitchSamuel and CrumpackerD. Wilson, Fundamental obstacles to the use of scientific information in integrated impact assessment and public policy making. In Integrated Impact Assessment: State of the Art and Future Prospects, edited byRossiniF. A., PorterA. L. and WolfC. P., North-Holland, New York(in press).
34.
EnkGordon, Human values in integrated impact assessment: The interface of quantity and quality. In Integrated Impact Assessment: State of the Art and Future Prospects, edited byRossiniF. A., PorterA. L. and WolfC. P., North-Holland, New York(in press).
35.
The TA entitled ‘A Study of Life-Extending Technologies’ by the Futures Group, Glastonbury, Connecticut (1976) involved a major subcontracted effort by such value researchers at the Hastings Institute, with quite interesting results.
36.
RossiniF. A. and PorterA. L., The management of interdisciplinary policy-related research. In A Management Handbook for Public Administrators, edited bySutherlandJ. W., ReinholdVan Nostrand, YorkNew (1978).
37.
See, for example, B. C. Farhar, S. C. Changnon and E. Swanson, Hail Suppression and Society, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, IL (1977).
38.
Information on the Association is available from the authors.
