Typical Steps in the SIA

Although every project, and every SIA, is unique, in most cases there is a series of more or less standard steps through which the analysis must proceed in order to achieve good results.

Step 1: Develop an effective public involvement plan, so that all affected interests will be involved.
The level of public participation needed varies with the nature of the action under review. On a complicated project, a social assessment (SA) may be useful at the outset to establish the general character of the community, define the potentially affected groups, and determine enough about them to know how to involve them. In a simpler case, merely consulting with local leaders and experts may be sufficient to obtain the critical data on which to build a public involvement program (for guidelines see NEPA Call-In Fact Sheet "Public Participation in NEPA Review," February 1998)."

Step 2: Identify and characterize alternatives. Alternatives are developed based on the purpose and need for the action, but the SIA analyst needs to consider what they are and obtain sufficient data on each to frame the analysis. The Guidelines and Principles identify the following as basic information about each alternative needed for SIA:

Locations
Land requirements
Needs for ancillary facilities (roads, transmission lines, utilities, etc.)
Construction or implementation schedule
Size of the work force (construction and operation, by year or month)
Facility size and shape (if a facility is involved)
Need for a local work force
Institutional resources

Step 3: Define baseline conditions.
Having established a means of working with the public, and obtained basic data on each alternative, the analyst now tries to define the pertinent existing conditions in each potentially affected area-that is, the affected social environment. The analyst seeks answers to questions like:

What populations may be affected? Are they concentrated or dispersed?
How does each population relate to the natural or built environment?
What is the historical background of each population?
What are the political and social resources, power structure, and networks of relationship in each group?
Are there low-income or minority populations involved? Do they have special needs?
What kinds of cultural and attitudinal attributes characterize each group? How do they feel about political and social institutions? How do they relate to the environment? To change?
What are the relevant demographic and economic characteristics? Is there significant unemployment or underemployment? Is housing available? Access to utilities? Education? Transportation? Are there seasonal or other patterns of in-migration and out-migration?

At a minimum, this kind of information should be developed based on existing literature, government documents, and consultation with experts and the community. For a more complicated project, formal studies may be needed.

Step 4: Define the scope of the effort.
Like any other study, an SIA must be scoped to make sure it is focussed on the right things, and that the right methods are employed. Scoping must be carried out in consultation with the affected groups and through the public participation process. Factors to consider in establishing the scope include:

Probability that an event will occur
Number of people potentially affected
Duration of potential impacts
Values of benefits and costs to affected groups
Potential for reversibility or mitigation
Likelihood of subsequent impacts
Relevance to decisions
Uncertainties over probable effects
Controversy

Step 5: Project probable impacts.
Based on the scope, the actual analysis begins by seeking to project the likely effects of the action, given what is known about the alternatives under consideration and about the character of the affected populations and areas. Analysis typically involves the study of data provided by the agencies involved (GSA, its customers, etc.), records of previous experience with similar actions or similar populations, census data and other vital statistics, documents and secondary sources, and field research involving interviews, meetings, surveys, and observation.

There are a number of ways of projecting impacts. Which is best in a given circumstance depends on factors like the scope of the action, the area where it occurs, and the availability of pertinent data. Projection methods include:

Comparative: comparing with similar actions and their effects
Straight-line trend projection: taking an existing trend and projecting it into the future
Population multiplier: for actions involving increase or decrease in given populations; each unit of change in a given population implies change in other variables such as housing and use of natural resources
Scenarios: generate logical or data-based models and play them out
Expert advice: obtain the thoughts of experts about likely scenarios or changes
Calculation of "futures foregone": for example, the future of small minority-owned businesses in a community if the proposed action does NOT take place
Computer modeling: useful with any of the above approaches

Step 6: Predict responses to impacts.
Given what we know about the potentially affected groups, and the kinds of impacts we predict, what will be the likely response? Will a group be highly influenced by what its leaders think, and will the leaders be positive or negative about the project? Are there ways for the population to adapt in place, or is it likely to relocate? Can a group continue to carry out its valued ways of life, or will they be irrevocably lost?

Step 7: Consider indirect and cumulative impacts.
Actually this is not a "step" in the analytic process as much as it is an aspect of several steps. Many, perhaps most, social impacts are not direct; they may occur well after the action is taken, and possibly in areas distant from the project. And cumulative effects can be of critical importance. Many populations, especially indigenous groups, are severely at risk of cultural extinction due to a variety of pressures, and a given project may be all it takes to push the group "over the edge."

Step 8: Recommend new alternatives as needed and feasible.
As serious impacts are identified, consider what alternatives might alleviate the problems, and work with the project managers and affected groups to determine whether these can be pursued. Be sure to analyze the social and other environmental impacts of alternatives. Where there is contention, mediation may be very helpful in resolving disputes about which alternatives should be considered or selected.

Step 9: Develop a mitigation plan.
Work with project managers and affected groups to establish ways to mitigate social effects, and put this plan forward in pertinent review documents like EAs and EISs. Make sure these are reflected in Findings Of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) and records of decision (RODs), and in documents required under other authorities like Section 106 of NHPA. Establish monitoring programs to make sure that mitigation actually occurs.

Social Impact Assessment

Fact Sheet Index

NEPA Call-In Home Page

To contact support, please email nepa.callin@gsa.gov