Background Paper: Methodologies for Assessing the Social and Cultural Impacts of Infrastructure

PDF Version (Size: 215 KB)

Help on accessing alternative formats, such as PDF, PPT and ZIP files, can be obtained in the alternate format help section.

This draft background paper is based on a literature review commissioned by Infrastructure Canada's Research and Analysis Division to Coleman Bright and Associates (CBA) ⁽¹⁾ in support of the September 2006 workshop "Tools to Assess the Social and Cultural Impacts of Infrastructure on Communities". ⁽²⁾ This workshop responds to a need for more robust methodologies identified in February 2005 by the interdepartmental Horizontal Research Round Table on Infrastructure (HRRI). ⁽³⁾ In order to facilitate discussions at the 2006 workshop, this background paper clarifies certain terms. It then identifies and describes a series of approaches that may be useful for the purpose of studying the subject matter, even if most of these approaches have not been directly applied in the context of infrastructure. The paper concludes with preliminary suggestions on the appropriate use of the approaches.

---

Table of Contents

• 1.0 Key Concepts
  • 1.1 Methodology
  • 1.2 Social and Cultural Impacts
  • 1.3 Infrastructure
• 2.0 Approaches
  • 2.1 Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
  • 2.2 Community Impact Assessment (CIA)
  • 2.3 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for Transportation
  • 2.4 Land Use Impact Assessment Modeling
  • 2.5 Cost-Benefity Analysis
  • 2.6 Applied Anthropology
  • 2.7 Environmental Psychology and Design
  • 2.8 Geographic Information Systems
• 3.0 Conclusion
• Endnotes

---

1) Key Concepts

Three key concepts are used in this background paper: (1) methodologies, (2) social and cultural impacts, and (3) infrastructure. This section describes how we understand them for the purpose of this paper.

1.1 Methodology

The term “methodology” in policy analysis and social sciences usually refers to a set of systematic data gathering and interpretation procedures used to acquire knowledge, test a hypothesis or support an explanation, whether it is causal, rational-intentional or interpretive ⁽⁴⁾. The social and policy sciences are methodologically diverse using both qualitative methods and quantitative methods, including case studies, comparative analysis, survey research and statistical analysis. ⁽⁵⁾

Although the study of the impact of infrastructure on society and culture must be supported by such methods, we do not intend to focus our attention on these. They are universally used in policy and social studies and are not specific to the subject matter that we are focusing on.

Instead, we propose to use the term “methodology” in the specific context of impact analysis. In this context, we understand “methodology” as a synonym of “approaches” to knowledge generation (i.e., a particular way of organizing data gathering and/or its interpretation) on the nature and extent of infrastructure's influence on society and culture. These approaches may be used to “predict” the impact of potential or future infrastructure projects or to “monitor and assess” the impact of existing or operating infrastructure.

You will notice that we use the conditional “may” as oppose to “is” to describe the use of approaches. This is because most researchers focus their attention either on social and cultural impacts (of policies, programs, social practices, structures) or on infrastructure (investment gaps, productivity effects, engineering). In other words, little research has linked infrastructure to social and cultural impacts, and therefore very few approaches have been designed explicitly for that purpose. In most cases, we draw on approaches that we feel “could” or “may” be used to explain the subject matter of this background paper.

1.2 Social and Cultural Impacts

By "social and cultural impacts" we mean the consequences of any public or private actions on human populations. These consequences imply social and cultural “changes”, whether they are beneficial or detrimental.

Those changes may affect life styles (e.g., how people live, work, play and interact with one another), communities (e.g., cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities), or norms, values, and beliefs that guide and rationalize people's cognition of themselves and their society. Social and cultural impacts may also encompass changes in the range of activities, products and industries otherwise referred to as “the arts.” Furthermore, they may incorporate notions such as wellbeing, education, health, liberty, freedom, and sustainability. ⁽⁶⁾

Some may question this as an unworkable definition of social and cultural impacts. They may argue that these all-encompassing concepts are not useful as they contain too many variables. Others may object to grouping together the concepts of “social” and “cultural”. These are serious conceptual and empirical problems which, unfortunately, we cannot address here. We can only recognize that our understanding is far from perfect, but nevertheless constitutes an attempt at providing some guidance to the workshop participants on what are potential illustrations of social and cultural changes. Our discussion on particular approaches will necessarily focus on some elements of social and cultural impacts to the exclusion of others. What is important to note is that no one method is adequate to study all aspects of a social or cultural phenomena. Each method must be assessed against it ability to bring to light particular aspects of social and cultural impacts in the context of infrastructure.

It is important to recognize the sensitivity of carrying out and publicly disseminating results of research on social and cultural impacts. Such impacts are often, in contrast with more technical aspects of infrastructure, more readily understood by the average citizen. Yet they are often ill-defined and may be hard to measure. They may also be controversial, having to do with social class, status, and who gets what, where, and when. Moreover, they are not easy to disentangle from economic and environmental impacts, except perhaps by forcing unwieldy data and information to fit a preconceived mould.

Another key challenge is that social and cultural impacts of a specific infrastructure project may be “lost” in a larger context or changes in a community or urban region that were underway long before a particular investment may swamp the impacts of a specific development. Additionally, the impacts of infrastructure may extend over long periods of time and require long-term commitments of resources to track the impacts.

Despite these difficulties, properly scoped and managed research and analysis of social and cultural impacts has the potential to be of great help in making sound infrastructure decisions at each stage of the infrastructure life cycle. ⁽⁷⁾ It can assist in:

• establishing high-level policies and plans, and setting strategic directions for resources;
• planning new infrastructure projects in detail, and then implementing them;
• evaluating the overall results of infrastructure investments over time; and
• conducting reviews of how specific projects and infrastructure systems have performed in relation to expectations.

1.3 Infrastructure

Infrastructure is fundamentally a dynamic concept, evolving and expanding to include new categories of assets that are critical for the functioning of the economy and society. At its narrowest and historically, infrastructure has meant tangible built assets, or “bricks and mortar” infrastructure, such as roads and sewers. Over the past 50 years, the term has broadened to cover moveable built assets, including rail and public transit stock, as well as networks of built assets, such as regional water distribution systems and continental and global communications systems.

During the past decade or so, the notion of infrastructure has been broadened even further in three important ways:

• to include intangible infrastructure (e.g. human capital);
• to include knowledge-based infrastructure, both tangible and intangible, such as publicly available electronic databases, research and educational facilities and information, business and university networks; and
• to include naturally-occurring infrastructure (e.g. wetlands that perform the functions of water treatment).

Recognizing the elasticity of the concept of “infrastructure”, we nevertheless choose to lean in favor of more traditional notions of human-built tangible assets. The HRRI February 2005 Workshop on Community-Level Impacts of Infrastructure, of which this background paper is a direct result, had this particular bias. This is because impacts of infrastructure are largely (but not necessarily justifiably) understood as impacts of investments in, or the functioning of, particular built assets. In this regard, the subject matter of this background paper is largely understood as the link between the “concrete” (e.g., roads, bridges, cables, ports, airports, water treatment plants) and the abstract (e.g., norms, values, life styles, social cohesion).

2) Approaches

This section describes examples of methods in relation to the analysis of the subject matter. In other words, we propose to review some examples of methods that may be used to “predict” the impact of potential or future infrastructure projects and to “monitor and assess” the impact of existing or operational infrastructure. More particularly, we discuss the following approaches: Social Impact Assessment, Community Impact Assessment, Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for Transportation, Land Use Impact Assessment Modeling, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Applied Anthropology, Environmental Psychology and Environmental Design, and Geographic Information Systems.

As you have noticed, the list of approaches is limited and only focuses on those that are regularly used in the context of public policy and program design and evaluation. This is the context in which HRRI members work and must communicate knowledge. This is therefore the context to which we have deliberately limited ourselves. ⁽⁸⁾

2.1 Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

As defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment, “SIA includes the processes for analyzing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, and projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. […] The objective of SIA is to ensure that development maximizes its benefits and minimizes its costs, especially those borne by people.” ⁽⁹⁾

SIA provides a systematic approach that can be adapted in order to identify social impacts anticipated from infrastructure projects. Planned infrastructure projects can be modified in order to mitigate the negative impacts and to maximize the benefits for the population.

SIA is commonly used in Australia. For instance, the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study in Australia is a classic example of a SIA undertaken in response to a request from aboriginal groups, who wanted the impacts of mining and park management in the region assessed. In Canada, a cross-national SIA is currently being done by the Canada-US-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership to assess the social impact of a new expanded border crossing between the region of Southeast Michigan and Southwestern Ontario.

The primary role of SIA is the anticipation of project impacts at the planning stage. The SIA provides key information on historical background, social issues and anticipated impacts, including both positive and negative implications of the project. Yet once the impacts are identified, mitigation measures can be identified, built into the project design and executed. If well planned, SIA can also be an integral part of the development process from inception, to supervision during the implementation phase, to the follow-up appraisal.

2.2 Community Impact Assessment (CIA) ⁽¹⁰⁾

Community Impact Assessment (CIA) is a variation of SIA. It is most specifically used to deal with small communities and it usually adopts stakeholder involvement schemes to increase social participation. It is often used in transportation planning and other infrastructure projects to deal explicitly with neighbourhood issues like mobility, safety, employment effects, relocation and isolation. CIA is also utilized in other contexts, particularly in international development, where it is used as a component of community-driven development projects.

When applied to transportation, CIA can be defined as a method to evaluate the impact of a transportation project on a local community. CIA is usually an integral component of project preparation and should contribute directly to the final design of the transportation project. CIA is largely influenced by anthropology and usually involves participatory processes and methods. The goal is to ensure active involvement of the communities in project planning and decision-making in order to generate ownership. Surveys, focus groups and interviews can be used to anticipate the psychological impact or the perceived nuisance of a project.

CIA is relevant to help decision makers ensure that communities' values, preferences and apprehensions receive appropriate attention during project design and implementation. For instance, when a new highway is planned to pass through historical urban communities, a CIA can be helpful in developing alternatives for historic preservation, identifying reduced-scale project options, or installing sound barriers.

CIA is commonly applied to transportation projects in the United States and is legally required and supported by several federal regulations. Since 1970s, the federal-aid Highway Program requires an assessment of social, economic, and environmental effects before financing transportation projects. ⁽¹¹⁾Since then a series of federal regulations, statutes, policies, technical advisories and executive orders have reinforced the requirements for CIA prior to the construction of Federal government-supported transportation projects. The State of Florida‘s Department of Transportation is renowned as a leader in implementing CIA. The University of South Florida has prepared a series of case studies on Florida Transportation Projects in the 1990s. ⁽¹²⁾The seven case studies from Nassau, Venice, Walton, Broward, Marion and Miami-Dade counties illustrate the significance of CIA for mitigation and enhancement of transportation projects.

CIA is also mandatory in some Australian states. The New South Wales state government requires CIA to be prepared for all government decisions affecting rural communities. ⁽¹³⁾ This type of report is called a Rural Communities Impact Statement and covers social, economic and environmental consequences of a project on a community.

In relation to specific decision points, a CIA can be useful in identifying and recommending potential solutions to address adverse impacts. It can lead to: avoidance (giving up or redesigning the project so an impact does not occur); minimization (modifying the project to reduce the severity of an impact); mitigation (acting to alleviate or offset an impact or to replace an appropriated resource); and enhancement (adding a desirable or attractive feature to the project to make it fit more harmoniously into the community).

The key advantage of conducting a CIA is to ensure that decision-making regarding infrastructure projects is more closely aligned with community values and aspirations. Its strength is in anticipating the negative and positive impacts of the project in the planning phase.

2.3 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for Transportation

The impact assessment literature suggests approaches for predicting and evaluating social and economic impacts of transportation projects. As such, these approaches are some of the rare ones specifically designed for infrastructure impact assessment. They are geared to a variety of scales from neighbourhoods to community or city-wide assessments, depending on the scope of the system or project being assessed.

Traditionally, entities charged with assessing effects of transportation projects have focused on impacts of human health and natural systems. Recently, more attention has been paid to social and economic effects. However, the methods in this area are generally less well developed than for those effects which have historically been emphasized. ⁽¹⁴⁾ In general, most conventional evaluations of transportation options do not assess social and cultural costs and impacts in a way that is comprehensive, and some would say accurate. ⁽¹⁵⁾

Forkenbrock and Weisbrod identify two clusters of transportation impacts: (1) transportation systems effects (e.g., changes in travel time, safety, vehicle operating costs, transportation choice and accessibility), and (2) social and economic effects (e.g., community cohesion, economic development, traffic noise, and visual quality). Relatively well-established methods exist for estimating these impacts. However, there remains the difficulty of deciding what economic values to attach to them.

A second significant source of work in the area of socio-economic impact assessment for transportation is the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). ⁽¹⁶⁾ The VTPI has conducted considerable work around transportation planning and evaluation of transportation options and impacts. The Institute refers to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) as a general term for strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation resources. The VTPI also provides a range of planning and assessment approaches for concepts such as ‘walkability'. The Institute's Online TDM Encyclopedia emphasizes that ‘walkability' should take into account:

• Pedestrian network quality (quality of paths, sidewalks, street crossings);
• Pedestrian network connectivity (how well sidewalks and paths are connected, and how directly pedestrians can travel to destinations);
• Security (how safe people feel while walking); and
• Density and accessibility (distance between common destinations, such as homes, shops, schools, parks) ⁽¹⁷⁾

The ability to measure the social and cultural impacts of transportation systems has obvious benefits because of the significance of transportation for equitable development and residents' quality of life:

• Transport facilities, activities and services impose many indirect and external costs, such as congestion delay and accident risk imposed on other road users, infrastructure costs not funded through user fees, pollution, and undesirable land use impacts.
• Transport expenditures represent a major share of most household, business and government expenditures. Price structures can significantly affect financial burdens.
• Transport planning decisions affect the location and type of development that occurs in an area, and therefore accessibility, land values and developer profits. A significant amount of valuable land is devoted to transport facilities. This land is generally exempt from rent and taxes, representing an additional but hidden subsidy of transport activity.
• Transport investments are often used to stimulate economic development and support other strategic objectives. The location and nature of these investments have distributional impacts. ⁽¹⁸⁾

There is a significant group of methods available for use in the area of socio-economic impact assessment for transportation. They offer a wide variety of options for measurement of cultural and social impacts of infrastructure. However, several methods are relatively data-intensive, and/or require the manipulation of figures in technical formulas. Subtle differences in selection of models and indicators have the potential to produce vastly different outcomes and/or interpretations. Evaluators must be aware of any assumptions made or perspectives taken, such as in the adoption of a method which advances a particular notion of ‘equity'. As in any good evaluation design, care must be taken to select methods that are a good ‘fit' with project resources, technical expertise, and evaluation audience.

2.4 Land Use Impact Assessment Modeling

In the context of land use planning, modeling assists in the design of urban forms, infrastructure facilities, local service delivery, sustainable development and financing. ⁽¹⁹⁾ It also allows for the development of a ‘holistic' approach that can assimilate the social, the environmental, and the economic dimensions, along with the complexity of urban life like land-use, transportation, safety, and water sanitation issues.

In the context of this background paper, we would like to introduce the integrated computer generation of complex and holistic scenarios that can be used to test policy options and to engage populations in the visioning process of the future. The main tool we have identified is the MetroQUEST integrated computer model. ⁽²⁰⁾ MetroQUEST is a fourth generation sustainability tool designed specifically for regional governments to engage their community in recognizing the impacts of their decisions on urban form.

MetroQUEST can be used as a tool to measure the impact of infrastructure related to land use and development patterns. For instance, MetroQUEST models for infill development (that is, the use of land within a built-up area), mixed use development, residential, industrial or commercial developments, transit systems, etc. can be designed to assess the impacts on other features, like populations, the environment and the economy population.

MetroQUEST is powered by a computer model which generates complex inter-relationships between regional planning options and interrelated impacts for each of these options. The modeling system is intended to support public participation in decision-making through approaches based on various scenarios. People can visualize the environmental, social and economic consequences of planning decisions over a long-term horizon. MetroQUEST allows multigenerational scenarios up to 40 years.

Here are some of the indicator dimensions that the system can explore with the users:

Modeling under MetroQUEST relies strongly on mathematical equations to simulate and predict events and processes. MetroQUEST is therefore ill-equipped to shed light on qualitative data. Culture, for instance, has intangible components (i.e., values, symbols, and rituals) that the system will not be able to capture. That said, the tool can be useful to reflect the community values on their urban environment because it helps communities choose between concurrent scenarios. The choices themselves will carry the values and principles of those in the community who have participated in the decision-making process.

Despite its imperfection, a modeling tool such as MetroQUEST is useful as a pedagogical instrument to help the population understand the impact of alternative scenarios on their future. In some cases, MetroQUEST can also serve as a monitoring tool. Once a strategic plan is officially adopted the information related to the final scenario can be used to set a target based on data gained year-by-year. This data is used to generate a ‘visual interface' in order to monitor progress toward the community's plan. Actual data are recorded at the end of each year and compared with the initial goals displayed in the plan. MetroQUEST can then provide information and data that provide early warning of problems encountered or achievement of the plan.

For instance, the resort city of Whistler in British Columbia has used the MetroQUEST system to develop its comprehensive sustainability plan: Whistler 2020. ⁽²¹⁾ When Whistler undertook the sustainable planning process in 2002, it was facing a challenging growth problem. The community had a history of rapid and disorganized growth. The members of the community were concerned by the development patterns for the future. In this context, the combined modeling scenarios and participative approach provided the right method to narrow down the options and to create a strategic plan endorsed by the population and the stakeholders in 2004. MetroQUEST will also be used as a plan monitoring tool and will provide annual feed back on the strategic plan implementation.

2.5 Cost-Benefit Analysis ⁽²²⁾

Cost-benefit analysis is among the most common economic methods used for project appraisal in the public sector. It is an assembly of approaches and methods that is usually used to assess whether or not the investment in an infrastructure or an activity is justified and how it compares with alternate projects. It can therefore be adapted to the assessment of social and cultural impacts of investments in infrastructure.

Typically, cost-benefit analysis starts with the definition of a project and its alternatives. It then measures and values the benefits and costs of each. Cost-benefit estimates are conducted mainly in monetary term, but non-monetary variables are considered in some models. However, these models largely rely on quantitative approaches set in neo-classical economics. That is, some less tangible elements such as risk, loss of reputation, human life and the environment tend to be assigned monetary values. Several tools of measurement, such as QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years), DALYs (Disability Adjusted Life Years) and PYLL (Potential years of life lost) are used in cost benefit analysis to measure the social and health impacts of specific projects.

Several models of cost-benefit analysis exist and a range of software products have been developed to conduct analysis for various contexts. But typically, a cost-benefit analysis is conducted in three phases:

1. Project description
   
   
   1. Purpose of the project (problem, goal, intended benefits, etc.)
   2. Scope (what will be done, where, when, how, by whom, geographic scope, etc.)
   3. Time frame (project schedule)
   4. Base case (what will happen if there is no project?)
   5. Alternatives to be considered (what other means to achieve the same benefit)
      
      
2. Measure all the measurable costs of the projects in terms of economic value
   
   
   1. Initial costs: Site acquisition; planning, design, engineering, and construction
   2. Rehabilitation costs (repair damages generated by the project)
   3. Noise effects
   4. Construction disadvantages
   5. Habitat and water quality impacts
   6. Negative community impacts
      
      
3. Measure all the measurable benefits of the projects in terms of economic value (eg. Transportation project)
   
   
   1. Delay reduction
   2. Accident reductions
   3. Emission reductions
   4. Vehicle operating reduction
   5. Economic effect

Cost-benefit analysis is commonly used in infrastructure projects. Transportation projects (e.g., roads, public transit, railroads, airports) and major energy projects (e.g., pipelines and dams) are common examples.

2.6 Applied Anthropology

According to the Society for Applied Anthropology, the field of applied anthropology is the scientific study of “the principles controlling the relations of human beings to one another […] and the wide application of these principles to practical programs.” ⁽²³⁾ This suggests that applied anthropology can be applied to the social and cultural dimensions of infrastructure. Indeed, central to this approach is the ability to analyze, inform, and influence public policy, particularly in the realm of socio-cultural phenomena. The particular application to decision-making can take place at the level of policy analysis, need and impact assessments, or program evaluation. For example, the methods of applied anthropology have been commonly applied in the area of social impact assessment (SIA). ⁽²⁴⁾

The most common methods used by applied anthropologists are drawn from the field of ethnography, ⁽²⁵⁾which relies heavily on fieldwork and qualitative descriptions of human social and cultural phenomena. These qualitative methods include participant observation, key-informant interviewing and group-interviewing techniques.

Additionally, applied anthropologists draw on a wide-ranging set of methods:

• systematic data collection techniques for accessing core values or areas of cultural consensus;
• participatory cultural, social and environmental assessment techniques intended to provide a qualitative understanding of demographic composition, social/political dynamics, cultural diversity, and local capacity for planning and development;
• interview techniques, including unstructured, semi-structured, structured, transcription, sampling, questionnaire-based, coding data, data analysis, research proposal evaluation criteria, and peer review processes; and
• other, more inclusive, methods such as oral histories, life histories, and focus group interviews.

The link between applied anthropology and ethnography is also evident in terms of a holistic view of human relations, grounded in an understanding of socio-cultural phenomena as complex and inter-dependent systems. However, unlike ethnography, applied anthropology also draws on more quantitative social and cultural indicators as well as statistical analysis.

An additional set of methods and perspectives relevant to the understanding of social and cultural impacts of infrastructure is found in the related field of cultural anthropology. ⁽²⁶⁾This branch of anthropology, also called social anthropology or socio-cultural anthropology, deals with cultural variation among humans. Cultural anthropologists argue that humans acquire culture through learning. As a result, people living in different places or circumstances have the capacity to develop different cultures. ⁽²⁷⁾ The origins of cultural anthropology lie with ethnography. As with ethnographers, cultural anthropologists study and interpret cultural, societal and community diversity through field work, typically spending a year or more immersed in another society or community.

These approaches and methods are relevant to public infrastructure investments and management in that they assist in:

• better understanding and building on the cultural authenticity or social dynamics of large or small communities or organizations;
• recognizing and responding to potentially conflictual differences in culturally-defined perceptions, values and behaviors; and
• identifying and harnessing culturally-specific styles of communication to enhance communication and mutual understanding among groups in relation to infrastructure issues or projects.

Outcome mapping is a method consistent with the principles of applied anthropology. It is focused on anticipating, influencing and monitoring behavioral changes necessary to achieve desired social and cultural outcomes of development projects ⁽²⁸⁾ Outcome mapping recognizes that the act of providing development assistance via projects and programs does not, on its own, necessarily contribute to broader quality of life objectives. As a result, outcome mapping requires a shift away from assessing the products of an development program and a focus on changes in the behaviour and relationships of the people and organizations associated directly with a project or program.

With outcome mapping, program managers identify the partners with whom they will work and then devise strategies to help equip their partners with the tools, techniques, and resources to contribute to achieving desired social and cultural impacts. Outcome mapping offers tools for monitoring progress towards these outcomes by relying on a set of qualitative or quantitative indicators of behavioural change.

2.7 Environmental Psychology and Design

Environmental psychology is an interdisciplinary field that emerged in the 1960s as a rejection of physical determinism in the nature vs. nurture debate. ⁽²⁹⁾ Environmental psychologists fall squarely on the side of the nurturing implications of human-environment interactions. A defining feature of environmental psychology is its explicit focus on human-environment transactions: the process by which people come to understand, modify and respond to their daily physical and social environments. A fundamental truth among environmental psychology professionals and researchers has been that people's interactions with their place-based environments are psychologically important and influential. ⁽³⁰⁾

Environmental psychology has maintained a close inter-disciplinary relationship with professions dealing with the design of the built environment. In this regard, the contribution of the discipline has been a greater understanding of the complexities of people's behaviour and attitudes towards concepts such as personal space, privacy, territoriality and crowding. While environmental psychologists operate at a micro-level of human behaviour, one suggested meeting point between this discipline and others dealing with the built environment is around public participation. ⁽³¹⁾

Consistent with the basic tenets of environmental psychology, the field of environmental design ⁽³²⁾is grounded in the principle that the design and use of the built environment can influence human behaviour and attitudes. ⁽³³⁾ Environmental design is used to achieve broader social and cultural outcomes such as public health, safety, or community cohesion. In this regard, environmental design is very much tied to understanding the impact of infrastructure on social and cultural outcomes.

One example of the practical application of the relationship between socio-cultural impacts and environmental design is in the housing sector in Northern Canada. An analysis of the patterning of domestic activities by families offers an understanding of the differences in social interaction among families of differing ethno-cultural origins. ⁽³⁴⁾The methodology used to assess the apparent ‘disconnect' between housing design and Inuit social and cultural lifestyles involved a combination of ethnographic fieldwork with a computer-based method for analyzing spatial house layouts. Domestic activities and sub-activities were identified and mapped, a relational database of space use was constructed, and space syntax analysis was used to measure the integration and visibility values of rooms. This provides insight into how housing design has the capacity to either enhance or detract from particular cultural lifestyle patterns.

The methodology used to assess the apparent ‘disconnect' between housing design and Inuit social and cultural lifestyles involved a combination of ethnographic fieldwork with a computer-based method for analyzing spatial house layouts. Activities and sub-activities were identified and mapped, a relational database of space use was constructed, and space syntax analysis was used to measure the integration and visibility values of rooms.

In its attempt to link the built environment and its influence on human interaction, the spatial analysis of domestic activities in Arviat, Nunavut has resulted in a number of design recommendations for the construction or modification of housing for Inuit residents.

The Nunavut application of a culturally-specific approach to housing design could be adapted to create similar design guidelines for other infrastructure such as parks, other public spaces, and / or transportation infrastructure. The resource-intensive nature of this method may, however, call for its use to be restricted to areas where there is an identified ‘hotspot' relating to anti-social or unhealthy patterns of behaviour or social interaction. The intent would be to identify and rectify any aspects of the built environment which contravene desired behaviour patterns.

A second practical application of the principles of environmental psychology and environmental design is in the area of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). ⁽³⁵⁾ This application of environmental design is intended to influence the design of site- or community-specific facilities and infrastructure through interventions aimed at achieving two broad quality of life outcomes.

The first set of interventions is focused mainly on the physical environment, including concepts of territoriality, residents' interaction, vigilance, and control over their neighbourhood. This is designed to influence criminal activity and people's perceptions about safety.

A second order of interventions aims to achieve a broader level of quality of life impact. These include objectives of community cohesion:

• participation and responsibility among neighbourhood residents and stakeholders;
• connectivity - strengthening community bonds, both internal and external to the neighbourhood; and
• capacity - ensuring balanced growth among the diverse elements in a neighbourhood and Culture (i.e., developing a shared sense of place and history). ⁽³⁶⁾

A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is typically used to measure these impacts. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology can be used to map crime activity and hotspots. CPTED also stresses engagement of the full community of stakeholders throughout the process.

Environmental design applied to public safety and community cohesion could contribute to infrastructure project-level design, implementation, and monitoring at a variety of scales. However, measurement of impacts is one of the least developed aspects of CPTED, particularly because impacts are so hard to discern from the general "background noise" of neighbourhood change. Second generation principles such as ‘cohesion', ‘capacity-building', and ‘culture' are not well-defined within the approach and are far more difficult to link to a particular infrastructure investment.

2.8 Geographic Information Systems ⁽³⁷⁾

The basic purpose of a Geographic Information System (GIS) is to enable decision-making based on geography. GIS emerged as a computer-based mapping tool during the 1980s and has since evolved into a mainstream analytical, planning and decision-making tool in the both the public and private sectors. Although GIS is rarely considered as a “method”, it can be considered as a computer-based “tool” which may support the approaches described in earlier sections or which may be used directly to evaluate of social and cultural impacts of infrastructure.

The power of GIS is its ability to combine digital cartographic technology with database management systems. The ability to link a wide variety of data to layers of maps at different scales creates the possibility for comparing multiple characteristics over time, and across different locations.

Key to GIS-based analysis is the ability to quantify physical, social or cultural data and then geo-reference these in relation to a specific point on the earth's surface. The sophistication of GIS is also the result of the ability to integrate multiple “layers” of information. For example, layers of information dealing with topography, household commuting patterns, and household employment and income data at various scales can be joined using common geo-referencing and then integrated.

GIS is now regularly applied by professionals and decision makers operating within sectors such as: transportation and logistics, natural resources, utility networks and local government. For example, transportation professionals regularly rely on GIS to manage, plan, evaluate, and maintain transportation systems. GIA can be used for applications as varied as modeling future travel demand to tracking the pathway of a municipal snowplough.

In more recent years, GIS has made the transfer from advanced environmental, natural resource, utility networks and land management programs into socio-cultural applications. At the level of social and cultural impacts, GIS permits the analysis and presentation of the spatial distribution of current, past or predicted social and cultural characteristics.

The following examples illustrate the range of social and cultural impacts that can be incorporated into a GIS as a tool for identifying, evaluating, protecting, and preserving cultural and social resources (for a more detailed example, see box below):

• demographic shifts and resulting shifts in social values, as reflected in public opinion research;
• social wellbeing (e.g. teen pregnancy, child abuse, communicable diseases);
• social services andsocial infrastructure facilities; and
• spatial distribution of social characteristics within city neighbourhoods to identify neighbourhood revitalization trends in relation to a broad range of objective and subjective social indicators.

The effectiveness of GIS is strongly correlated with the quality, accuracy and scope of available data. There are two broad types of data required for a GIS: (1) digital mapping data and (2) physical, socio-cultural and economic characteristics to be linked to the mapping. The former is drawn from digitally reproduced cadastral mapping, aerial photographs, satellite imagery and other mapping-based technologies. GIS can project digital mapping at any desired scale, dependent only on the availability and resolution of the mapping product. Physical, socio-cultural and economic datasets can be drawn from numerous statistical and data collection agencies or surveys, limited only by data accessibility and accuracy.

GIS applications support public consultation and stakeholder engagement in various ways. As a starting point, GIS analysis helps infrastructure planners identify early on in the project life cycle the major issues that may arise from a new infrastructure investment. This permits early consultation with appropriate stakeholders before additional time and resources are invested into the project.

The integration of Web-based user-interfaces and GIS software applications is becoming more common and more accessible to a broader range of users. The current generation of user interfaces no longer requires any familiarity with GIS software to support basic data manipulation and analysis. This has enabled an emerging tradition of “Participatory GIS,” whereby project stakeholders are brought into the decision making process by means of GIS technology.

At a practical level, GIS data are used to support the consultative process. This includes defining the boundaries of target communities or stakeholder areas and preparing community profiles summarizing relevant information. GIS analytical tools can summarize population distributions in order to identify preferred locations for workshops and public events, identify the most effective delivery of public materials based on an understanding of the spatial distribution and concentration of language and age. Finally, GIS can be used to identify all stakeholders within a given radius of the project study area and generate mailing lists for advanced notification of public consultation events.

Due to its adaptability and flexibility as a tool, GIS can be applied at various stages in the project life-cycle (from long-range planning to post hoc evaluation) and at varying scales of project detail (from the strategic to the operational) and for a range of infrastructure sectors.

GIS tools can also be incorporated into many of the other approaches and methods described in this report, notably as a tool for managing, integrating and displaying information. This includes integration with Community Impact Assessments, or Social Impact Assessment, or modeling to name but a few.

3) Conclusion

Methodologies for measuring social and cultural impacts have generally not been developed specifically with infrastructure programs, assets or networks in mind. Yet, they are typically focused on specific projects and can, in principle, be adapted. In fact, a number of approaches have been applied to infrastructure projects.

Some key potential policy-making applications of results from social and cultural impacts research include:

• Establishing high-level policies and plans, and setting strategic directions for resources (e.g., including key findings in long-range planning documents such as departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities that contribute to annual and long-term budget allocation and reallocation processes, e.g., implications for federal infrastructure priorities of commuter concern about pollution impacts of congestion).
• Planning new infrastructure projects in detail, and then implementing them (e.g., addressing and preventing negative community and neighbourhood impacts of previous infrastructure projects in detailed department and agency work planning and accountability documents, such as expenditures on mitigation measures for future projects).
• Factoring long-term results from studies of user behaviour into engineering, environmental, and design choices, e.g., how to reduce graffiti on specific infrastructure facilities.
• Using methods of community and neighbourhood consultation developed by social science research in managing construction projects (including hiring and mitigation practices) as they are undertaken, and also in hiring and mitigation practices.
• Organizing and managing the maintenance and operations of infrastructure and related facilities according to detailed assessments of how they will be used, during what times of the day, etc.
• Factoring social and cultural impact information into decision-making for funding infrastructure projects.
• Sharing this information with the provincial, territorial and municipal governments for consideration in making decisions about their infrastructure projects.

Of course not all approaches or methodologies discussed in this paper are adequate tools for all the potential applications listed above. For instance, establishing high-level policies and plans, and setting strategic directions for resources may be best served by general social impact assessments. Planning new infrastructure projects in detail, and then implementing them may be better supported by specific community impact assessments, cost-benefit analyses, socio-economic impact assessments, land use impact modelings, applied anthropology or environmental design. GIS and applied anthropology may be best suited for evaluating the overall results of infrastructure investments over time and facilitating reviews of how specific projects, assets and infrastructure systems have performed in relation to expectations.

We invite HRRI workshop participants to discuss these issues in the context of the methods presented in this background paper and to reflect on approaches which may have the greatest potential for assessing the social and cultural impacts of infrastructure on communities.

Endnotes

• (1) The CBA Team includes Robert Slater as the team leader, and in alphabetical order: Eric Champagne, David Crenna, Michel Frojmovic, Karen Junke, Alison Kerry, James Meadowcroft, and Kate Murray.
• (2) The CBA literature review provides contextual and analytical information on the subject matter and gives a comprehensive overview of a large number of tools that may be used to assess the social and cultural impacts of infrastructure. This background paper provides a synthesis of the literature review and focuses on the most relevant methods for the federal interdepartmental community.
• (3) Participants at the February 2005 Horizontal Research Round Table on Infrastructure (HRRI) Workshop on Community-Level Impacts of Infrastructure specifically identified this need.
• (4) Causal explanation, for instance, may be understood as the identification of some condition of infrastructure that produces or causes the impact or that conferred some of its distinctive features. Rational-intentional explanation may explain the impact of infrastructure as the aggregate consequence of the purposive actions of a large number of individuals. Interpretative explanation of the impact of infrastructure may focus on the changes in meanings that a particular society or culture attributes to itself, or how it understands its environment. See Daniel Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, Westview Press, Boulder, 1991.
• (5) See W. Lawrence Neuman, Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Pearson/A and B, Boston, 2006.
• (6) See International Principles for Social Impact Assessment, International Association for Impact Assessment, Special Publication Series No. 2, May 2003. Clare Mochrie, Cultural System Foundation Paper, Cities Plus, November. Guidelines and Principles For Social Impact Assessment, The Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, 1994.
• (7) See http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/gis/techgi0034.htm
• (8) As alluded to before, the study of social and cultural changes educed by human activities is linked to the topic discussed here. Approaches to study social and cultural changes are much more numerous then what we propose to discuss. In fact, the notion of change is probably one of the most important topics of sociology and social theory. Its study is divided in numerous theories and paradigms that have influenced the way in which policy and programs are designed and studied. To provide an overview of all these theories -- which essentially cover all of the major schools of thought in historical sociology -- would be too cumbersome for the purpose of this paper.
• (9) International Principles for Social Impact Assessment, p. 2.
• (10) See Department of Anthropology at the University of South Florida, Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation, Community Impact Assessment (CIA) web site: http://www.ciatrans.net/. Ward, Beverly G. Measuring the Effectiveness of Community Impact Assessment: Recommended Core Measures, University of South Florida, Tallahassee, 2005. Burdge, Rabel J. (ed.), A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment, Social Ecology Press, Middleton, 1995.
• (11) See Federal Highway Administration: http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/
• (12) See Community Impact Assessment in Florida Transportation Projects: Case Studies, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of Florida, 2001.
• (13) See New South Wales government, Guidelines for the Preparation of Rural Communities Impact Statements:http://www.premiers.nsw.gov.au/
• (14) See D. J. Forkenbrock and G. E. Weisbrod, Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 456. National Academy Press, Washington, 2001.
• (15) See Todd Litman, Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006.
• (16) See http://www.vtpi.org/
• (17) See http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/index.php
• (18) Litman, p. 2.
• (19) See Seymoar Nola-Kate, Planning for Long-term Urban Sustainability: A Guide to Frameworks and Tools, +30 Network, 2004.
• (20) Seehttp://www.envisiontools.com/
• (21) See http://www.whistler.ca/Sustainability/Whistler_2020/
• (22) See Boardman, A., D. Greenberg, A. Vining, and D. Weimer, Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Third Edition, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, 2005. United Nations, Cost Benefit Analysis of Transport Infrastructure Projects, Economic Commission for Europe, 2003. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission. Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis in Transport Canada. Transport Canada. Economic Evaluation Branch, Ottawa, 1994.
• (23) See Society for Applied Anthropology, http://www.sfaa.net/
• (24) See Alexander Ervin, Applied anthropology: tools and perspective for contemporary practice, Allyn & Bacon Press, Boston, 2005.
• (25) See Alan Bryman (ed), Ethnography, Sage, London, 2001.
• (26) See Gary Ferraro, Cultural anthropology: an applied perspective, Thomson Higher Education, Belmont, 2006.
• (27) A further sub-field of Applied Anthropology, with some relevance to the discussion of infrastructure, is Environmental Anthropology, which combines expertise in ecology with methods and tools for understanding the social and cultural dynamics of communities potentially affected by policy decisions.
• (28) See Sarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo, Outcome Mapping -- Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs, International Development Research Centre, 2001.
• (29) Nature versus nurture is a shorthand expression for debates about the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature") versus personal experiences ("nurture") in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.
• (30) Robert B Bechtel and Arza Churchman (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 661, 2002.
• (31) Ibid., p. 201.
• (32) See Davis Alan Kopec, Environmental psychology for design, Fairchild, New York, 2006.
• (33) Although not directly linked to social and cultural impact analysis, architecture, as an aesthetic (and increasingly bio-scientific) field also firmly believes in the link between design and behaviour. The aesthetic quality or design appeal of a piece of infrastructure is often a large, even decisive, factor in its cultural perception and social acceptance as a positive contribution to the urban space around it. The UK Design Council has conducted significant on this matter, and while the Council does not cover architecture per se, it does touch on other aspects of “infrastructure” (see http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/webdav/harmonise?Page/@id=6000). This kind of analysis often leads to questions about the actual “usability” of a space: questions of ergonomics, basically, and whether or not there are sufficient gathering spaces, common areas, and other types of “interface”.
• (34) See An Examination of the Use of Domestic Space by Inuit Families Living in Arviat, Nunavut, Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, Research Highlight, Socio-Economic Series, May 2004.
• (35) See Timothy D. Crowe, Crime prevention through environmental design: applications of architectural design and space management concepts, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1991.
• (36) See J. Hanson & L Kellett, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Powerpoint presentation prepared for the Canadian Institute of Planners, International Program, 2005.
• (37) See Sheila L. Steinberg, GIS: geographic information systems for the social sciences: investigating space and place, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2006. Michael N. DeMers, Fundamentals of geographic information systems, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2005.