The Effectiveness of Social Variables in Social
Impact Assessment: Korean Cases
Juchul Jung
Jaeyoung Lim
Korea Environment Institute
I. Objective
Finding Social Variables that are relevant
to Korean Cases
Developing the Effectiveness of Social
Impact Assessment through Selecting
Effective Social Variables
Understanding Specificity of Certain
Social Variables in Local Contexts
II. Methodology
Performing Literature Review about
Social Variables in SIA
Selecting and Reviewing Six Different
Typical EIA Cases in Korea (EIA reports)
Employing ‘Scoping’ to Sort Out Which
Social Variables Prove Effective in Korean
Cases
III.1 Social Variables by IOCGP and Burge
III.2 Social Variables by Vanclay
• 1) Health and Social Well-being Impacts
• 2) Living Environment Impacts
• 3) Economic Impacts and Material Well-being
Impacts
• 4) Cultural Impacts
• 5) Family and Community Impacts
• 6) Institutional, Legal, Political and Equity Impacts
• 7) Gender Relations Impacts
III.3.1 Comparisons between IOCGP and Vanclay’s
Social Variables
IOCGP
Vanclay
Population Characteristics
Health and
Social Well-being Impacts
Community and Institutional
Changes
Living Environmental Impacts
Political and Social Resources
Economic Impacts and
Material Well-being Impacts
Individual and Family Changes
Cultural Impacts
Community Resources
Family and Community Impacts
Institutional, Legal, Political
and Equity Impacts
Gender Relations Impacts
III.3.2 Vanclay’s Social Variables
Differentiating Social Impacts from Social Changes
Accusing IOCGP of not separating Social Changes from
Social Impacts
Changes are neutral; Impacts are not.
Variables are suggestions; not meant to be checklists
V. Social Variables in Korean EIA
Recently (2006), only population, residence, and industry
are currently reviewed in EIA.
Population
- Impacts of Dense Population on Environment
- The Extent of Dense Population and Mitigation Policies
Residence
- Impacts on Residence and Mitigation Policies
Industry
- Impacts on Industrial Structure
- Impacts on Fishery and Agriculture
Public
Infrastructure
- Impacts on Capacity of Public Infrastructure
Education
- Impacts on Capacity of Education Facilities
Traffic
Cultural Heritage
- Changes in Traffic Congestion and Road Conditions
- Impacts on Parking Space and Bus Stops
- Impacts on Landscape
- Impacts on Cultural Heritage
IV. Korean Cases (2000~)
Case 1: Kyungin Canal Porject
Case 2: Saemangeum Reclamation Project
Case 3: Seoul Outer-Ring Road (Sapaesan Tunnel)
Case 4: Kyoungbu High Speed Rail (Chungsungsan Tunnel)
Case 5: Radioactive Waste Disposal (Buan)
Case 6: Hantan River Dam
V-1 Why these cases?
• Environmental conflict cases
(selected by Korean central government)
• EIA was prepared, but failed to lessen or
mitigate social conflict
• To check which social variable is effective
in those cases for social impact assessment
V-2 Social Variables
(To be included in SIA)
VI. Implication
• Stakeholder analysis missed
• In particular, NGO proved very important, but
excluded.
ex) Engineer, Economist, Environmental scientist,
Sociologist, Affected People, and NGO
VII. Conclusion and Implication
• Current Korean SIA in EIA insufficient and
ineffective in content and process
• Stakeholder analysis and public participation
(NGO) needed
• The integration of Vanclay’s method into
Burdge’s in selecting social variables