El tratamiento de la dimensión social en los estudios de impacto ambientalAnálisis de contenido aplicado al caso de la Comunidad Valenciana

  1. Guadalupe Ortiz 1
  1. 1 Universitat d'Alacant
    info

    Universitat d'Alacant

    Alicante, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05t8bcz72

Journal:
RES. Revista Española de Sociología

ISSN: 2445-0367,  1578-2824

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 28

Issue: 1

Pages: 113-131

Type: Article

DOI: 10.22325/FES/RES.2018.59 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: RES. Revista Española de Sociología

Abstract

For many years there have been numerous calls for effective inclusion of social analysis in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Also, the current legislation in most developed countries addresses this issue by both recognizing citizen participation as a basic principle of the process and explicitly requiring an account of the consequences a project will have on the affected population. This paper examines how these demands are put into practice in EIA procedures in the Valencian Autonomous Region in Spain. We analysed the content of the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) submitted to the Valencian regional administration, Spain, in 2014-2015. This analysis explores the chacarteristics of the social analysis in the EISs, and to what depth social factors are treated in their environment inventory and identification of social impact sections. Our analysis reveals significant methodological deficiencies and weaknesses in the quality of attention given to the social aspects in these assessment procedures.

€ View funding

Funding information

Este trabajo es resultado del proyecto “Gestión Social del Medio Ambiente: diagnóstico, oportunidades y resistencias hacia la transdisciplinariedad” (GV/2015/124 - GR-14-14) financiado mediante convocatoria pública por la Generalitat Valenciana y la Universidad de Alicante.

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Aledo, A. Domínguez, J. A. (2001). Sociología Ambiental. Granada: Grupo Editorial Universitario. Alonso, L. E. (1998). La mirada cualitativa en sociología. Madrid: Fundamentos.
  • Alonso, L. E. (2013). La sociohermenéutica como programa de investigación en sociología. ARBOR, 189 (761).
  • Barrow, C. J. (2000). Social impact assessment: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Becker, H. A. (2001). Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research, 128 (2), 311-321.
  • Becker, H. A., Vanclay, F. (2003). The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe: Free Press.
  • Bond, A. J., Morrison-Saunders, A. (2011). Re-evaluating sustainability assessment: Aligning the vision and the practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31 (1), 1-7.
  • Bond, R., Curran, J., Kirkpatrick, C., Lee, N., Francis, P. (2001). Integrated impact assessment for sustainable development: A case study approach. World Development, 29 (6), 1011-1024.
  • Burdge, R. J. (2004). The concepts, process and methods of social impact assessment. Middleton: Social Ecology Press.
  • Cantó, S., Riera, P. (2003). La vertiente socioeconómica en los estudios de impacto ambiental. Ciudad y Territorio.Estudios Territoriales, 138, 539-550.
  • Cashmore, M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: Process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (4), 403-426.
  • Clark, B. D. (1994). Improving public participation in environmental impact assessment. Built Environment, 20 (4), 294-308.
  • Conde, F. (2009). Análisis sociológico del sistema de discursos. Madrid: CIS.
  • Dendena, B., Corsi, S. (2015). The environmental and social impact assessment: A further step towards an integrated assessment process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 965-977.
  • Domínguez-Gómez, J. A. (2016). Four conceptual issues to consider in integrating social and environmental factors in risk and impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 56, 113-119.
  • Echavarren, J. M. (2007). Aspectos socioeconómicos de la evaluación de impacto ambiental. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 65 (47), 99-116.
  • Esteves, A. M., Franks, D., Vanclay, F. (2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 34-42.
  • García, E. (2004). Medio Ambiente y Sociedad: la civilización industrial y los límites del planeta. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
  • Glucker, A. N., Driessen, P. P. J., Kolhoff, A., Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013). Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 104-111.
  • Hartley, N., Wood, C. (2005). Public participation in environmental impact assessment-implementing the aarhus convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25 (4), 319-340.
  • Hellström, T., Jacob, M. (1996). Uncertainty and values: The case of environmental impact assessment. Knowledge and Policy, 9 (1), 70-84. Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
  • Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Sci- ence, 7 (1), 25-43.
  • Lee, B., Haworth, L., Brunk, C. G. (1995). Values and science in impact assessment. Environments, 23 (1), 93-100.
  • Lee, N. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26 (1), 57-78.
  • López, I., Arriaga, A., Pardo, M. (2018). La dimensión social del concepto de desarrollo sosteni- ble: ¿La eterna olvidada? Revista Española de Sociología, 27 (1), 25-41.
  • Momtaz, S. (2006). Public participation and com- munity involvement in environmental and so- cial impact assessment in developing coun- tries. The International Journal of Environmen- tal, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability, 2, 89-97.
  • Momtaz, S., Kabir, S. Z. (2013). Evaluating environ- mental and social impact assessment in developing countries. Waltham: Elsevier.
  • Morrison-Saunders, A., Arts, J. (2005). Learning from experience: Emerging trends in environmental im- pact assessment follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23 (3), 170-174.
  • O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purpo- ses, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Re- view, 30 (1), 19-27.
  • Palerm, J. R. (2000). An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43 (5), 581-600.
  • Pardo, M. (1994). El impacto social en las evaluaciones de impacto ambiental: Su conceptuali- zación y práctica. Revista Española de Investi- gaciones Sociológicas, 66, 141-167.
  • Pardo, M. (1997). Environmental impact assessment: Myth or reality? lessons from spain. Environmen- tal Impact Assessment Review, 17 (2), 123-142.
  • Pope, J., Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (6), 595-616.
  • Rossini, F. A., Porter, A. L. (1983). Integrated impact assessment. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc.
  • Salomons, G. H., Hoberg, G. (2014). Setting boundaries of participation in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 69-75.
  • Tilleman, W. A. (1995). Public participation in the envi- ronmental impact assessment process: A compa- rative study of impact assessment in canada, the united states and the european community. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 33 (2), 337-340.
  • Torriti, J. (2011). The unsustainable rationality of impact assessment. European Journal of Law and Economics, 31 (3), 307-320.
  • Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22 (3), 183-211.
  • Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (1), 5-12.
  • Vanclay, F., Bronstein, D. A. (1995). Environmental and social impact assessment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Vanclay, F., Esteves, A. M. (2011). New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Wilkins, H. (2003). The need for subjectivity in EIA: Discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Re- view, 23 (4), 401-414.
  • Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: la unidad del conocimiento. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg- Círculo de Lectores.
Data source: Dialnet