Social impact assessment and (realist) evaluation: meeting of the methods

Abstract

In this paper we reflect on the interlinkages between social impact assessment and evaluation and, in particular, realist evaluation. To examine the connections between these fields of practice we draw on recent research in the South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand, in which we linked social impact assessment and elements of realist evaluation in the study of rural and small-town regeneration. We use the research to identify a number of connections and to make suggestions regarding greater convergence of methods in social impact assessment and evaluation. We conclude by urging social impact assessment practitioners to use mixed methods, with a stronger emphasis on qualitative approaches, and especially to work with communities in an iterative way towards a conceptual basis for assessing and managing change and enhancing social wellbeing.

Monitoring for the adaptive management of social impacts

“…588 Handbook of social impact assessment and management no single tool or perfect combination of tools to be applied, and each practitioner will need to make informed decisions about what is best in each particular context. The use of mixed methods is encouraged, especially with a stronger emphasis on qualitative approaches (Taylor et al, 2021). Examples of some useful tools are provided below to demonstrate the value of qualitative social impact monitoring tools.…”

Application of social impact assessment during project operation and closure

“…Both approaches are important because they help to assess project performance while also providing experiential learning and the comparative case information necessary to assess new project proposals (Burdge & Johnson, 2004). At this stage of the project cycle, SIA practice and project evaluation coalesce (Taylor et al, 2021).…”

“…The figure aligns the common SIA steps, and engagement and analysis of impacts, with community-led processes. This community-led approach to planning for and managing transitions and periods of intense social change emphasises the co-production of knowledge, with community organisations working alongside government agencies and SIA practitioners to generate and share knowledge (Taylor et al, 2021). In the operational phase, community-based approaches are an important way to undertake SIAs that deal with community needs, strategies, initiatives and transitions.…”

“…Our approach to interpreting the social impacts of the A2O was informed by Taylor et al (2021), as well as by Sairinen et al's (2021) framing of social impact research to identify key impacts, in their case in mining. Research preparation involved the design of a flexible strategy to guide the research process, including a stakeholder engagement plan, and exploration of appropriate concepts and useful theoretical frameworks, such as rural multifunctionalism (Holmes, 2008;Mackay et al, 2014) and tourism-led regional regeneration theory (Mackay et al, 2018;Wise, 2016Wise, , 2018.…”

Community-led heritage conservation in processes of rural regeneration

“…Successful regeneration depends on multiple interested parties collaborating over the long term, effective capability building, programme integration and a balance between local initiative and extra-local, often financial, support (Powe et al , 2015). In our wider research, conducted in several rural towns in Te Waipounamu/the South Island, we have examined various social, cultural, environmental and economic initiatives established by local people and agencies to regenerate their settlements and communities (Dance et al , 2018; Levy et al , 2021; Mackay and Perkins, 2019; Mackay et al , 2018; Perkins and Mackay, 2022; Perkins et al , 2019; Taylor et al , 2021). Heritage conservation was a notable dimension in this work, and as a result, we advanced our interest in this field.…”