Tool 25 Public Perception of Flood Risk and Social Impact Assessment PDF
Tool 25 Public Perception of Flood Risk and Social Impact Assessment PDF
public perception of
flood risk and social
impact assessment
ISSUE 25
INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT TOOL SERIES | a
JANUARY 2016
The Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM) is a joint initiative of the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP).
www.floodmanagement.info
www.wmo.int
The Global Water Partnership is an international network whose vision is for a water
secure world. The GWP mission is to advance governance and management of water
resources for sustainable and equitable development. The GWP network is open to all
organizations which recognize the principles of integrated water resources management
endorsed by the network.
www.gwp.org
This publication is part of the “Integrated Flood Management Tools Series” being compiled by the Associated Programme
on Flood Management. The Public Perception of Flood Risk and Social Impact Assessment Tool is based on available
literature and draws on the findings from relevant works wherever possible.
This Tool addresses the needs of practitioners and allows them to easily access relevant guidance materials. The Tool is
considered as a resource guide/material for practitioners and not an academic paper. References used are mostly available
on the Internet and hyperlinks are provided in the References section.
This Tool is a “living document” and will be updated based on sharing of experiences with its readers. The Associated
Programme on Flood Management encourages flood managers and related experts around the globe who are engaged in
the Social Impact Assessment or whose activities are related to the perception of risk by social actors to participate in the
enrichment of the Tool. For this purpose, comments and other inputs are cordially invited. Authorship and contributions will
be appropriately acknowledged. Please kindly submit your inputs to the following email address: [email protected] under
Subject: “Public Perception of Flood Risk and Social Impact Assessment”.
Acknowledgements
This Tool makes use of the work of many organizations and experts as listed in the references. Special acknowledgements are
due to Mr Edoardo Guaschino, author of the first draft of this publication, and to Dr Gabriele Quinti, main author of this Tool, for
their valuable expertise under the technical guidance of the APFM Technical Support Unit.
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
REFERENCES I
FURTHER READING V
ANNEX I - What is a focus group and how should one be organized? VII
ANNEX II - Model grid for conducting focus group within the framework of a flood-specific SIA XI
2 Here, the point should be made that floods are defined in two ways: “rise, usually brief, in the water
level of a stream or water body to a peak from which the water level recedes at a slower rate” or “relatively high
flow as measured by stage height or discharge” (WMO and UNESCO, 2012).
3 The effects may be either positive (for example, by boosting agriculture or fishing or by
recharging groundwater systems) or negative, for example in the event that water overflows
invade areas, causing more or less significant damage.
4 Since the dawn of time (WMO, 2006), civilizations have prospered on flood plains, taking advantage
of the benefits of floods, which are much more than just a hazard. Housing is often located
in flood-prone areas, together with economic activities. These zones often represent a major
source of income, livelihood and housing for thousands of communities, while floods play
a key role in these processes. Global issues such as demographic pressure, environmental
degradation, climate variability and economic and social activity influence the way in which
floods impact households, economic activity and the organization of social networks positively
or negatively (WMO, 2009). For example, poor urban development can considerably aggravate
flooding. On the other hand, land-use planning regulations limiting the development of activities
likely to increase risks help reduce the exposure of economic activities to floods and to mitigate
their effects.
5 According to several authors, a natural disaster is never solely “natural”. It is always associated
with a body of risks concerning not only nature but also the social and economic processes
flowing from the complex relationship which the various communities have with the natural
environment – for example, with regard to soil use, the water cycle, land use planning,
canalizations, housing, etc. In other words, the problem of natural disasters and their impact
is closely linked to the socio-economic context as well as, in this connection, processes
particular to development (Correa, 2011). This in turn has an influence on communities’ resilience
to disasters, which is currently viewed as a key aspect to be borne in mind (UNISDR, 2011). By
way of example, a flood’s impact on a community which is used to this kind of event, as we
shall see below (Sections 2.3 and 2.4), is not at all the same as its impact on a community not
familiar with this type of event.
Box 2 — Resilience
The word “resilience” refers in general to the capacity of an organism, group or structure to adapt to
a changing environment. “Resilience” also means the capacity to recover or the ability of a person or
community to cope with hostile conditions and to recover from a disturbance.
(FAO, date unknown)
6 In the specific case of floods, WMO underscores a recent paradigm shift: there has been a
move from “flood control” to “integrated flood management” (IFM) (WMO, 2006), that is, from
the “need to master” floods from a technical standpoint to the “need to manage them” from
every point of view – technical but also social, political and economic, by anticipating the event
rather than undergoing it. The inhabitants of flood plains are no longer seen as the unfortunate
victims of a disaster; rather, they become key actors who take control of their destiny and
work actively to overcome the difficulties caused by the flood. As for the bodies responsible for
organizing relief operations in case of a disaster, instead of merely dealing with a flood, they
adopt a more holistic approach where the recovery phase calls for prior planning and mitigation
efforts. IFM deals with the combined action of, on the one hand, the positive aspects of floods
and, on the other hand, the threats which extreme events pose to sustainable development
in flood-prone areas (WMO, 2006). This approach reflects the importance which is now being
attached to disaster risk management, not only disaster management.
7 Living harmoniously with floods is one of IFM’s key strategic options. Some communities have
lived for centuries in areas exposed to flooding. Consequently, coexistence with floods must
set two major goals: ensuring that a flood disturbs socio-economic activity and livelihood as
little as possible; and ensuring equitable development in affected areas by improving the quality
of life (WMO, 2006).
8 It will also be recalled that the people living in a given territory (whether it be in Europe or also
mutatis mutandis in a country of sub-Saharan Africa) are increasingly aware of the problems
linked to climate change and in general feel concerned by environmental questions. As a result,
they often tend to be increasingly “active” in this respect.
9 This is the background for the dissemination of the approach featuring the social impact
assessment (SIA), a fundamental instrument in integrated flood management (IFM), given
that the social dimension is now viewed as key for reducing both risks (in terms of prevention)
and disaster-related losses and damage.
11 SIA is intended to supply the necessary knowledge to minimize risks, damage and losses (by
incorporating all available information as best possible), but also to launch (or back) a social
process aimed at maximizing consensus and the active involvement of social actors.
12 SIA also promotes knowledge of the characteristics of the communities affected (or potentially
affected) by disasters in order to be able to offer and appropriately manage prevention and
humanitarian aid. Taking account of these specificities makes it possible to develop sustainable
tools for promoting community resilience. It also acts as a form of awareness-building for
populations by leveraging their knowledge of the territory in which they live with a view to
better prevention before a flood.
13 This paper is designed to stimulate thinking on how to conduct an SIA in the specific case of
flood management. It is meant for various audiences interested in preventing and managing
the risks linked to floods: geologists, hydrologists and other experts; sociologists and social
assessment specialists; public administration officials; social operators; leaders of civil society
organizations, etc. Each of these target publics is familiar with some of the arguments which we
are going to take up but not the others. Hence the need for us to tackle all of these arguments
using language that is understandable to all and demonstrating argument by argument, which
could seem excessively generic or superfluous to some but necessary to others.
14 The first chapter deals with the notion of risk, particularly that of social risk. Accordingly, the
question of “popular” perception and awareness of risks is taken up, the point being made that
risks vary depending on the actors concerned by a flood. It is therefore important for those in
charge of a social impact assessment to factor in both the contextual aspects of a flood and the
way in which it is perceived. In Chapter 3, we illustrate a social impact assessment and show
how to conduct one in the concrete case of integrated flood management. Then, in Chapter 4,
we provide examples of methodology to be followed. Finally, Annexes I and II present the notion
of focus groups and an example of a grid for conducting their in an IFM context.
15 In this chapter, we shall start with some background on the notion of risk and its institutionalization.
We shall also deal more specifically with the notion of social risk.
16 Subsequently, we shall mention the main characteristics of public perception (as well as social
actors’ awareness) of flood risk.
17 In conclusion, we shall give some generic indications before highlighting risk awareness/
knowledge in a given community. Additional information on risks and perception of risks by the
social actors is presented in (WMO, 2015).
where society is seen as a good to be protected, the potential impacts which environmental
events may have on social structure have become a new concern for public institutions.
20 The notion of “civil security” emerged following such events as the Lisbon earthquake in
1755, which caused over 40,000 deaths, as well as the explosion in the Grenelle gunpowder
factories in 1794 (Lascoumes, 2012). It was on the basis of these events that “Any facility was
henceforth subject to a regime of administrative authorization. Its technical prescriptions were
graduated (in particular distances from homes) on the basis of a risk nomenclature. Little by
little, inspection services ensured compliance with these standards” (Lascoumes, 2012). The idea
that man (or society) could be separated from nature began to disappear, giving way to a new
paradigm which recognized their indissociable link and their fundamental interdependence.
21 With the scientific progress of the 19th century and the technological development of the
20th century, man started to give thought to protecting himself against dangers and disasters.
Notwithstanding, some saw the sinking of the Titanic in 1912 (although this was due to a
body of human errors and/or negligence in the design, building and sailing of this ship) as a
demonstration that the new technologies could not always protect man from or avert perils
(Lascoumes, 2012) (see Box 3).
1 “Article 2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man.
These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance to oppression.”
22 Subsequently, towards the end of the 20th century, events capable of destabilizing the social
organization in relation to major industrial disasters and nuclear accidents were formalized as
“major risks” (insofar as they were given ever closer attention by a significant share of policy-
makers and the scientific community) (Lascoumes, 2012). In this way, man, technology, society
and nature formed part of a single universe. Even though natural sciences continued to seek to
assess risk and technological tools were refined, such changes were always accompanied by
an awareness that zero risk does not exist.
23 The notion of civilian security took on special importance in the second half of the 20th century,
with:
—— The Cold War, especially the risk of nuclear warfare (see Box 4);
—— An increase in the number of industrial risks (in particular, chemical risks, civil nuclear
installations, pollution) (see Box 5);
—— An increase in transport-related risks: road traffic accidents, air transport, transport of
hazardous and radioactive materials (see Box 6).
24 In addition to natural risk and war risk, there is the risk linked to “normal” human activity (for
example major events which bring together tens or hundreds of thousands of people at a single
site, non-earthquake resistant buildings built in seismic zones, diseases linked to poor garbage
management and inadequate sanitation, etc.)
Box 4 — Civil security and nuclear risk: public awareness-building during the Cold War
At the beginning of the Cold War, the U.S. Civil Defense tried to mitigate the effects of a potential
nuclear conflict by increasing public awareness via different means. One example was the brochure
“Survival under atomic attack” written for families, but there was also the short film “Duck and
1
Cover!” teaching children what to do in case of a nuclear attack .
1 For the role of the media in flood management, see (WMO, 2015).
Box 4 — Civil security and nuclear risk: public awareness-building during the Cold War (continued)
Likewise, in the Soviet Union, civil defence authorities increased awareness among the civilian
population via written and visual communication: the examples alongside show posters dating back
to 1974 providing information on the different systems for disseminating warnings in case of attack
and providing tips to minimize fire-related damage.
Box 5 — Civil security and industrial risk: The Seveso disaster (Italy)
On 10 July 1976, a highly toxic cloud containing dioxin escaped from a reactor of the Icmesa
chemical plant of Meda (near Milan, Italy) and spread across four communes, the hardest hit being
Seveso. Above and beyond the environment disaster (most of the plants touched by the cloud
withered and over 70,000 head of cattle were slaughtered), the occupants of the worst-affected
zone were evacuated eight days later and their homes destroyed, as decontamination was not an
option. This accident, which gave its name to directive 96/82/EC (see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
seveso/) concerning production sites classified as high-risk in Europe, highlighted the dangers of
industrial activities in urban areas. A similar episode, which had a much more serious impact in
terms of loss of human life, took place in 1984 in Bhopal, India, due to the explosion of the pesticide
plant Union Carbide India Limited.
Figure 3 — A carabiniere posting a “No access” sign in Seveso, Italy (h2it.org, 2012)
Box 6 — Civil security and transport risk: Transport of dangerous goods (TDG)
Every day, a wide variety of dangerous goods are transported throughout the world, the bulk of
which is for industrial use. These goods may be transported in liquid form (e.g. hydrocarbons,
chloride, propane, caustic soda) or solid form (e.g. explosives, ammonium nitrate). They are often
more concentrated and more aggressive than similar products for household use.
The main consequences caused by an accident during the transport of dangerous goods are:
–– A fire;
–– Release of a toxic cloud;
–– An explosion;
–– Corrosion;
–– Soil and/or water pollution.
Transport of dangerous goods (TDG) covers carriage by road, rail, air, sea, inland waterway or
pipeline. As each mode of transport is very different from the others, there are specific regulations
for each one. This is why legislation in this field is so abundant.
The common thread for all these regulations is that they foresee technical provisions for vehicles,
monitoring arrangements and staff training. On the basis of an identification number, in particular
for the type of good transported, in the event of an accident, emergency services may easily refer
to the safety data sheet for the goods and receive the appropriate instructions.
26 Despite the wide range of existing definitions and formulae, two common elements are
generally present: the probability of the appearance of an event and its consequences. With
regard to disasters, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
defines risk as “the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences”
(UNISDR, 2009b).
27 “According to the IFM approach, flood risk is defined as the expected losses caused by a given
flood at a specific period and is based on three elements (see Figure 5):
—— The intensity of the flood and the speed of the water rise;
—— The exposure of human activity to the flood;
—— The vulnerability of the exposed elements.
Figure 5 — Flood risk and mitigation
29 It is in this framework that the social sciences come into the picture.
30 The term “risk”, in the context of the social sciences, was first used by the German sociologist
Ulrich Beck, who speaks of the “risk society” and attempts to highlight the media, political and
scientific characteristics surrounding the notion of the social production of risk. Here, the aim is
to highlight the idea that the notion of risk has become central in a society which, owing to the
impact of modernization and its economic and technological processes, is increasingly turned
towards the future (for example, by considering risk phenomena related to the accumulation
of capital, the new borders of communication, etc.), by trying to predict causality links and
“govern” the resulting uncertainty (Beck, 1986). Beck emphasizes inter alia that wealth is not the
fundamental resource for managing risks. Rather, information and knowledge are the basic
tools for “managing a risk” (thanks to knowledge, a vague, undetermined “danger” turns into
an at least partly known risk, providing a means, as far as possible, of “controlling” it).
31 In a similar vein, Luciano d’Andrea and Giancarlo Quaranta (d’Andrea, Quaranta, 1996) propose an
approach based on the connection between “dangers”, “social regimes” and “risks”. Dangers
are defined as events or processes which are potentially beyond the control of individuals,
communities and social groups. Social regimes are the body of norms, institutions, policies and
other regulatory frameworks which, taken together, unleash/enhance the capability of social
actors to gain control over dangers. Through these social regimes, dangers are turned into
risks. This means that in fact risks are dangers which are socially managed/controlled through
their identification, awareness thereof and the activation of coping measures.
32 Another leading sociologist who has focused on the notion of risk is Anthony Giddens (Giddens,
1999), for whom the risk present in modern societies features a different typology from the risk
which characterized human society up to the end of the 19th century. In today’s societies, risks
are a product of human activity (manufactured risks). They are the outcome of the modernization
process as such and are only partly linked to natural factors (external risks). Risks therefore
have a structural essence (that is, they are linked to the operating mechanisms of modern-
day society) and cannot be managed solely on the individual level. All of this implies profound
changes in the structure of social relations.
33 When a similar approach is used, phenomena such as unemployment, substandard health and
education services, social rejection, various types of crime, poor housing and bad territorial
management may be considered as social risk factors which may accompany environmental risk
factors like overcrowding, different forms of pollution, housing in flood-prone areas, landslides,
etc. When a single individual, family, human group or community accumulates several risk
factors (and their intensity), this generates more or less serious situations of social exclusion,
which in turn lead these individuals, families, human groups or communities into a process of
impoverishment (Mastropietro, 2001).
34 Although the above comments merely serve as an introduction, they suffice to bring out the
centrality of the notion of risk in the framework of contemporary social sciences (see Box 7).
36 The social sciences are starting to debate the capacity of social actors to know the risks which
characterize the settings in which they live as well as (and this is the flip side of the coin) the
subjectivity involved in so-called “objective” risks. As a result, social actors’ awareness and
perception of risks have become a topic of interest, making it possible to see how to enhance
popular information in connection with prevention while explaining people’s reaction to disasters
(see Box 8). Ever since the 1980s, the social sciences have challenged the technological approach
through a new paradigm, the social paradigm of disasters. This new paradigm, particularly
influenced by the ideas provided by political ecology, features a difference compared with the
technocratic vision (Anzelli & Piguet, 2012). This passage marks a major change, because risk is no
longer viewed as an entity separate from man/society (that is, as something solely particular to
nature) but as an entity which is also inherent to human actions and perceptions.
37 We can define perception of risks as a subjective perception of the possibility that an event will
take place, according to a major or minor probability and intensity. This perception may be more
or less influenced by different factors. This means that it is a very malleable idea rather than
a static one: the media, channels of scientific dissemination, Internet, what the other social
actors think, inter alia, are all elements that are capable of changing individuals’ perception of
risks.
38 This is also why the perception (but also the capacity for awareness) of risks may change
from one context to another, depending on the geological, economic, political and social
characteristics. Several studies have highlighted the link between risk perception and other
factors (Kellens, Zaalberg, Neutens, Vanneuville, De Maeyer, 2011). From this literature, we deduce that
the way in which different people perceive flood risks stems, among other things, from their
subjective experience (how many times these people have faced flood events in their past life)
and the periodicity of the phenomenon in a given territory. With respect to the latter criterion,
the level of attention tends to be lower in unprotected risk areas, where floods do not occur on
a seasonal basis. In such cases, the inhabitants tend to underestimate the risk (Botzen, Aerts, van
den Bergh, 2009). However, in places where flood risk follows a seasonal trend, the population’s
perception often goes hand in hand with the risk level established by the experts but may also
be overestimated or underestimated (Siegrist & Gutscher 2006). These two criteria (experience and
periodicity) are of course closely linked.
39 In cases where large-scale flood protection works – dykes, reservoirs, embankments and
containment walls – have been built over the years, the communities they protect mistakenly
feel safe for some time. Such works are generally intended to provide protection against
floods of some magnitude. In the event of flooding greater than the design flood or particular
conditions which endanger the stability of the flood protection works, there is little chance that
they will hold up. Accordingly, it is vital that the community concerned be aware of the limits
and degree of protection which these works afford and be mindful of the residual risks. Here,
emergency schemes to cope with such risks are essential when it comes to intervening in a
critical situation (WMO, 2006).
40 Several other factors may influence perception of risks (WMO, 2006). Some example are given
in Box 9.
41 In the next part (Section 2.4), we shall show how, in the case of flooding, it is possible to help fill
in the gap between scientifically measured risks and risks perceived or “known” on the basis
of local inhabitants’ knowledge of the territory on which they live.
42 Yet we should not forget that the proposed criteria and advice refer to the current climate
context. Climate change is a reality, but its effects are not yet fully known. Consequently, a
population’s perceptions could change with the variations stemming from the effects of climate
change. It is thus essential to evaluate the perception of flood risk and climate change in a
mutually interdependent fashion and to base ourselves on increasingly flexible approaches.
44 Three parameters characteristic of floods strongly influence the perception and level of
awareness which the different social actors in a community may have of floods. These are:
—— Rise time (flash flood, rapid flood, slow flood);
—— Location (fluvial flood; coastal flood);
—— Periodicity (extreme floods; seasonal/cyclical floods)
45 The level of popular awareness (as a whole and according to the categories considered) and the
perception of risk may change according to these three variables.
46 For example, in the case of seasonal/cyclical floods, the bulk of which are fluvial floods, the
target public may already have relatively high awareness and perception of the risk. What is
more, these are generally floods which occur rather slowly (contrary to flash floods), making it
easier to manage the risk situation.
47 On the other hand, with extreme floods, it is much more likely that the population concerned
is either not aware or not fully aware of the dangers. And when this is not the case, given that
these are events deemed to be of an exceptional nature, the precautions taken by the people
concerned are not consistent with the actual level of danger. This state of affairs is particularly
serious in the case of flash floods, which involve the rapid discharge of water in areas where
communities are in all likelihood unaware or little aware of prevention measures. These are
some of the most difficult risk situations to manage.
48 Generally, experts, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, etc. conduct such studies with technical
tools, including those particular to the geographic information system (GIS) (Denègre, Salgé,
2004). However, mapping environmental and social risks is sometimes also based on popular
information, in particular the historical memory (somatic, that is, solely present “in the minds of
people” and extra-somatic, that is, reproduced on written sources) of the populations who live
in a given territory. Naturally, popular information will also have to be examined attentively by
the technicians (such information may also be skewed by their perception). When conducting
this type of exercise, it is also important to observe the points of convergence between
“technical knowledge” and “popular knowledge”. Joint mapping of environmental (and social)
risks by technicians and inhabitants, including an effort to highlight information available in the
archives (and in press coverage of previous disasters), makes it possible to optimize available
information in relation to risk prevention and management (PRODERE, 1996) (see Box 10). WMO
has also developed flood mapping instruments (WMO, 2013).
B | Subsequently highlight flood risk perception by the different actors in the communities concerned by means of
specific studies (see Box 9).
49 Efforts to integrate all sources are particularly important. This is the step on which we shall
focus and put forward an approach to be followed, because it is important that all professionals
work together in this regard to draw up an exhaustive situational framework. The point should
be made that the cases documented in the literature give us an idea of how to conduct useful
surveys. Yet one must not forget that each context is different and that each situation must
therefore be studied and viewed as unique.
50 Conducting a survey and determining the hypotheses are very delicate undertakings in such
a framework. It is important to start by defining the ultimate aim of this kind of survey. This
section gives suggestions for developing a general understanding of the relationship between
scientific/technical knowledge of risk and the concerned population’s perception/awareness of
2
risk . These are suggestions of a very general nature, as contexts are too heterogeneous for a
methodology to be represented deterministically.
51 It follows that those responsible for conducting any such survey must pay particular attention
to the points below:
—— Developing simple yet effective technical instruments which can supply comprehensive
answers in order to arrive at as complete a picture of the situation as possible. These
technical instruments may be:
–– Questionnaires for individual interviews with the “general public” with a prevalence of
“closed answers” (those which feature pre-defined answers in the majority of cases);
–– Questionnaires for individual interviews of qualified experts from the community who are
not directly involved in preventing and managing environmental risks (law enforcement,
teachers, medical personnel, local administrators, etc.), with a prevalence for “open
questions”;
–– Handbooks for interviews with technicians and other experts (including those from civil
society) who are directly or indirectly involved in preventing and managing environmental
risks;
2 “In accordance with conventional definitions, risk is considered to be a quantifiable variable which is analysed on the
basis of probabilities and consequences” (Kellens, Zaalberg, Neutens, Vanneuville, De Paeyer, 2011; Raaijmakers,
Krywkow, Van der Veen, 2008).
–– Handbooks for conducting “focus groups” with joint input from citizens and experts,
thereby facilitating interactive, multilateral coordinated consultation (the CMIC approach,
which we shall revert to later – see Section 2.2). Working through such groups also makes
it possible to map popular information on environmental (and social) risks which are
integrated with technical information. A detailed presentation of the work with the focus
groups is given in Annexes I and II.
—— The questionnaires should not be long. Otherwise, there is a risk that people may not put
much effort into their answers, thereby distorting the questionnaire;
—— If possible, overly technical words should be avoided (except for the grids for interviews
with technicians and other experts) when preparing appropriate data collection tools for the
levels of preparation for the different interviewees. This will ensure that the survey findings
are truly useful;
—— Several community representatives should be encouraged to participate actively in the
conduct of the survey.
52 As was clearly explained above, highlighting popular knowledge and evaluating the perception
of those concerned (by taking their characteristics into account) can significantly boost flood
prevention and management efforts. This being so, it is important to arrange for a link with
a nearby university institute, a research institute, a national bureau or a private office that is
capable of providing the necessary high-quality expertise.
53 If it is not possible to conduct this type of survey due to geographical, economic or linguistic
reasons, consideration can be given to more limited consultations, without forgetting the need
for some form of coordinated, multilateral and interactive consultation including the holding of at
least one focus group. More subtle adaptation to local needs, be they human or environmental,
will facilitate longer-term efforts to increase communities’ awareness of flood risk (WMO, 2007).
56 We shall begin by giving a brief background for the SIA. A second part is devoted to a discussion
of methodology, to determine how to conduct this type of evaluation. A third section provides
an overview of managing the findings of an SIA, while the last section takes up all of the
elements covered and proposes an approach for conducting a flood-specific SIA.
58 There is no officially recognized or universally shared definition of an SIA, and the debate on
how to conduct an SIA has evolved over time.
59 Along with the other types of impact studies (environmental, health, etc.), the concept of
social impact assessment (SIA) appeared during the 1970s, as an offshoot of an emerging
problem concerning public and private investment: in their search for short-term economic
profits, the promoters of such investment tended to overlook the negative impacts generated
for the communities involved, in environmental, social and economic terms (Bauer, Thomas, 2006).
Accordingly, some research projects began to examine how to conduct investment impact
assessments so as to limit their negative effects on society and amplify their positive effects.
This consideration, based on a cost-benefit approach, was the first of several factors leading to
the development of the SIA.
60 In the course of the 1980s, SIAs became increasingly important, above all with regard to
major investments by international financial institutions (such as the World Bank), especially
those relating to major infrastructural works such as dams and reservoirs, roads, industrial
installations, power plants and mine developments. These institutions began to recognize
a recurrent, growing problem: some of these projects did not meet their main goal, that of
benefiting the persons concerned and promoting sustainable development. On the contrary,
they even led to the opposite result.
3.1.2 The 1990s and the 2000s: new approaches, new criticisms
62 Nevertheless, and despite the fact that people and their social and natural environment – and
not solely economic costs and benefits – were now at the heart of the discussion, several
researchers and practitioners highlighted certain contradictions which continued to feed the
debate on SIAs. During the 1990s and the 2000s in particular, fresh criticisms were expressed
concerning the way in which SIAs were designed. Here are a few:
—— Evaluations were concerned by and for researchers, without involving the people concerned
using participatory methods. This meant that the way in which surveys were carried out
reflected only one side of the issues, leaving aside once again the main aim: ensuring that
the human and social dimensions are indeed at the heart of matters;
—— SIAs tended to focus solely on planned projects, leaving aside other potential impacts, such
3
as those stemming from so-called “natural” or technological, or the social interventions of
social entrepreneurship and civil society;
3 However, some SIAs relating to environmental events were carried out in the 1970s, including in the case of floods, see for
example (Mack, 1973); we shall revert to this in Section 4.2)
63 The aspects mentioned above are but a few of the criticisms made which, rather than preventing
the implementation of the SIAs, helped build a sounder conceptual and methodological base.
Temporal and contextual considerations gained importance within the SIAs; participatory
approaches became more widespread; SIA findings were incorporated into programme/project
management, etc. Yet disagreements persisted. In particular, during the 2000s, there was no
official definition of an SIA (UNEP, 2002) or even a general, internationally accepted definition.
64 Over the past decade, researchers and practitioners have tried to agree on a definition of an SIA
and on how it could be applied in the different contexts. Even though the debate is still open,
today, the social impact assessment may be defined as follows:
“The SIA is the process whereby one develops an analysis, follow-up and management of the expected
and unexpected social consequences, both positive and negative, of both planned interventions
(policies, programmes, plans and projects) and unplanned ones. In addition, the SIA is designed to
shed light on the processes of social change invoked by these interventions, as its main aim is to
develop a more equitable and sustainable biophysical and human environment.”
(Vanclay, 2003)
66 This conceptual basis, which is generally widely accepted, has facilitated efforts to start building
a consensus among the main protagonists of functional SIAs to avoid, prevent and correct
the negative effects of planned and unplanned events on the people/communities involved.
A series of values, principles and approaches have been proposed to ensure that SIAs are
conducted as effectively as possible.
67 In the following section, we are going to sum up some of the key aspects which must be taken
into consideration when implementing an SIA.
68 To understand how to conduct an SIA, it is essential to know what a social impact is in practice.
69 Social impacts may be defined as the consequences for people of an action which modifies
their lifestyle, working mode, relations, organization and role as individuals and members of
society (UNEP, 2002). This definition encompasses, inter alia, socio-psychological changes, which
affect for example people’s values and attitudes and their perceptions of themselves and their
community and environment. Some SIA practitioners consider that social impacts include both
personal living conditions (e.g. stress and other forms of disruption) as well as changes which
impact society as a whole (e.g. overpopulation, pressure on infrastructure, poverty) (World Bank,
2003).
70 Box 11 contains a composite (albeit non-exhaustive) list (Vanclay, 2006) of potential social impacts.
However, these need to be checked for relevance in every given situation or country, for example
with regard to development goals or essential needs for food, water and shelter (which is
why we call this list as a “theoretical repertory”). Not all SIA practitioners have adopted the
classification of the impacts or all of the impacts inventoried. Moreover, numerous impacts
among those listed are not easy to measure and require the analysis of a number of variables.
71 It should be noted that the impacts listed in the following box are not, by definition, all negative.
24 Change in attitude towards the local community, level of satisfaction with the neighbourhood
27 Domestic violence
32 Housing quality
11 Cultural impoverishment
15 Economic prosperity
19 Real crime
20 Real violence
72 The list which we have just presented may serve as a reference point but, as has already been
emphasized, a specific repertory of potential social impacts should be prepared on a case-by-
case basis.
74 The identification of potential social impacts is the starting point for any SIA (see Figure 8). The
next step is to determine which impacts may effectively be verified (in the case of an ex ante
analysis) or which have been or are being verified (in the case of an ongoing, terminal or ex
post analysis).
75 In the majority of cases, all that can be done is to determine whether an impact is (or may be)
present or not and to describe it, even if quantification is not possible.
76 In this respect, opting for qualitative methods makes it possible to gather viewpoints and
testimony from stakeholders. A “stakeholder” is defined as any person or organization who
has an impact on the project or is impacted by it (see Box 12).
77 One particularly suitable method is the Coordinated, Multilateral and Interactive Consultation
4
(CMIC) approach , whereby all stakeholders are consulted and their viewpoints are compared
interactively. If possible, this is done by convening a focus group where stakeholder
representatives are both present and interact directly with each other with a help of a moderator
(see Annexes I and II). If this is not feasible, this is done through successive consultations of
stakeholder representatives making it possible to gradually identify the viewpoints as they
emerge (all are informed of the viewpoints expressed by the persons consulted previously in
relation to each social impact).
78 The interaction generated by this approach (or similar methods) provides an opportunity to step
back and reconsider the purpose of the action/project/programme or event whose social impact
is being evaluated. However, this kind of summing-up is not always obvious: the repertories of
potential impacts, as set out in the box below, may help by schematizing the expected effects
5
of a given project/action/event .
79 As far as possible, it would be appropriate to not only identify and describe impacts which can
actually be verified (from an ex ante perspective) or which have actually been verified (from an
ex post perspective) but also to quantify these impacts.
4 An example may be found in (Cancedda A., 2005): Skilled Migrants Integration Assessment Model – SMIAM, Guidelines.
Rome, Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza. www.scienzecittadinanza.org/public/SMIAMLGeng.pdf
5 See also the theory of change: www.theoryofchange.org
82 Such indicators may be measured using figures (e.g. revenue growth, drop in the occurrence
of disease) or depend on observations or statements (number of persons who say that they
have improved their self-confidence or display better skills). They may also be “proxies”, that is,
they do not directly measure the phenomenon (in our case the impact of interest to us) but only
measure part of it or measure a phenomenon which is correlated, that is, for which we assume
that the change (or, better still, the variation over time or in space) is similar. Thus, changes in
mortality rates, where such rates are high, give a good idea of changes in the health status of
the population concerned.
83 Choosing the right indicators implies a precise idea of what one wishes to measure and why
(AVISE, ESSEC, 2013). It may be appropriate to construct them jointly so that they make sense
for all stakeholders, that is, all of the actors concerned (in particular, in our case, the qualified
community experts directly or indirectly involved in the prevention and management of
environmental risks, including local administrators, technicians, civil society leaders, etc.).
84 An indicator is often constructed on the basis of a continuous variable which has been
discretized dichotomously (yes/no) or in classes, giving priority to relative values (rank) rather
than absolute ones. A number of qualitative indicators are sometimes expressed in the form
of proportions (for example, as percentages) to facilitate perception of an order of magnitude
of the phenomena observed or their changes. Some indicators may be applied directly to
elementary units (e.g. individuals, households or homes). In such cases, a composite indicator
may be constructed for all of these units (average, % of units below a certain threshold, etc.).
This is the type of indicator that is most commonly used to monitor situations at the level of
populations.
87 These repertories may be perceived as restrictive and requiring compliance with objectives
which are far from the project mission. Some are more dynamic than others, as their designers
6
are attentive to users’ proposals .
88 Social impact assessments (just like EIAs, see Box 13) are mainly conducted prior to the
implementation of a programme/project (thus from an “ex ante” perspective) in order to
understand which social impacts it could generate and thus be able to take steps to eliminate/
minimize any future negative impacts. At this stage, an SIA may be conducted, taking into
consideration several alternatives for the implementation of a programme/project in order to
identify the one which, in terms of social impacts, features the most advantages and the fewest
drawbacks. In a similar vein, an SIA should be conducted before a calamitous event occurs in
order to understand what steps can be taken to eliminate/mitigate the negative social impacts.
89 An SIA may also be conducted during the execution, in the final phase or after the conclusion of
a programme/project or along with the execution of activities by organizations of a social nature
(such as those dealing with social entrepreneurship) in order to evaluate the social impacts
which have already appeared/are appearing/may appear. Likewise, an SIA should be conducted
after a calamitous event has occurred to understand its effects and identify steps to mitigate
its negative social impacts.
Figure 9 — The two possible phases for applying the SIA. Stages of an SIA
6 See the IRIS indicator base (Impact Reporting and Investments Standards). It proposes reporting standards for the
performance of social impact or environmental investments.
It is an open-ended tool, which draws on suggestions by practitioners: http://iris.thegiin.org/
91 An approach aimed at assessing social impact is a project in itself, with its goals, stages,
timetable, team and tools. We must not forget that the methods are a means, not an end in
themselves. Depending on their objectives and their constraints, some will be more suitable
than others. All will have advantages and limits.
92 Whatever the method chosen, it is recommended to map the stakeholders and define their
level and form of involvement at the outset. This precaution is essential. However, it requires
an awareness that any solicitation of feedback takes time and that reaching agreement is not
always easy.
93 Vivek Misra suggests following the steps below when conducting an SIA (Misra, date unknown):
I | Describe the human environment (area of influence) and the basic conditions. These include:
—— The characteristics of the population;
—— The community and institutional structures;
—— Political and social resources;
—— Individual and family changes;
—— Community resources.
II | Develop an effective public plan which involves all potentially concerned actors. This includes:
—— Conducting surveys with the persons concerned (community leaders, women’s groups,
cooperatives, etc.), in order to identify their main concerns, wishes and expectations;
—— Combining these surveys with other studies (environmental, economic, etc.).
III | Identify the full range of potential social impacts. This includes, in particular:
—— Demographic and epidemiological characteristics;
—— Land-use planning (including infrastructures);
—— Built land characteristics;
—— The natural environment;
—— Forms of the local economy;
—— Cultural/religious/linguistic linkages;
—— People’s lifestyle;
—— Health and education services, and collective interest services in general;
—— The functioning of institutions, the political system, civil systems, community organization;
law and order and security, crime, forms of governance.
social impact assessment (sia)
94 More generally, it is appropriate to refer to the repertories of potential social impacts and topics
for consideration listed above).
95 This covers a series of analyses aimed at describing and measuring, as far as possible, the
potential impacts (from an ex ante perspective) or real impacts (from an ex post perspective). To
do so, it is essential to include the persons concerned, as they are the ones who will determine
the impacts to which they may be subjected during the construction of a development project
(or, in our case, the occurrence of a flood which could jeopardize their living conditions, socio-
economic development, etc.) (see in this respect Section 3.2).
96 Factors such as loss of land, structures, livelihood, crops and lack of access to public
infrastructures may be considered as direct social impacts. However, impacts are not merely
direct. And above all, in the vast majority of cases, it is very difficult (especially from an ex ante,
hence projected perspective) to accurately determine cause-and-effect relationships. Different
social impacts are the result of several factors which are partly independent of the programme/
project or event in relation to which the SIA is being conducted (see Box 14). In addition, it
must be borne in mind that social impacts may appear much later. It is therefore important to
evaluate the way in which people will react to these “long-term” impacts over time.
Box 14 — Evaluating project consequences according to the method “with project/without project”
The analyses conducted in points I to V make it possible to identify potential changes (from an ex
ante perspective) or real changes (from an ongoing, terminal or ex post perspective) but do not
always provide proof that they are due to the project/event studied.
There are methods which try to answer the question: what would have happened without the
project/event?
These methods linked to an “experimental” or “quasi experimental” schema, which compares
a “with project/event situation” with a “without project/event” control situation, are relatively
cumbersome and difficult to implement effectively in the majority of cases.
VI | Develop a plan for monitoring and mitigating impacts; take functional steps to minimize negative social
impacts – from an ex ante perspective – or “correct” their effects (from an ex post perspective).
98 We shall revert to this point later on in Section 3.3). But we can already stress that, especially
from an ex ante perspective, an SIA must not be conducted solely as a tool for predicting
potential social impacts but should also provide a basis for helping to minimize them or, from
an ex post perspective, to mitigate them over time.
99 This implies the preparation of a Social Management Plan (Misra, date unknown), whereby the
following aspects are taken into consideration:
—— Specify the quantity of people concerned and describe their demographic, economic and
social characteristics;
—— Introduce measures to minimize (or mitigate) social impacts (particularly when these may
be very significant, as in the case of relocation of people/communities), also on the basis of
consultations with the people concerned;
—— Develop a legal framework and institutional arrangements for implementing the measures
identified; a participatory approach with active consultation (if possible, here as well, by
adopting a CMIC approach) of all stakeholders is also essential in this phase.
100 This last point is particularly important, because it highlights the way in which changes may be
managed and monitored after the event. Yet the other factors are also important, as they aim at
reducing/minimizing impacts ex ante or mitigating them ex post.
101 Figure 10 sums up the ideas presented with a view to clarifying the phases which can be
followed in implementing an SIA.
102 Box 15 below shows another way of formalizing the different stages of an SIA. The steps
proposed, albeit not identical, are fully compatible with those described above.
103 To conduct an SIA as satisfactorily as possible, it may be important to pay attention to the
following elements (ICGP, 1994):
—— Involve the different publics – identify and involve all potentially affected groups and
individuals;
—— Analyse the targets of impacts – identify winners and losers and underscore the vulnerability
of under-represented groups;
—— Focus on evaluation – take up the public’s problems and concerns which are important, not
only those which are ‘easy to grasp’;
—— Identify methods and hypotheses and define their importance – describe the execution of
the SIA, the hypotheses used and the means of determining their importance;
—— Provide planners/decision-makers/technicians with information on reactions to social
impacts – identify problems which could be solved by modifying the proposed programme/
project (or the planned prevention actions) or proposing alternatives;
—— Rely on SIA practitioners – trained specialists who use social science methods will give the
best results;
—— Prepare monitoring and mitigation programmes – manage uncertainty by monitoring and
mitigating unfavourable impacts;
—— Identify data sources – use documents from the social sciences and secondary and primary
data from the affected region;
—— Foresee gaps in the data – report any incomplete or missing information and give the
reasons why it was not possible to obtain it.
104 At the same time, it is essential to make every effort to reduce bias and to factor in the
consequences of such prejudices for underprivileged, marginalized groups. SIA practitioners
warn of the following factors (UNEP, 2002):
—— Spatial bias – information gathering focuses on accessible locations and overlooks remote
or nomad communities;
—— Seasonal bias – an SIA may be conducted at a time when it is difficult to obtain representative
information on an affected community, for example during the harvest or hunting season,
or holidays;
—— Personal bias – consultations and interviews may be dictated by cultural traditions or
executive bodies; for example, they may be limited to political leaders, the elderly or men;
—— Professional bias – a lack of interaction between the specialists of various disciplines may
lead to the omission of important links between the environment and society.
105 Conducting an SIA may offer several advantages, especially in an ex ante context (hence, in
the case of flooding, in the prevention phase), whether it be in relation to a development
programme/project or in relation to a specific event (feared or actual, such as a flood).
—— Reduced impact of the event on communities or individuals – identification of mitigation
measures is an integral part of an SIA;
—— Increased benefits for the persons concerned – preparation of an SIA also makes it possible
to identify measures such as professional training programmes;
—— Delays and destruction avoided – a well-prepared SIA shows that social impacts are taken
seriously and contribute to the development of preventive measures;
—— Reduced costs – early treatment of social impacts and mitigation measures make it possible
to avoid costs relating to mistakes or corrective action which may be necessary at a later
stage;
—— Better relations with the community and stakeholders – experience has shown that an
SIA helps to overcome fear and concerns and establish a basis for the necessary trust and
cooperation, whether it be in the framework of a development project or the prevention/
management of an environmental risk;
—— Awareness-building – an SIA is an important awareness-building tool for communities, as it
makes inhabitants more aware of risks;
—— Improved proposals – an SIA provides information which adds value to existing projects and
facilitates the design of future projects;
—— Better viability of the project/programme in question (thanks to all of the points summed up).
the findings are used effectively, SIAs should be conducted within a short time frame.
Insufficient resources or a lack of time are arguments sometimes put forward to justify non-
implementation of SIAs, which means foregoing all of the advantages we have enumerated
above. However, SIAs may be implemented at different levels. Accordingly, it is necessary,
in the start-up phase, to:
–– Try to mobilize every resource possible;
–– Define an SIA plan which is compatible with the resources and time which are actually
available;
–– In any event, avoid giving up on conducting an SIA due to a lack of time or resources.
108 The goals are, by order of priority, avoiding, reducing or minimizing impacts and finally offsetting
them. Social impacts may be avoided by changes “at the source”, for example by selecting a
site for a dam or airport in such a way as to avoid relocating people or disturbing their lives.
Impacts can be mitigated through various measures, such as soundproofing for homes located
in the noise footprint of an airport, programming of traffic due to road works, use of dust
suppression techniques, etc. Compensation should only be paid for residual impacts if there
are no other ways of guaranteeing that the persons concerned are not worse off than before.
110 We shall recapitulate below the main steps to be considered in mitigating social impacts which
may stem from the implementation of a programme/project or the occurrence of a dangerous
event (UNEP, 2002):
—— Give priority to avoiding social impacts;
—— Minimize them as far as possible;
—— Identify mitigation measures for each impact;
—— Adapt them to the different groups affected;
—— Guarantee that impacts are not borne disproportionately by a single group;
—— Increase benefits for the local population through professional training and development
measures;
—— Use compensation as a last resort;
—— Treat displacement/relocation as a special case;
—— Improve the livelihood of displaced persons.
111 It goes without saying that a flood is not a programme/project or a set of actions. Thought can
sometimes be given to projects/programmes to mitigate their impacts and manage floods
in such a way as to maximize the net benefits they provide. However, where there is a lack
of resources, it is necessary to implement strategies “to live with flooding”. At this point, we
shall take up the main elements covered up until now and draw up a methodology or, better
still, a few guidelines which are easy to understand and use when conducting a social impact
assessment in relation to flood management, within the framework of a strategy of “living with
flooding”.
113 In cases (a) and (c) we are in an “ex ante” perspective, whereas in cases (b) and (d) we are in an
“ex post” perspective.
114 Cases (c) and (d) are similar to any other development programme/project. Accordingly, all we
have to do is “simply” put the indications presented in Chapter 3 into practice.
115 In the following pages, we shall therefore concentrate on cases (a) and (b) and look through
the previous pages, highlighting what could be the specific characteristics of a SIA for floods.
119 Accordingly, it is quite feasible to consider (as a baseline) an inventory of the social impacts
presented in Section 3.2 (see Box 11), in terms of both persons/families and of communities
while “reading” them from the perspective which we have just described. In Box 16 below,
purely for information, we carry over the list of potential social impacts which we feel are the
most relevant from this perspective.
Box 16 — Selected repertory of potential social impacts (in relation to floods, using an IFM approach)
Individual and family:
1 Death, death of a family member
3 Reduced availability of food and an adequate diet
5 Reduced level of health and fertility (child-bearing ability)
6 Reduced mental health, increased stress, anxiety, alienation, apathy, depression
8 Personal security status, exposure to risks
10 Decline in the perceived quality of life
24 Change in attitude towards the local community, level of satisfaction with the neighbourhood
32 Housing quality
15 Economic prosperity
19 Real crime
120 As with any other SIA, with floods as well, the inventory of potential social impacts will have
to be prepared on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, the categories suggested previously (see
Section 3.2) retain their usefulness (lifestyle of persons, cultural identity, community, political
system, environment, health, personal and property rights, fears and aspirations).
122 And it is from this perspective that we must take into consideration that which was said in
the previous part of this document (see Chapter 2) concerning the awareness and perception
which the different social actors who live in the territory concerned by this phenomenon have
of flooding.
123 The most important exercise is to work up a map of (potential) social impacts of flooding by
combining popular knowledge and technical knowledge at the level of each local community in
a river basin. The delimitation of each community may be done in three different ways:
—— On an administrative basis (for example by municipality or fraction of a municipality in the
case of cities); this is the most simple solution, but may not always be appropriate (as
administrative limits are sometimes “artificial”);
—— On a “social” basis, that is, by considering what the local populations consider as each
specific community; however, this type of solution may not be viable if there is no consensus
on the matter at the local level;
—— On a “territorial” basis, that is, by considering, for example, the population of a valley as a
specific community.
124 The procedure to be adopted is differentiated according to two major categories of cases:
—— Case 1: Situations where there is significant information on floods which have already
occurred (the case of periodic/seasonal floods or an extreme flood which has already
occurred in the recent past);
—— Case 2: Situations where there is no significant information on floods which have already
occurred (the case of an ex ante SIA in relation to an extreme flood which has not occurred
in the recent past).
125 In Case 1, the procedure to be followed could be the one described below (taking up, mutatis
mutandis, the approach proposed by (Misra, date unknown):
II | Other useful tools, where they exist, are flood hazard maps and flood risk maps, which
provide information on past floods and the possible magnitude of future floods and on
other related questions as well as any other historical documentation, in particular (but not
exclusively) documents relating to the last flood, the damage and other effects recorded as
well as the immediate needs it created.
III | All of the information under the previous points should be used to prepare a repertory (along with
maps, if possible) which prima facie contains basic information on the probable magnitude of
floods, flood-prone areas and the populations living in these areas and the social impacts on
them as well as the responses/reactions of the people and communities to the impacts, as
identified in the sources consults. Moreover, as we have already pointed out (see Section 2.5),
WMO has already developed such flood-mapping instruments (WMO, 2013).
IV | This repertory (along with maps, if possible), should prima facie be brought to the attention of a
more or less broad body of stakeholders depending on the human and territorial dimension
of the community in question (between 20 and 100 people). These will be representatives
of stakeholders (in particular the qualified experts from the community directly or indirectly
involved in the prevention and management of environmental risks, including local
administrators, technicians and civil society leaders, but also a few people living in the
different flood-prone areas). Although these people may be interviewed individually, as far as
possible, it would be best to consult them via one or more focus groups (the ideal solution
would be to organize a focus group for each specific territorial micro-area) led by a coordinator
and based on the CMIC approach (Coordinated Multilateral and Interactive Consultation – see
Section 3.2.2 as well as Annexes I and II). All of the information contained in the repertory could
be confirmed/challenged/enriched by the different people consulted. During this consultation,
there is a need to:
–– Take into consideration the strong points and limits of the different people as regards their
knowledge of the territory where they live and their perception of floods (see Section 2.4)
–– Interactively discuss all elements of the repertory (the probable magnitude of floods/
flood-prone areas, the effects on people and families, the effects on the community,
etc.), reaching a consensus if possible. Such a consensus does not imply unanimity of
views among the people consulted, but rather convergence between the people who
hold significant information in relation to each element considered.
V | Through this (complex) operation, we move from a prima facie repertory to a “real” repertory
of high-water rises/floods and their social impacts. It would be appropriate at this point
to validate the document by means of one or more public initiatives (during which final
“corrections” could possibly be made), involving as broad an audience as possible (in
particular, all stakeholders should be on board) and giving rise to an open, well-documented
debate which is transmitted, if possible, by the media in various forms. This (these) validation
initiative(s) will thus play an important role in disseminating information and increasing
awareness among (all) local actors of floods and their social impacts (a factor which can
enhance community resilience).
VI | Once it has been validated, the “real repertory” will have to be “translated” into a technical
document in which, as far as possible, indicators will be constructed which also refer, as
appropriate, to repertories. This document will have to be shared with all stakeholders,
including local, provincial and national authorities, voluntary organizations, etc. and submitted
to decision-making bodies.
126 In Case 2, (situations where there is no significant information on floods which have already
occurred), the procedure to be followed is more problematic, because:
—— There is little or no documentary or archive information that can be exploited;
—— Popular knowledge of local floods is very limited (or non-existent) because there is no
popular “memory” in this respect;
—— For this same reason, flood perception by the different community actors is very limited
(barring a few exceptions).
127 As a result, there is very little information available at the local level on floods, their social
impacts, and the reactions of people and communities to these impacts.
128 It follows that stage I may be identical whether information is available or not. Stages II and III
(utilization of historic documents and preparation of the prima facie report) must be replaced
in Case 2 by a simulation prepared at the technical level (by analysing the demographic and
epidemiological characteristics, land-use planning, the characteristics of built-up areas, the
forms of the local economy, services and infrastructures, the functioning of institutions, etc.).
This should be accompanied by surveys with the people concerned (community leaders,
women’s groups, cooperatives, etc.) in order to identify their main concerns, wishes and
expectations, combined with other impact studies (if they exist) relating to other environmental
risks or projects/programmes which may have been conducted in the same area.
129 Stages IV, V and VI may be carried out in a similar way as with Cases 1 and 2.
130 At the end of this process, the SIA should have provided a detailed overview of risks as well
as an analytical table of flood hazard risks, their effects on socio-economic well-being, social
impacts and the vulnerability of communities to floods.
131 Consulting the public and ensuring its participation are the key elements of an effective social
impact study. Participation at the drafting stage consists of defining the modalities of the study
and contributing to its implementation. If the decision falls to the authorities, establishing a
dialogue and soliciting the views of the populations concerned enables them to have an impact
on the decision-making process by raising questions which must be borne in mind with regard
to the design and scope of the project, management plans, mitigation of effects and follow-up,
and the evaluation of other solutions.
132 On the whole, all of the indications carried over in Section 3.2, particularly in the part Principles
for optimizing implementation of an SIA, Advantages of an SIA (apart from the one relating to Best
viability of the project/programme in question and Supplementary annotations are also valid for flood-
specific SIAs.
134 With the IFM approach, any flood management policy is aimed at:
—— Reducing risks, limiting loss of life;
—— Increasing the economic, social and environmental efficiency of the flood-prone areas;
—— Safeguarding the principles to be followed with regard to equity;
—— Prioritizing the measures chosen ahead of a disaster and those following it, and the types of
incentives and deterrents to be used;
—— Defining the way in which the residual risks will be dealt with.
135 As has already been said, regardless of the fact that specific SIAs may be carried out at a local
level, their findings should in any event be managed at the river basin level. It is appropriate to
recall that IFM (WMO, 2006) is aimed at reducing flood risks through a judicious set of measures
relating to the magnitude of the hazard on the one hand and to the population’s exposure and
vulnerability on the other hand. These flood risk reduction measures must be accompanied by
water resources management and development activities in the basin. In order to reduce risks,
any changes made to the upper, middle or lower reaches through development activities must
be taken into consideration. In this respect, conflicts of interest/situations may arise in which
a sector of the population exposed to floods runs the risk of suffering the negative effects of
activities exercised in another part of the basin (see Box 17). Two mechanisms (to be kept in
mind in the post-SIA phase) have proven their worth when it comes to managing conflicts linked
to water resources management and flood mitigation measures: incentives and compromises.
136 In the event of a disaster (or extensive damage caused by a flood), an SIA should be conducted
immediately and the findings used as soon as the reconstruction phase begins. Moreover,
there is a need to gather information on not only the disaster and its effects but also on relief
operations in order to fine-tune future operations.
137 In conjunction with the IFM approach and as far as this document is concerned, when managing
the findings of an SIA, it is fundamental to:
—— Give all stakeholders, especially citizens, an opportunity to exchange their points of view
and to influence the final findings;
—— Seek a consensus and enlist the public’s support for the findings;
—— Deepen the protagonists’ commitment;
—— Ensure the application of the flood management plans for a river basin, with the unconditional
support of the local population;
—— See to it that plans and the related decisions are long-term in nature;
—— Develop the resilience (or capacity for recovery) of the communities exposed to floods.
Anses, 2007 : Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (French
Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety).
www.sante-environnement-travail.fr/minisite.php3?id_rubrique=914&id_article=3758
Anzellini, V. and E., Piguet, 2012: Entre désastre et réinstallation: le déplacement des populations suite à la
catastrophe de Gramalote, Colombie. Master’s thesis, Institute of Geography, University of Neuchâtel.
http://doc.rero.ch/record/30475/files/memoire_Anzellini_Vicente.pdf .
Aria, 2010 : Déferlement de 50 millions de m3 d’eau au barrage du Vajont, fiche N° 23607, Ministère du
développement durable (French Ministry of Sustainable Development) – DGPR/SRT/BARPI, France.
www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/wp-content/files_mf/FD_23607_Vajont_Italie_1963_.pdf
B Bauer, I. and K. Thomas, 2006: Communautés et entreprises: les a priori qui faussent les outils d’évaluation
d’impact social. Revue internationales de sciences sociales, 189(3): 535-549.
www.cairn.info/zen.php?ID_ARTICLE=RISS_189_0535
Beck U. 1986: Risikogesellschaft - Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp. ISBN
3-518-13326-8
Botzen, W.J.W., J.C. Aerts and J.M. van den Bergh, 2009: Dependence of flood risk perceptions on
socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water Resources Research, 45: 1-15.
qap2.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009WR007743/pdf
Broche, K., K. Broche, M. Capron and F. Quairel-Lanoizelee, 2005: Grands projets et exercice de la
responsabilité globale : les études d’impact social. Management & Avenir, 3: 121-152.
www.cairn.info/revue-management-et-avenir-2005-1.htm
Burby, R. J. and F. Wagner, 1996: Protecting tourists from death and injury in coastal storms. Disasters,
20: 49–60.
www.ncbi-nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8867510
C Cancedda A., 2002: Women for Conflict Resolution and Consensus-building in Angola; Guidelines. Rome,
CERFE, European Union.
www.asdo-info.org/public/Angolaengl.pdf
Corrao S., 2000: Il Focus Group. Milano, Laboratorio sociologico, Manualistica, didattica,
duvulgazione, Franco Angeli.
Correa E., 2011: Populations at Risk of Disaster: A Resettlement Guide. Washington D.C., The World
Bank, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR).
www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/publication/resettlement_guide_150.pdf
D D’Andrea L. and G. Quaranta, 1996: Civil Society and Risk. Contribution for a General Theory.
Papers presented at the CERFE workshop – Amsterdam School of Social Research,
Amsterdam, February 26 1996.
Della Ratta-Rinaldi F., 2007: I gruppi come strumento di ricerca sociale. In Ricerca sociale. Tecniche
speciali di rilevazione, trattamento e analisi (Cannavò L. and L. Frudà), Roma, Carocci editore.
Denègre J. and F. Salgé, 2004: Les systèmes d’information géographiques, Coll. Que sais-je? No. 3122,
2nd edition. Paris, Presses universitaires de France (PUF).
F Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), date unknown: Measuring
Resilience: A Concept Note on the Resilience Tool. Food Security Information for Decision Making.
Concept Note. Rome, FAO
www.fao.org/docrep/013/al920e/al920e00.pdf.
Foxtrot International for the Government of Côte d’Ivoire, 2012: Etude d’impact environnemental et
social – projet de pose de pipelines traversant le canal de Virdi, Nexon Consulting, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and
Foxtrot International, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire.
www.miga.org/documents/Etude_EImpact_Environnemental_Social_Block_CI.pdf.
G Giddens A., 1999: Risk and Responsibility. The Modern Law Review, 62(1): 1-10.
Greenbaum T.L., 1998: The Handbook for Focus Group Research. London, SAGE Publications.
Krueger R.A., A.M. Casey, 2009. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. London,
SAGE Publications.
L Lascoumes P., 2012: Action publique et environnement. Coll. Que sais-je? No. 3968. Paris, Presses
universitaires de France (PUF).
M Mack R.F., 1973: Criteria for Evaluation of Social Impacts of Flood Management Alternatives. New York,
Institute of Public Administration.
www.edra.org/sites/default/files/publications/EDRA05-v2-Mack-175-195.pdf
Mastropietro E., 2001: Rapid Appraisal Method of Social Exclusion and Poverty (RAMSEP project).
Handbook, Rome, CERFE, European Union.
Morris-Oswald M., S.P. Simonovic, 1997: Assessment of the social impact of flooding for use in flood
management in the Red River Basin. Report prepared for the International Joint Commission Red
River Basin Task Force, Winnipeg, Canada
www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/assess.pdf.
P Program for Displaced Persons, Refugees and Returnees in Central America (PRODERE),
1996: Les stratégies, les méthodes et les résultats d’un programme pour le développement humain, la paix et la
démocratie en Amérique centrale, Rome, PRODERE.
R Raaijmakers R., J. Krywkow and A. Van der Veen, 2008: Flood risk perception and spatial multi-criteria
analysis: An exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards, 46(3): 307–322. Twente.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11069-007-9189-z#page-1
S Siegrist, M. and H. Gutscher, 2006: Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s
assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26(4): 971-979.
www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~coles/Thesis/Readings%20and%20Lit%20review/Siegrist%20and%20Gutscher%202006%20
-%Flooding%20risks%20-%20A%20comparison%20of%lay%people’s%20perceptions%20and%20expert’s%20
assessments%20%in%%20Switzerland.pdf
U United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2003: Compendium of Studies of EIA Practice in
Developing Countries, McCabe, M. and B., Sadler, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics,
Economics and Trade Branch, Geneva, UNEP.
www.unep.ch/ETb/Publication/compendium/introMat.pdf
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction Secretariat (UNISDR), 2009:
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate. Geneva,
UNISDR.
www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/indes.php?id=9413
UNISDR 2009b: Terminologie pour la prévention des risques de catastrophe. Stratégie internationale de
prévention des catastrophes des Nations Unies (UNISDR). Geneva, Switzerland.
www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/7817
UNISDR 2011: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR): Revealing Risk, Redefining
Development. Geneva, UNISDR.
www.prevention.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/download.html
V Vanclay F., 2003: SIA Principles. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal. 21(1): 5-11. Beech Tree Publishing, Surrey, UK.
www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/sections/sia(IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Vanclay F., 2006: Principles for Social Impact Assessment: A critical comparison between the international and
US Documents. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1): 3-14. Tasmania, Australia.
www.researchgate.net/publication/222817382_Principles_for_social_impact_assessment_A_critical_comparison_
between_the_international_and_US_documents
W World Bank, 2003: A User’s Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis. Poverty Reduction Group and
Social Development Department. Washington, D.C. World Bank.
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPSIA/Resources/490023-1121114603600/12685_PSIAUsersGuide_Complete.pdf
World Bank, 2003b: Social Analysis Sourcebook: Incorporating Social Dimensions into Bank-Supported Projects.
Social Analysis & Policy Team, Social Development Department. Washington, D.C., World
Bank.
sitesresources.worldbank.org/INTTSR/Resources/SocialAnalysisSourcebookFINAL2003Dec.pdf
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2006: Social Aspects and Stakeholder Involvement in
Integrated Flood Management. APFM Technical Document No. 4, Flood Management Policy Series
(WMO- No.1008), Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM), Geneva.
www.floodmanagement.info/?page_id=1797
WMO, 2007: Organizing Community Participation for Flood Management. APFM Technical Document No.
9, Flood Management Tools Series. Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM),
Geneva.
www.floodmanagement.info?page_id=696
WMO, 2009: Integrated Flood Management. Concept Paper (WMO No.1047), Associated
Programme on Flood Management (APFM), Geneva.
www.floodmanagement.info/?page_id=281
WMO, 2011: The Global Climate 2001-2010 – A Decade of Climate Extremes. Executive summary (WMO
No. 1119). World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.
WMO, 2013: Flood Mapping. APFM Technical Document No. 20, Flood Management Tools,
Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM), Geneva.
www.floodmanagement.info/?page_id=696
WMO, 2013b: Risk Sharing in Flood Management. APFM Technical Document No. 8, Flood
Management Tools Series, Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM), Geneva.
www.floodmanagement.info/?page_id=696
WMO, 2015: The Role of the Media in Flood Management, APFM Technical Document, Flood Management Tools
Series, Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM), Geneva.
www.floodmanagement.info/?page_id=696
WMO and UNESCO: International Glossary of Hydraulics. WMO No. 385, ISBN 978-92-63-03385-8.
Geneva, Switzerland. World Meteorological Organization.
www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/publications/international_glossary/385_IGH_2012.pdf
further reading
A Alinovi, L., E. Mane, and D. Romano, 2001: Measuring Household Resilience to Food Insecurity: An
Application to Palestinian Households, in Agricultural Survey Methods (R. Benedetti, F. Piersimoni, M. Bee
and G. Espa eds), Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons.
B Brilly, M. and M. Polic, 2005: Public Perception of Flood Risks, Flood Forecasting and Mitigation. Natural
Hazards Earth System Sciences, 5(3): 345-355, European Geosciences Union.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/5/345/2005/nhess-5-345-2005.pdf
Burge, R.J., 2002: Why is social impact assessment the orphan of the assessment process? Impact Assessment
and Project Appraisal, 20(1):3–9.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3152/147154602781766799
E European Union, 2007: Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the assessment
and management of flood risks.
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri-OJ:L:2007:288:0027:0034:FR:PDF.
(Unless otherwise noted, all online references were accessed for the last time on 16 June 2015.)
Below we plan to go deeper into what a focus group is and how to organize one.
A “focus group” may be defined as a discussion centred on one or more specific topics
and regulated by a moderator, who is tasked with framing the questions or presenting the
discussion topics and seeing to it that all are able to express their viewpoints spontaneously,
rendering the interaction between participants as productive as possible (Della Ratta-Rinaldi, 2007).
Focus groups are also instruments for facilitating dialogue between persons representing (or
characterized by) a plurality of different viewpoints, which serves to build a consensus on one
or more specific questions which concern them (Krueger, 2009).
— Multilateral, insofar as the consultation must imply the broadest possible plurality of
different viewpoints (if possible, all of the viewpoints concerned by the questions which are
being dealt with) and, in any case, representative of the different social groups/institutions
concerned from the community involved in the SIA;
— Interactive, in the sense of optimization of the interaction between the participants, each of
whom should be able to express himself, also considering the others’ viewpoints, as much
as possible; the creation of a “favourable environment” characterized by mutual trust and
respect and an attempt to build, as far as possible, a consensus on the questions dealt with.
Focus groups are normally socially/demographically homogenous groups (for example, young
women). This is not our case, where the focus group depends on the interaction of different
viewpoints, which means that its composition will have to be as heterogeneous as possible.
It is recommended to form groups of people who do not know each other. If qualified
informants and citizens from small local communities are involved, this is virtually impossible.
Nevertheless, care should be taken to avoid placing superiors and subordinates or people with
personal conflicts in the same group.
Naturally, when preparing this grid, due consideration must be given to the available time and
the anticipated number of participants. There is a need to avoid a situation where the focus
group only deals with the first part of the questions to be taken up and leaves the others aside,
for lack of time.
Questions may be put either using a hierarchical approach (starting with the most senior
participants); by following a common thread; or, as is preferable with flood-specific SIAs, by
combining the two approaches. It is possible to start by identifying and characterizing the flood,
including the extension of the flooded/flood-prone areas, then put the question of major social
impacts or impacts which affect the greatest number of people, and finally move on to less
significant impacts.
The focus group must be recorded. In addition, the moderator must be assisted by a secretary
who notes down all comments.
The style will have to be a mixture of “dirigisme” (letting everyone speak, but without
wandering off track and losing time with pointless details; facilitating a dynamic passage from
one question to another; etc.) and “spontaneity”, allowing “unexpected” information, questions
and viewpoints to emerge. He will have to limit his comments to his role and not give his views
on the questions dealt with.
If at least 4-5 persons are present, it would be good to go ahead and hold the focus group,
even if it means organizing another group successively or interviewing absent participants one
by one.
These interviews should take the form of open, in-depth interviews, to be conducted, mutatis
mutandis, using the same grid as the focus group and applying rules like the following:
— Avoid a hierarchical relationship between interviewer and interviewee;
— Maintain the distinction between the roles (the interviewer being a facilitator);
— Facilitate empathy;
— The interviewer should avoid influencing the interviewee but at the same time help him
to express himself and bring out the information he has (by asking for examples, by
recapitulating what the interviewee has already said, by showing an interest, etc.) (Kaufmann,
1996).
NB 2: This instrument is not exhaustive and contains examples of questions to be put. Some questions are
relatively developed, while others must/may be developed in a more analytical fashion. Further
questions must/may be added. Others have to be modified/eliminated.
CODE: __ /__/__/__/__/
Town/village: Commune/neighborhood:
District: Borough:
Department: Province:
Date: Length:
Occupation or activity/Reference entity (on the basis of which they are participating in the focus
group)
C. Territorial and historical characteristics of floods (in the focus group’s reference area)
Relative to rise time, floods in the area are Flash Rapid Slow
considered:
° These questions should be put using a map of the focus group’s area of competence; participants should reach a
consensus on flood-prone areas
D. Social impacts
D. Social impacts
D. Social impacts
Dependence/autonomy/diversity/viability ° • •• •••
of the community
E. Poverty
Can you indicate which of the Elderly Women Disabled Unemployed Other
following groups have been ° ° ° ° (specify)
hardest hit by poverty in this ______
community?
Can you indicate how previous floods impacted the poorest groups in the community?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
____ ___________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________
In the community, how many families do not have permanent housing v.a.
or live in makeshift housing? %
In the community, how many families do not eat at least twice a day? v.a.
%
Can you indicate what resources these people can count on to live?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
____ ___________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________
Can you say whether these people are in contact Almost all In many They
with their families, the community inhabitants or their maintain cases they almost
neighbours? contact° lose contact° always
lose
contact°
Can you tell us whether these people are active in Frequently° Sometimes° Never°
groups or local associations?
Can you tell us whether these people participate in Frequently° Sometimes° Never°
flood prevention and management initiatives?
F. Civil Society
The community has: Yes No No. Are they developing What is the
activities or flood intensity of their
prevention, management, activities in this
reconstruction, etc. field? ºº
activities in relation to
floods?
F. Civil Society
ºº indicate: 1 permanent; 2 regular; 3 periodically even beyond emergencies; 4 only on the occasion of a disaster; 5
exceptional
What are the main activities and projects implemented by these bodies in relation to floods?
International NGOs
Development projects
What are the main activities and projects implemented by these bodies in relation to floods?
Women’s associations
G. Social action
H. Subsequent comments