6

Social Impact Assessment:

A Review of Academic and
Practitioner Perspectives and
Emerging Approaches
John R. Parkins and Ross E. Mitchell

Introduction
Terms such as “corporate social responsibility,” “sustainable development,” and
“social licence to operate” are now commonplace in the business community.
According to observers, as neo-liberal policies dictate the further withdrawal
of government social programs and the privatization of industrial regulation,
the work of social impact assessment (SIA) is becoming yet another aspect of
industrial development that focuses attention on the demand for social benefits
(Vanclay, 2014). Within this political and economic climate, SIA has changed in
many jurisdictions from a minor regulatory requirement that attempts to predict
future population growth rates or employment impacts to a more holistic and
integrated aspect of project design and implementation. This holistic approach
includes attention to public engagement, health effects, cultural implications,
and the monitoring and evaluation of impacts over the lifetime of a project. In
concert with other closely related assessment approaches, encapsulated in the
acronym ESHIA (environmental, social, and health impact assessment), the
field of SIA theory and practice is taking on new significance in Canada and in
the international community. This chapter offers a window into the dynamics of
SIA as it has evolved from the 1970s to the present.
Our objectives here are twofold: (1) to review the key concepts, approaches,
and methods in SIA, with a focus on Canada, and (2) to draw on a case study
from the Canadian North that exemplifies critical issues and areas for develop-
ment within theory and practice. The beginnings of this evolution in SIA, when
a populist wave of environmentalism in the 1970s perpetrated a high-profile SIA
known as the Berger Inquiry, are described in the next section.

Beginnings
SIA developed from several legislative and policy initiatives related to environ-
mental assessment in countries around the world, with leadership from Canada,
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Emerging from so-called
“second-wave” environmentalism of the 1960s and 1970s, scholars describe a
populist version of environmental concern that began with Rachel Carson’s
Silent Spring in 1962, realized the advent of Earth Day in 1970, and saw the
establishment of Canadian federal and provincial government environmental

06_990066_ch06.indd 122 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 123

ministries and departments in the early 1970s. These events signal a growing
segment of society attempting to rethink the relationship between humans and
the natural environment (McKenzie, 2002; Parson, 2001). Out of this wave of
environmental concern came a series of policy and legislative perspectives giv-
ing attention to environmental impacts from large-scale industrial development.
The US National Environmental Policy Act (1969) provided strong legislative
impetus for the development of procedures for environmental impact assess-
ment. Early work on environmental impact assessment (EIA) included attention
to social impact assessment (SIA) in relation to pipeline developments and to
impacts on Indigenous culture in particular (Burdge, 2004). In Canada, similar
national legislation took much longer to establish; the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA) came into law in 1993. Preceding this law, however, at
the federal level Canada had several interim measures in place, including the
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO), followed by a for-
mal review process in 1973 and by guideline orders in 1984—the Environmental
Assessment and Review Process (EARP).
Although federal legislation was slow to emerge in Canada, a more significant
impetus in the development of SIA came in 1974 through a federal government
inquiry into the proposed Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline from Yukon Territory
to Alberta (1974–8). Headed by Justice Thomas Berger (Berger, 1977), the “Berger
Inquiry” developed a template for SIA that was innovative, comprehensive, and
ahead of its time—attracting attention continuously in the published literature
(Gamble, 1978; Torgerson, 1986; O’Faircheallaigh, 1999). According to Gamble
(1978), the Berger Inquiry was influential as a template for SIA for many reasons,
in part because of the autonomy of the assessment process. Berger developed
an approach to collecting information that was in tune with local culture and
language within remote northern communities. For example, his commission
visited all 35 communities along the Mackenzie River Valley, as well as other
cities across Canada, holding meetings in local languages. Much of this local
information was then given equal status with technical and external forms of
expertise in the final decision. It was also the first major proposal for indus-
trial development that was delayed and effectively overturned for social reasons.
Since then, requirements for SIA have been introduced to many countries
around the world. In addition to the Berger Inquiry, another groundbreaking
event occurred in 1982 when the first international conference on SIA was held
in Canada. With this and other events, SIA became influential on practitioner,
academic, and policy communities (Burdge and Vanclay, 1995).

Contemporary Context for

Environmental Assessment in Canada
Within the Canadian context for environmental impact assessment (EIA), it is
important to note that although federal legislation garners considerable public
attention as a primary driver of EIA in the country, federal legislation is trig-
gered in only a relatively small number of projects that cross interprovincial

06_990066_ch06.indd 123 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 124 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

or international boundaries or where federal jurisdiction is impacted, such as

navigable waters. Federal legislation (the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act of 1993) provided limited direction on SIA except for a broad definition of
EIA that included information gathered to “identify and understand the effects
of proposed projects on the bio-physical environment . . . as well as on the social
and economic environments of the people to be affected” (Citizen’s Guide,
1993). The updated legislation (CEAA, 2012) makes no explicit mention of social
impacts; indeed, with a much narrower focus on environmental impacts the
only mention of “health and socio-economic conditions” in this new legislation
is in relation to Aboriginal populations.
Much greater direction on SIA in Canada is found within provincial and ter-
ritorial jurisdictions. For example, Alberta’s Environmental Enhancement and
Protection Act (EHPA, 1993) states that the purpose of EIA is to “predict the envi-
ronmental, social, economic, and cultural consequences of a proposed activity”
(1993: 41). An assessment report is required to describe these positive and neg-
ative impacts. Beyond these broad requirements, until very recently there has
been very limited guidance on what is required within this SIA . Therefore, the
form and content of SIA vary considerably within the same industrial sector.

Alberta and NWT Developments

The MacKay River Expansion Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA)
(Volume III A, 15 Aug. 2005) is a study based on a comparatively small-scale
oil sands project in northeast Alberta. Given the relatively small impact of this
project within a region where many large-scale oil sands projects are under-
way, the SEIA was oriented towards cumulative impacts rather than a specific
project-based assessment. The assessment was conducted with qualitative
research methods only. Using open-ended interview techniques, approximately
75 individuals from 40 organizations provided input into the assessment. The
assessment includes a detailed history of the region, population change, and a
detailed description of the proposed project development. Specific comments
and concerns were also itemized with attention to wide-ranging topics such as
education, training, emergency services, employment, Aboriginal issues, chil-
dren, and seniors. After discussing specific topics within these categories, the
SEIA provides a summary of social impacts and suggested mitigation measures.
The document contains a discussion of more than 20 impacts with another list
of 10 specific mitigation and enhancement measures. The impacts are specific to
the project (such as the 600 people imported into the region for the construction
phase), but the study also contains many points of discussion that are within the
realm of cumulative impact assessment. In contrast to the in-depth and quali-
tative approach taken at the MacKay River Expansion SEIA , the Shell Canada
Carmon Creek Project SEIA (Volume IID, December, 2006), offers an example of
how a project-based EIA addresses socio-economic issues.
Shell Canada’s Carmon Creek Project, located in the Peace River region of
Alberta, is somewhat larger in scale than the MacKay River Expansion, with
170 people directly employed during the operational phase of this in-situ oil

06_990066_ch06.indd 124 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 125

sands project. These jobs were expected to be filled by workers who relocate
to the region. As stated in the SEIA objectives, the assessment focused specifi-
cally on impacts from project employment (construction and operation phases).
The terms of reference for this SEIA included provision for a detailed base-
line assessment of socio-economic conditions (taken largely from the Census
of Canada, 1996 and 2001), and project impacts on the following areas (partial
list): local employment and training; local procurement; population change;
stresses placed on local and regional infrastructure and community services:
housing concerns in local communities; construction camps; trapping, hunting,
and fishing; effects on First Nations and Métis; and regional and provincial eco-
nomic benefits. Unlike the MacKay River Expansion, the Carmon Creek terms
of reference were more consistent with a traditional project-based assessment,
with a focus on impacts from this specific project and only limited attention to
cumulative impacts.
Methods for undertaking the SEIA were similar in both cases, with extensive
interviews of local actors and agency representatives, coupled with data available
within the public domain as the basis for the assessment. The Carmon Creek
SEIA, however, took a more structured and categorical approach to reporting
SEIA results and conclusions. All impacts were itemized and then rated using
common impact criteria (i.e., geographic extent, magnitude, direction, duration,
confidence), and a final rating on a scale from Class 1 to 4. Class 1 refers to a pre-
dicted trend in an indicator that could lead to significant impacts and threaten
long-term sustainability whereas Class 4 refers to a predicted trend where no
change is expected. The classification rating is a combination of “quantitative
analysis and professional judgment that takes into account various descriptions
of the indicator and the potential effects of the specific impact” (pp. 1–7). From
the list of impact categories, two areas received Class 2 rating: protection ser-
vices and health services. These impacts were likely to result in some decline or
stress on services. All other impact areas were expected to be negligible.
A striking difference between these assessments is the way in which inter-
view data were handled in the report. In the case of MacKay River, the interview
data were summarized and paraphrased, and at times direct quotes from inter-
viewees were included in the report. In this sense, the voices of local people were
integrated into the report; their comments, issues, and concerns were expressly
stated. In contrast, the Carmon Creek report included a summarized assess-
ment of impacts, where interview data were merged with expert opinion and
quantitative information to arrive at a specific classification of impacts. These
examples illustrate the divergent approaches used by project proponents to meet
EIA requirements and, ultimately, to gain approval from provincial regulators.
Since the mid-2000s, the Alberta government tightened up its require-
ments for environmental assessment with a “Standardized Terms of Reference”
(Government of Alberta, 2013a) that is specific to four different types of large-
scale project development: in-situ oil sands, oil sands mining, coal mining, and
industrial plant development. For oil sands mining, for example, the terms of
reference for the socio-economic section of the assessment must include a sec-
tion on baseline information (a description of socio-economic conditions in the

06_990066_ch06.indd 125 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 126 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

region, such as population change; workforce requirements; planning accom-

modations for the workforce; the proponents’ policies; and programs for local,
regional, and provincial procurement of goods and services) and a section on
impact assessment (housing; availability and quality of health services; local
and regional infrastructure; recreation, hunting, and fishing; First Nations and
Métis). The EIA must also include a description of the socio-economic effects
of any new or existing camps, a description of the need for additional pub-
lic land, opportunities to work with First Nation and Métis communities and
with local businesses, and an estimate of total project costs (Government of
Alberta, 2013a).
In addition to these EIA provincial guidelines, the Northwest Territories
(NWT) has a long history of working closely with Aboriginal communities on
social impacts from industrial development. This history is partly a legacy of
the Berger Inquiry from the 1970s but it extends to wide-ranging work in ecol-
ogy, geography, and other disciplinary approaches chronicled in other published
work (Angell and Parkins, 2011). The Canadian North has been recognized
among EIA practitioners as having some of the toughest assessment procedures
in the country, particularly around social and cultural factors. Given the com-
plex and intricate environmental, social, and cultural sensitivities of the NWT,
it is perhaps no surprise that the territorial government has been at the forefront
in developing social and cultural impact assessment guidelines and restrictions.
One major driver for the development of SIA approaches in the North comes
from the Mackenzie Valley Review Board (also known as the Mackenzie Valley
Environmental Impact Review Board, or MVEIRB), which is mandated on behalf
of the territorial government to conduct environmental impact assessments
within the region. Providing extensive online material that documents the
issues associated with socio-economic assessment in the North, along with
documents that provide detailed guidelines and procedures, this particular
organization stands out in Canada as a leader in the development of socio-eco-
nomic impact assessment. As such, it continues the legacy set out by Justice
Berger in the 1970s for community-based comprehensive assessment of social
impacts from industrial development. As its full name suggests, the Review
Board is responsible for managing the EIA process in the Mackenzie Valley.
Comprising an area larger than British Columbia, the Mackenzie River Valley
includes the Gwich’in, Sahtu, and Tlicho (or Wek’èezhìi) settlement areas, each
of which has a local board responsible under its settlement agreement for issuing
land-use permits and water-use licences. The Mackenzie Valley also includes the
Deh Cho and Akaitcho regions, for which settlement agreements have yet to be
achieved, but excludes the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (NWT Board Forum,
n.d.). The Review Board administers a public process involving a thorough study
of a proposed development to decide if it is likely to have significant adverse
impacts on the environment or is likely to cause public concern.
During the mid-2000s, the Review Board began to consolidate efforts
to ensure that sound and consistent approaches were developed for what it
termed as “social and economic impact assessment” in the Mackenzie Valley.
Concern was rising as large-scale projects such as diamond mining and pipeline

06_990066_ch06.indd 126 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 127

BOX 6.1 | Defining Social Impact Assessment

A strict definition of SIA is predictive, which makes it distinct from other related
disciplines, such as evaluation research. An example of this early approach to
predicting or anticipating impacts is found in the work of the Interorganizational
Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment (1994). This
government organization, based in the United States, had a strong influence on
the scholarship and the practice of SIA by refining methods and prescribing rigour
with regard to specific methods. In the Committee’s Guidelines and Principles for
Social Impact Assessment, social impacts are defined as “the consequences to
human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which
people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs,
and generally cope as members of society” (1994: 1). The Interorganizational
Committee also defined SIA “in terms of efforts to assess or estimate, in advance,
the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions
(including programs and the adoption of new policies), and specific government
actions (including buildings, large projects, and leasing large tracts of land for
resource extraction)” (1994: 1).
This strict attention to anticipating impacts, also called “the ex-ante approach
to impact assessment,” as a hallmark of SIA is now giving way to broader defini-
tions in the literature. In recent years, scholars and practitioners are working more
frequently with approaches that take into consideration not only the anticipated
impacts but also focus on monitoring, evaluating, and ameliorating impacts and
enhancing benefits over the lifetime of a project. Frank Vanclay offers this more
contemporary perspective in defining SIA as:

the process of analyzing (predicting, evaluation, and reflecting) and

managing the intended and unintended consequences on the human
environment of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects)
and any social change processes invoked by those interventions so as to
bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human
environment. (Vanclay, 2002b: 388)

Within the last few years, at the international level, the focus on SIA has
extended to issues of human health, culture, politics, human rights, and sustain-
able development (Mitchell, 2012).

development in the NWT brought industrial expansion into the area; many
wondered what impact these projects would have on northern communities, and
not only on the small communities. It was recognized generally that the larger
community of Yellowknife would feel the greatest stress of increased activity
and insufficient housing capacity, while smaller ones would face the prospect of
losing their traditional economy.

06_990066_ch06.indd 127 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 128 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

Consequently, the Review Board developed Socio-economic Assessment

Guidelines (MVEIRB, 2007), which provide a context for assessing impacts on
the human environment. These and other guidelines and requirements (such
as the terms of reference for a given project) have been designed to encourage
developers to work with communities and responsible government authorities
to identify “valued components” of the human environment, appropriate indica-
tors and sources of information to measure change, pathways by which change
may likely occur, and mitigation and monitoring strategies that may be required
to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts. It was also recognized that
mitigation may not be entirely the responsibility of the developer, as governments
and communities have social, economic, and cultural protection mandates.

Methods in Social Impact Assessment

Technical Approaches
Extending from these important advances in the 1970s, which focused on holis-
tic and comprehensive assessments, contemporary approaches to SIA in North
America have become more technical and procedural in their basic orientation,
with stronger regulatory oversight and strict timelines (Vanclay, 2002a). These
procedural approaches are undertaken predominantly by consultants who work
on behalf of project proponents. They are focused on measurable and quantifi-
able indicators, and they rely on technical procedures such as cost–benefit and
statistical analyses. This approach often involves quantitative and technical ele-
ments of indicator identification, baseline assessments, and research approaches
that generally dovetail with biophysical elements of EIA . One theme in this tech-
nical approach to SIA is the identification of indicators that cover a broad set of
social domains. Burdge’s (2004) list of 28 indicators is arguably the best-known
list of social indicators in the published literature, but there are detractors and
competing lists available (Vanclay, 2002a). Indicator domains within the list
by Burdge include population impacts (e.g., population change and relocation
of individuals and families), community and institutional arrangements (e.g.,
interest group activity, changes to local government structure, exacerbated
economic inequalities), communities in transition (e.g., presence of an outside
agency, introduction of new social classes), individual- and family-level impacts
(e.g., disruption in daily living and movement patterns, disruption in social net-
works, change in leisure opportunities), and community infrastructure needs
(e.g., land acquisition and disposal, effects on known cultural, historical, sacred,
and archaeological resources).
One critique of the highly technical and expert-based orientation to SIA as
described above is the frequent lack of clarity around theoretical and conceptual
frameworks to guide this work. SIAs typically consist of indicators and variables,
with little attention to why these indicators are relevant and how they relate
to each other. Sometimes these indicators are developed by outsiders from the
top down, based on opinions about what matters most within a given context.
Sometimes these indicators are developed in conjunction with local people,

06_990066_ch06.indd 128 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 129

based on insights about local values and interests. These bottom-up approaches
often require extensive methods of public engagement and participatory indica-
tor selection (Becker et al., 2004). At the end of the process, however, indicator
lists often are not solidly grounded in any particular theory of community devel-
opment, quality of life, or concepts of community sustainability—weaknesses
that make them difficult to assess.

Comparative Case Study

Within the published literature on SIA , comparative case study research is
offered as an effective method for assessing social impacts, particularly when
the research is intended to anticipate impacts before a project gets underway.
The method is known more formally as the “comparative diachronic model”
(Burdge, 2004). Generally, the comparative case study is popular within the
social sciences, with advocates such as Flyvbjerg (2006) claiming that case stud-
ies can provide deeper insights into a phenomenon than other methods in the
social sciences. Mechanics of the comparative model are illustrated in Figure 6.1,
where the impact community (b) is matched with the comparative community
(a), and where community characteristics and development impact characteris-
tics are as consistent as possible. In other words, a small remote community with
a large Indigenous population should be compared with another community
with similar characteristics, and the type of development, such as a gas pipeline
or dam project, should also be the same. The control community (c) is used
as a control group whereby no specific development impacts are identified but
background socio-economic change can be documented on a long-term basis.
Impacts for technological change (such as the introduction of television and
the Internet), for instance, are common across all three study communities and
can be separated from specific development impacts. Examples of case study
research on impact assessment in Canada include a study of hydroelectric devel-
opment and the James Bay Cree of northern Ontario and Quebec (Niezen, 1993)
and a study of potential pipeline development impacts in Inuvik, NWT (Asselin
and Parkins, 2011).
Although this approach to SIA is relatively popular in the published liter-
ature, it has serious drawbacks for practitioners with limited resources and
timeframes for research. Comparison communities are often difficult to identify,

Past Present Future

Comparative Study (a) T1a Xa T2a

Impact Study (b) T2b--- Xb T2b
Control study (c) T1c- T2c T3c

FIGURE 6.1 | Comparative diachronic model.

Xa and Xb = development; T = time
Adapted from Burdge (2004).

06_990066_ch06.indd 129 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 130 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

particularly when projects are relatively uncommon (e.g., pipelines). Data col-
lection over long periods of time in multiple communities is difficult to achieve
within the short period imposed by regulatory agencies and project proponents.
A version of this approach is gaining some popularity, however, in ex-post evalu-
ation or “retrospective SIA” with an emphasis on project sustainability.

Political Approaches
Although technical approaches to assessing social impacts are common (such as
multipliers and straight-line projections), social scientists have used other ways
to address the potential impacts of policy or project developments. In contrast
to functionalist theories of development that underscore technical approaches
to impact assessment, political approaches emphasize critical theories of soci-
ety, embrace conflict, stress decision-making processes rather than products,
privilege local knowledge and experience, and focus on historical and cultural
context (Craig, 1990). Within these approaches the focus is on the politics of
project decision-making rather than on the techniques of social indicator iden-
tification and statistical analysis. Researchers who work in this context often
adopt an advocacy position, work closely with community members, and par-
ticipate in political processes associated with project approvals. Examples of
this political approach include the work of popular epidemiology (San Sebastian
and Hurtig, 2005), advocacy on behalf of local farmers and residents (Haley
and Tunstall, 2005), and efforts among First Nation communities in northern
Canada to address issues of nuclear waste disposal (Paci et al., 2002). Often draw-
ing on more participatory processes to EIA (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010), political
approaches demonstrate myriad ways in which SIA goes beyond baseline assess-
ment and trend analysis to include efforts on behalf of social scientists aiming to
secure better futures for communities faced with major project developments.

Conceptual Guidance for

Social Impact Assessment
In response to the lack of attention to theoretical and conceptual guidance in
SIA, this section introduces a number of promising avenues for more direct link-
ages between theory and method. First, the “sustainable livelihoods approach”
to community development (common in the international development litera-
ture) offers important conceptual insights (van Dijk, 2011). Similarly, concepts
of community vulnerability (Brooks et al., 2005) and community resilience
(Berkes and Ross, 2013) have strong conceptual linkages to the practice of SIA .
Community development practitioners have also taken up concepts of resil-
ience that can help communities become more resilient through project design
(Colussi and Rowcliffe, 2000). Similar to the sustainable livelihoods literature, a
community capital framework or a community capacity model can be used to
focus on aspects of community sustainability that are recognized by scholars
to be important (Beckley et al., 2008; Machlis et al., 1997; Emory and Flora,

06_990066_ch06.indd 130 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 131

2006). The community capacity model offers a way to overlay the development
of social indicators for impact assessment with a conceptual basis focused on
enhancing community capacity through project design and development. If SIA
is about assessing the consequence to human communities from project inter-
ventions, then community capacity assessment is about more than assessing
consequences. It proposes assessing the consequences of project activities or pol-
icy changes against established criteria to enhance the capacity of communities
to persist and thrive into the future.
According to Beckley et al. (2008: 60), community capacity is “the collective
ability of a group (the community) to combine various forms of capital within
institutional and relational contexts to produce desired results or outcomes.”
This definition includes aspects of community assets (i.e., capital or resources),
a catalyst for change, the mobilization of resources (i.e., turning stocks of cap-
ital into flows of capital), and the achievement of certain outcomes. Within a
community development context, this community capacity model offers insight
into the strengths and weaknesses of community-based assets and explores how
certain development actions can impact community capacity. Although we draw
on Beckley’s work in particular (Figure 6.2), other important contributors to this
literature offer a strong foundation for empirical work (e.g., Machlis et al., 1997;
Emory and Flora, 2006).
Within an SIA context, this same conceptual framework can be used to assess
how certain projects, or aspects of projects, might impact community capacity.
For example, if a pipeline is built adjacent to a community, how will it impact
community capacity? How can pipeline construction, ownership, or operation
contribute to community capacity-building? In this way, a community capacity

Capacity Spheres of
Assets Catalysts Social Relations Capacity Outcomes

1. Maintain
economic
Market vitality
2. Maintain
pi l
Ca ocia

Ec
l
ta

civic vitality
on pita
S

Ca
om l

3. Subsist and
ic

Opportunities persist
Bureaucratic
Associative

& Threats 4. Access state

resources
5. Link to the
global economy
pi n
Ca uma
Na apit

6. Maintain
l
ta
tu al
C

H
ra

ecological
l

integrity
Communal 7. Maintain
human health

FIGURE 6.2 | Community capacity model for conceptualizing social impact

assessment.
Beckley et al. (2008).

06_990066_ch06.indd 131 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 132 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

framework is about more than developing a list of social indicators and social
impacts. It is focused on learning more about project impacts on the collective
abilities of a group (a community) to combine forms of capital (local resources)
in ways to achieve desired outcomes.
Although scholars tend to draw on different descriptions of community cap-
ital, such as built capital and cultural capital (Olson, 2006), Beckley et al. (2008)
organize capital into four types—social, natural, economic, and human capital.
These form the basis through which community capacity is derived—they are
the starting conditions. But to enhance and to mobilize these capitals, a catalyst
is often involved and, in the case of SIA, this can be a large-scale project such
as a hydroelectric dam or a mining project. These capitals are then mobilized
through spheres of social relations to produce capacity outcomes. In Figure 6.2,
these outcomes are listed generically (e.g., maintain economic vitality), but a
community might have much more specific outcomes that are defined within
community strategic plans or other planning documents at the community or
regional level. These community-level plans can then be linked more explicitly
with this conceptual approach to SIA .
In summary, the practice of SIA in North America is commonly associated
with technical and expert-based approaches to indicator identification and
measurement. There is a lack of conceptual clarity to this work that can be rem-
edied with closer attention to theories and concepts in community development,
resilience, and vulnerability studies, public participation, and social learning.
Several of these topics are discussed at length in other chapters of this book.

Examples of Social Impact

Assessment—Northern Canada
We now turn our attention to a case example from the Canadian North, where
the methods described in the previous sections illustrate some challenges and
outcomes of SIA . For reasons of confidentiality, both for the developer and for
the affected communities, identifying details are omitted. Two aspects of this
case study bear mentioning. First, the SIA prepared for this project was an inte-
gral and interrelated chapter of the overall EIA . Sections on socio-economic and
cultural realms (including archaeology and traditional knowledge or land use)
formed part of the “human environment” linked to other chapters, including
wildlife and water, both of which were critical to the affected communities that
still depend on hunting, fishing, and trapping. Second, instead of detailing the
SIA data collection and analysis process, the focus of this case description is on
the consultation with affected communities. This focus emphasizes the key role
of consultation in the EIA process, particularly as Aboriginal people and others
contribute insights into the impact of proposed development in this sensitive
northern environment.
During the past decade, one of the authors of this chapter worked on several
EIA s for mining and pipeline developments in the NWT. One of these pro-
posed projects involved an EIA for a new mine that would require additional (or

06_990066_ch06.indd 132 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 133

shared) infrastructure and resources such as power, water, roads, and airports.
Consultation with the affected communities was initiated several years prior
to the formal EIA process, and the community engagement approach generally
followed a logical sequence seemingly designed to reach a satisfactory outcome.
Several “gentle and careful steps” were taken over several years with the affected
communities, including four years within the context of the EIA, as follows:

• hiring a community relations co-ordinator from one of the communities;

• engaging through activities such as open houses, presentations, and
meetings, including with leaders of the communities and government
organizations;
• inviting community leaders and representatives to visit the project site;
• building and displaying a project 3-D model for visual presentations;
• undertaking traditional knowledge studies and listening to specific con-
cerns and issues;
• making newspaper advertisements and articles;
• giving radio and telephone interviews;
• keeping the project website updated with timely information;
• making presentations to interested groups, including local Rotary Clubs
and schools;
• participating in science forums with presentations and information
booths;
• maintaining an engagement log with dates, individuals, and organizations
interacted with, mode of communication, discussion topics, and positions
taken by participants.

At public meetings, responses to issues raised were noted, documenting any

issues that needed to be resolved. The community and public meetings provided
an opportunity for project feedback and showed how past input, including that
provided during the scoping sessions, was used to refine and improve mine
development plans. An additional objective was to obtain input from the com-
munity members and land users regarding appropriate scope for environmental
monitoring programs, social development plans, and closure plans.
Even with many diverse activities over several years, by some accounts the
engagement process was not always successful. As time passed, difficulties
experienced in the consultation process negatively affected the work needed
to complete the social impact and cultural heritage impact assessments. The
mining company repeatedly tried to arrange public meetings through the com-
munity leadership, but local leaders would not provide authorization for these
meetings to proceed, perhaps due to their overall opposition to the project or
due to internal friction within their community leadership that tended to slow
decision-making. During the baseline studies, social and cultural specialists
working in the affected communities were asked by a local authority to leave,
even though government-approved scientific licences for these studies had been
obtained after months of work to secure them. As one community leader put it,
“I never authorized them.”

06_990066_ch06.indd 133 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 134 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

As a result, some key interviews were never completed, which would later
have serious complications, especially for the cultural studies where face-to-
face communication with Elders and others is critical. Traditional knowledge is
generally passed down through stories and by direct experience on the land. As
such, a traditional knowledge study primarily based on secondary data would
not serve the rigorous requirements of the Review Board. Even the impact
assessment process was questioned. One community spokesperson declined to
be interviewed, declaring:

You social and TK [traditional knowledge] consultants from the south [outside
of the NWT] parachute in for a couple of weeks, which is not enough time to
allow for meaningful understanding of the issues. The social baseline studies
are generally good, with data that we can compare what’s happening over time.
But we feel that these impact assessments fail to meet our needs or truly reflect
our reality.

While interpreters of the local language were used when necessary, com-
munity workshops were criticized for not being held in the local language
with a focus on the “real issues” such as land rights and the perspective of
Aboriginal women.
It was no surprise that some issues remained unresolved leading up to the
final hearings for the EIA . According to feedback received in meeting minutes
and during the hearings, people felt misled or ignored, and many planned meet-
ings never occurred. During the final hearings some questioned how the area
was explored and a lease granted without any consultation with local residents.
This perspective may have been inaccurate but nonetheless it was held strongly
by some residents. Part of the issue was the apparent distrust of local leader-
ship to accommodate people’s wishes—some alliances were formed and others
broke down with certain leaders. As a result, trust declined over time and a long
process of miscommunication, mistrust, legal proceedings, and even hostilities
began. Over the final two years of the EIA process, matters worsened as access
roads were blocked, consultation meetings were denied, and the mining com-
pany was sued, along with many other obstructionist or delay tactics.
It was not until the final Review Board public hearings that signs of relation-
ship-building and potential building blocks for working together were made
apparent. The mining company committed to continue its efforts to obtain spe-
cific input on the design of its aquatic and wildlife effects monitoring programs,
its closure and reclamation plan, and socio-economic monitoring programs, as
the project proceeded through the permitting process. Financial arrangements
were also made with the affected communities to carry out their own tradi-
tional knowledge study. Still a long way to go, but positive steps were made. It
had taken several years and millions of dollars invested in studies and several
public hearings before finally securing regulatory approval to proceed. It was
encouraging that the mining company took on all consultation activities and
seemed to follow the right steps to early and in-depth engagement. As the project
“owners,” they rightly felt that they knew the people best. At one of the Review

06_990066_ch06.indd 134 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 135

Board hearings, the Board thanked the developer and all parties involved for the
efforts made towards “respectful engagement.”
Some lessons learned can be shared from this case study:

• Due to the sensitivity of consultation with Aboriginal groups, more time

is needed for consultation and for relationships to mature. Adopting an
Aboriginal approach to consultation involves striving for consensus. This
takes time and cannot be hurried.
• Permission to conduct SIA is problematic. All research in the NWT must be
licensed, including work in Indigenous knowledge as well as in the physi-
cal, social, and biological sciences. However, the experience of the project
in conducting social baseline studies in the NWT has shown that at least
two problems exist with this system: (1) the research licence application
process is lengthy and may delay project permitting, and (2) Indigenous
communities may refute the authority of outside agencies to determine
whether their community members can be studied.
• Communities need to be able to influence the understanding of social
thresholds and levels of acceptable change. Assessment practices need to
allow for timely, inclusive, and open discussion about change, and what is
acceptable to local communities, not only about the proposed development
but also about its potential cumulative effects (Mitchell and Parkins, 2011).
• Traditional knowledge (along with other forms of “local” knowledge) is
not only highly beneficial in its contribution to EIA processes, it is abso-
lutely essential where Aboriginal communities are involved. Likewise,
traditional activities are inherently social, cultural, and interrelated with
the biophysical environment (MVEIRB, 2007). The best assessors of the
causes and impacts of social, economic, and cultural change are the people
who depend on this information.
• As a way to enhance understanding of local perspectives, communication
should be in the local language, and written communications materials
should be produced in this language. Recognition of local perspectives
often requires a paradigm shift “that embraces, values, and legitimizes the
knowledge of Aboriginal people” (Christensen and Grant, 2007: 122).

Emerging Challenges and Opportunities

International Regulation
New trends in SIA are changing the way it is done, how long it should take,
and by whom. Today, SIA is increasingly being used as input for project deci-
sion-making, for community development, for long-term monitoring (a
life-cycle approach), and even as a tool to enhance local empowerment in the
design and implementation of industrial projects. But the promise of something
larger, namely what SIA could have become since the Berger Inquiry, appears
elusive. SIA could be much more than a tool to predict and minimize (adverse)
impacts in a regulatory context. SIA can help manage social and cultural issues

06_990066_ch06.indd 135 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 136 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

associated with development and ensure that the goals of development (project
benefits) are attained and enhanced (Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). Nonetheless,
those who commission EAs and SIAs, and often the people who do SIAs, have a
traditional view of its role in the regulatory process, limiting the potential of SIA
to make a real difference to the lives of people affected by proposed development.
In this section, we discuss some of the trends in the practice of SIA that will
affect the years ahead as it shifts from a predictive or evaluative tool to an impact
management process that can spur positive change. Trends and pressures for
change from the international context are considered for their applicability to
the Canadian case.
The international standards likely to have the greatest influence on SIAs in
Canada are the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards
(IFC , 2012), which pertain to a form of EIA called an environmental, social, and
health impact assessment, or ESHIA . Introduced in the mid- to late1990s, an
ESHIA was intended to provide greater treatment of the social and public health
impacts related to assessment, to create a more holistic, integrated approach. The
ESHIA also incorporates other forms of impact assessment that have emerged
since the late 1990s,with diverse themes such as biodiversity, human rights,
Indigenous peoples, and gender equity. These additional components may be
completed as “stand-alone” assessments to deepen understanding of the issues
and to provide “value added” to a regulatory-driven approach (Mitchell, 2012).

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent ( FPIC )

As the above case study exemplified, there is a trend towards more consultation
at the front end of the EIA, and for some projects this comes even earlier, namely,
when the first company representative or government official goes out to “test
the ground with a shovel.” But these early efforts at consultation are fraught with
challenges. What constitutes consultation, participation, or engagement with
affected stakeholders and Aboriginal communities?
Some provinces have produced guidelines for early engagement with
Aboriginal communities (e.g., Government of Alberta, 2013b). The “duty to con-
sult” is constitutionally mandated in Canada on any projects that will affect
Aboriginal peoples. Some of the regulatory changes explained above are starting
to address these issues of early engagement and whether or not the duty to con-
sult was fulfilled. For example, changes to the CEA Act have acknowledged the
importance of community and traditional knowledge in the EIA process, knowl-
edge best solicited sooner than later. This early engagement is often lacking from
the EIA public participation process, including from most SIAs. Still, litigation is
ongoing with this issue, and some EIA panels are refusing to determine whether
that duty has been fulfilled. As a result, projects are experiencing delays since
many groups are taking their cases to the courts (e.g., Northern Gateway pipe-
line, Keystone pipeline). This litigious environment may further delay an already
long development approval process.
In the international context, a new concept has developed in recognition
that Indigenous peoples may be particularly vulnerable to the loss of, alienation

06_990066_ch06.indd 136 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 137

from, or exploitation of their land and access to natural and cultural resources.
For projects with potentially adverse impacts to Indigenous peoples, developers
are required to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). The princi-
ple of FPIC was first introduced by the International Labour Organization (1989)
to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples in developing economies who were
subject to involuntary resettlement. The requirements related to Indigenous peo-
ples and the definition of the special circumstances requiring FPIC are described
in Performance Standard 7 (IFC , 2012). The concept of FPIC applies to project
design, implementation, and expected outcomes related to impacts affecting
communities of Indigenous peoples.
While no universally accepted definition of FPIC exists, the IFC considers
it to be established through good-faith negotiation between a developer and
Indigenous peoples. According to the Boreal Leadership Council (2012), FPIC
contains the following components: Free: Consent is given without coercion,
intimidation, or manipulation. Prior: Consent is sought before every signifi-
cant stage of project development. Informed: All parties share information, have
access to information in a form that is understandable, and have enough infor-
mation and capacity to make informed decisions. Consent: Local communities
have the option of supporting or rejecting development that has significant
impacts on Aboriginal lands or culture.
With FPIC , there is an expressed need to document two aspects: (1) the
mutually accepted process between the client and affected communities of
Indigenous peoples, and (2) evidence of agreement between the parties in regard
to the outcome of the negotiations. However, FPIC does not necessarily require
unanimity and may be achieved even when individuals or groups within the
community explicitly disagree, especially if developers can demonstrate that
they have followed and respected all the requirements contained in the applica-
ble Performance Standards (IFC , 2012). Regulators do not generally require that
unanimous consent be achieved as a key element for project development.
Canadian developers may rightly question their need to meet other than
regional and federal standards for EIA . As an Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) high-income country, Canada is exempt
from the IFC Performance Standards. Moreover, Canadian regulatory, permit-
ting, and public comment process requirements are generally stated to meet
or exceed the IFC Performance Standards, even though some gaps may exist
between these standards (e.g., Mitchell, 2012). Nonetheless, a few “head of the
pack” companies in Canada are starting to use the IFC Performance Standards
as a benchmark and risk assessment tool. There may also be another incentive
in that adopting these standards could lead to significant financial savings.
So what does this mean for Canadian SIAs? No doubt community-based
assessment or ground verification with communities prior to and during the SIA
process will be required for approval. Going further, Aboriginal mitigation rec-
ommendations may have to be proactively integrated into the project planning
process. Several practical questions remain. Is FPIC covered in the “duty to con-
sult” process? How is consent defined? When is it appropriate to begin engaging
with stakeholders and Aboriginal communities, and what form of engagement

06_990066_ch06.indd 137 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 138 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

should it take? When is it necessary to begin to manage social risks/opportu-

nities? What level of engagement is appropriate at different stages of the project
life cycle? While the answers to these questions are not easy to determine, these
new trends in SIA may produce tangible results, including achieving permitting
approvals and enhancing benefits for communities.
Lastly, other important challenges and opportunities typify this field of study,
but space limitations prevent further elaboration here. These include growing
attention to Indigenous peoples’ plans, consideration for vulnerable peoples,
expanding definitions of the “area of influence” (of affected communities), com-
munity health impact assessments, and the inclusion of feedback mechanisms
into the impact assessment process and resultant social management plans.

Summary and Conclusions

SIA is gaining traction as an important component of impact assessment and
performance management within EIA regulation, policy, and practice. Strict
technical approaches to SIA that attempt to anticipate impacts prior to project
developments are giving way to more holistic approaches. These approaches
include a focus on meaningful public participation and closer attention to ongo-
ing systems of monitoring, evaluating, ameliorating impacts, and enhancing
benefits over the lifetime of a project. Ways of framing the SIA approach theo-
retically and conceptually remain an important challenge, with a need for closer
linkages between community development scholars and practitioners who focus
on issues such as community capacity, resilience and adaptation, and other ways
of conceptualizing the linkages between industrial development and community
sustainability. These linkages appear to be increasingly relevant, in a world of
global competition and declining public resources, for achieving desired social
and economic outcomes in rural and remote communities around the world.

References
Angell, A.C., and J.R. Parkins. 2011. “Resource Development and Aboriginal Culture in the Cana-
dian North.” Polar Record 47, 1: 67–79.
Asselin, J., and J.R. Parkins. 2009. “Comparative Case Study as Social Impact Assessment: Pos-
sibilities and Limitations for Anticipating Social Change in the Far North.” Social Indicators
Research 94, 3: 483–97.
Becker, D.R., C.C. Harris, E.A. Nielsen, and W.J. McLaughlin. 2004. “A Comparison of a Technical
and a Participatory Application of Social Impact Assessment.” Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal 22, 3: 177–89.
Beckley, T.M., et al. 2008. “Multiple Capacities, Multiple Outcomes: Delving Deeper into the Mean-
ing of Community Capacity.” Journal of Rural and Community Development 3, 3: 56–75.
Berger, T.R. 1977. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley
Pipeline Inquiry, 2 vols. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
Berkes, Fikret, and Helen Ross. 2013. “Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach.”
Society and Natural Resources 26, 1: 5–20.
Boreal Leadership Council. 2012. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in Canada. Ottawa: Boreal
Leadership Council. http://www.borealcanada.ca/documents/FPICReport-English-web.pdf.

06_990066_ch06.indd 138 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 6 Parkins / Mitchell: Social Impact Assessment 139

Brooks, Nick, W. Neil Adger, and P. M. Kelly. 2005. “The Determinants of Vulnerability and Adap-
tive Capacity at the National Level and the Implications for Adaptation.” Global Environmental
Change 15: 151–63.
Burdge, R.J. 2004. The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment. Middleton, Wis.:
Social Ecology Press.
——— and F. Vanclay. 1995. “Social Impact Assessment: A Contribution to the State of the Art
Series.” Impact Assessment 14, 1: 59–86.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2012. Regulations under CEAA 2012. Accessed 21
Mar. 2014. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-15.21.pdf.
Christensen, J., and M. Grant. 2007. “How Political Change Paved the Way for Indigenous Knowl-
edge: The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.” Arctic 60, 2: 115–23.
Colussi, M., and P. Rowcliffe. 2000. The Community Resilience Manual: A Resource for Rural Recov-
ery & Renewal. Port Alberni, BC: Canadian Centre for Community Renewal.
Craig, D. 1990. “Social Impact Assessment: Politically Oriented Approaches and Applications.”
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 10: 37–54.
Emory, M., and C. Flora. 2006. “Spiraling-Up: Mapping Community Transformation with Com-
munity Capitals Framework.” Community Development: Journal of the Community Development
Society 37, 1.
Freudenberg, W.R. 1986. “Social Impact Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 12: 451–78.
——— and K.M. Keating. 1982. “Increasing the Impact of Sociology on Social Impact Assessment:
Toward Ending the Inattention.” American Sociologist 17: 71–80.
Gamble, D.J. 1978. “The Berger Inquiry: An Impact Assessment Process.” Science 199, 4334: 946–52.
Gismondi, M. 1997. “Sociology and Environmental Impact Assessment.” Canadian Journal of
Sociology 22, 4: 457–79.
Government of Alberta. 2013a. “Environmental Assessment Program Standardized Terms of Ref-
erence.” Updated Jan. 2013. Accessed 21 Mar. 2014. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/
8126.pdf.
Government of Alberta. 2013b. “The Government of Alberta’s Policy on Consultation with First
Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management.” Edmonton: Aboriginal Consultation
Office. Accessed 30 Mar. 2014. http://www.aboriginal.alberta.ca/documents/GoAPolicy-FN-
Consultation-2013.pdf.
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. 1994.
Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Washington: US Department of Com-
merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Haley, E., and R. Tunstall. 2005. “Environmental Health Issues Related to Industrial Pollution.” In
D. Davidson and K. Hatt, eds, Consuming Sustainability: Critical Social Analysis of Ecological
Change, 181–204. Halifax: Fernwood.
Howitt, R. 2011. “Theoretical Foundations.” In H.A. Becker and F. Vanclay, eds, New Directions
in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances, 78–95. Northampton,
Mass.: Edward Elgar.
International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2012. International Finance Corporation’s Performance
Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability. Washington: International Finance Cor-
poration, World Bank Group.
Machlis, G.E., Jo Ellen Force, and William R. Burch Jr. 1997 “The Human Ecosystem Part I: The
Human Ecosystem as an Organizing Concept in Ecosystem Management.” Society & Natural
Resources 10, 4: 347–67.
Mackenzie Valley Review Board (MVEIRB). 2007. Socio-economic Impact Assessment Guide-
lines. Accessed 21 Mar. 2014. http://www.reviewboard.ca/process_information/guidance_
documentation/guidelines.php.
McKenzie, J.I. 2002. Environmental Politics in Canada: Managing the Commons into the Twenty-­
First Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, R.E. 2012. “Comparing EIA and ESHIA for Evaluating Mining Projects.” Mining Engineer-
ing 64, 8: 87–92.

06_990066_ch06.indd 139 15-06-15 6:22 PM

 140 PART I Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique

——— and J.R. Parkins.2011. “The Challenge of Developing Social Indicators for Cumulative
Effects Assessment and Land Use Planning.” Ecology and Society 16, 2: 29. http://www.ecology
andsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art29/.
Niezen, R. 1993. “Power and Dignity: The Social Consequences of Hydro-Electric Development for
the James Bay Cree.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 30: 510–29.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. 1999. “Making Social Impact Assessment Count: A Negotiation-based
Approach to Indigenous Peoples.” Society & Natural Resources 12: 63–80.
———. 2010. “Public Participation and Environmental Impact Assessment: Purposes, Implications,
and Lessons for Public Policy Making.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review30, 1: 19–27.
Olson, D.P. 2006. “Factors Contributing to the Growth of a Small Town.” Ph.D.dissertation,
Department of Sociology, South Dakota State University.
Paci, C., A. Tobin, and P. Robb. 2002. “Reconsidering the Canadian Environmental Impact
Assessment Act: A Place for Traditional Environmental Knowledge.” Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 22: 111–27.
Parson, E.A. 2001. “Environmental Trends: A Challenge to Canadian Governance.” In E.A. Parson,
ed., Governing the Environment: Persistent Challenges, Uncertain Innovations. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press.
San Sebastián, M., and A.K. Hurtig. 2005. “Oil Development and health in the Amazon Basin of
Ecuador: The Popular Epidemiology Process.” Social Science & Medicine 60, 4: 799–807.
Taylor, C.N., C.H. Bryan, and C.G. Goodrich. 2004. Social Assessment: Theory, Process and Tech-
niques. Middleton, Wis.: Social Ecology Press.
Torgerson, D. 1986. “Between Knowledge and Politics: Three Faces of Policy Analysis.” Policy
Sciences 19, 1: 33–59.
Vanclay, F. 2002a. “Conceptualising Social Impacts.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22:
183–211.
———. 2002b. “Social Impact Assessment.” In M. Tolba, ed., Responding to Global Environmental
Change (vol. 4 of Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change), 387–93. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
———. 2003. “Conceptual and Methodological Advances in Social Impact Assessment. In H.A.
Becker and F. Vanclay, eds, The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual
and Methodological Advances, 1–9. Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.
———. 2014. “Integration and Focus from the Perspective of Social Impact Assessment: A Response
to Morrison-Saunders et al.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32, 1: 11–13.
——— and A.M. Esteves. 2011. “New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and
Methodological Advances.” In F. Vanclay and A.M Esteves, eds, Current Issues and Trends in
Social Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
vanDijk, T. 2011. “Livelihoods, Capitals and Livelihood Trajectories: A More Sociological Concep-
tualisation.” Progress in Development Studies 11, 2: 101–17.

06_990066_ch06.indd 140 15-06-15 6:22 PM