Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

A causal network approach using a community well-being framework for

an initial impact assessment of large-scale energy infrastructure projects
Yuwan Malakar *, Luk J.M. Peeters, Andrea Walton, Dan O'Sullivan
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation (CSIRO), Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Impact assessment as a discipline continues to evolve and search for ways to address challenges that are wicked,
Impact assessment methodology systemic, and unconventional. More guidance however is required on integrating multi-disciplinary and novel
Social impact assessment approaches without losing the richness of impact assessments. This paper explores integrating the causal network
Environmental impact assessment
approach, underpinned by a community well-being framework, into environmental and social impact assess­
Hydrogen energy
Australia
ments. We do this by using a hypothetical scenario of large-scale green hydrogen industry in Australia and
engage an interdisciplinary team of experts representing a broad experience across the social, economic, and
environmental sectors, via interviews and a workshop. The result is a complex detailed causal network, depicting
both environmental and social risks and opportunities associated with the hydrogen industry. We discuss using
simple and complex versions of causal networks as both are needed to when communicatng with all relevant
stakeholders. We found that the causal network approach is useful for the initial scoping of potential social and
environmental impacts, especially for a multi-disciplinary team. Three areas were identified to further strengthen
such an approach to facilitate a fully-fledged impact assessment in a real case. First, causal relationships need to
be evaluated to assess the magnitude of the impacts and identify mitigation measures and incentives. Second,
stakeholders, including local communities, should be involved throughout the assessment process, beginning
from the conceptualisation of such assessments. Third, the causal network approach presented in this paper is
likely to benefit from incorporating ecological frameworks (or similar) to expand environmental pathways in the
network.

1. Introduction
The assessment of any impacts a project may cause to the environ­
ment and society is a critical first step to a successful delivery of the
project. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact
assessment (SIA) are two key approaches in this regard. Although both
approaches existed since the 70s (Esteves et al., 2012; Vanclay, 2020),
the Brundtland Report and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which
introduced the idea of sustainable development (George, 1999; Hajian
and Jangchi Kashani, 2021), further emphasised the need for assessing
the impacts of developmental projects on human and nature collectively
(Morgan, 2012; Wood, 2013). Since then, EIA and SIA have been rec­
ognised as instrumental in achieving sustainable development, which
has fuelled the rapid institutionalisation of these assessments (Reynolds,
2023). In many jurisdictions, legislative requirements necessitate such
assessments, albeit as separate entities, for any development approvals.
Two central objectives of EIA and SIA are to inform decision-makers of
(1) environmental and social risks and the associated impacts that a
development may cause, and (2) actions necessary to manage these risks
and maximise opportunities (du Pisani and Sandham, 2006; Emerson
et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2013).
The biophysical environment and human society are intertwined;
hence, their risks and impacts are also interconnected (Grace and Pope,
2021; Slootweg and Vanclay, 2001). Scholars and practitioners there­
fore see value in approaches that enable a system level assessment of
environmental and social impacts of planned interventions (Dendena
and Corsi, 2015; Hacking and Guthrie, 2008; Josimović et al., 2021).
Our focus in this paper is to explore an approach that facilitates a sys­
tems view of environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs),
unlike traditional conceptual models that typically lack practical gran­
ularities and nuances that systems hold (Suter, 1999). Without a deeper
understanding of a system that may be impacted by a development, it is
extremely challenging to achieve and render the assessments of impacts
(Audouin et al., 2015; Perdicoúlis, 2016). Such ESIAs are, therefore, at

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Yuwan.Malakar@csiro.au (Y. Malakar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107188
Received 27 February 2023; Received in revised form 6 June 2023; Accepted 10 June 2023
Available online 16 June 2023
0195-9255/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y. Malakar et al.
risk of leading to the generation of mitigation measures that are too
broad and reflect general narratives, creating difficulty to act upon those
measures (Singh et al., 2020).
A limited number of approaches exist that enable a systems under­
standing of risks and the associated impacts of a development. Kelly
et al. (2013), for example, explored five such approaches namely, system
dynamics, Bayesian networks, coupled component models, agent-based
models, and knowledge-based models. The authors feature these ap­
proaches from the perspective of a model developer and focus on inte­
grated environmental assessment and modelling. System dynamics and
Bayesian networks are well-known and widely used in impact assess­
ments; they enable an understanding of the cause-and-effect relation­
ships between the elements of a system. For example, Grace and Pope
(2021) and Audouin et al. (2015) illustrate the use of system dynamics in
cumulative social impact assessment. Sperotto et al. (2017), for
example, explore Bayesian networks to assess climate change impacts on
natural and human systems. Although both approaches are network-
based, system dynamics favours feedback loops, whereas Bayesian net­
works relies on causal linear relationships. In this study, we employ a
causal network approach, which uses causal linear relationships like
Bayesian networks, to explore to what extent such an approach can
improve understanding the reality of multiple relations, especially the
risks a development may ensue on the social and the biophysical envi­
ronment. In particular, we explore the causal network approach
described by Peeters et al. (2022) in their study to assess environmental
impacts associated with a large unconventional gas resource
development.
Impact assessment as a discipline is continuously evolving, with the
proliferation of different impact assessment types, Morrison-Saunders
et al. (2014) argue that there is a risk of creating silos and dilute the
value of interdisciplinary work. They suggest increased integration of
approaches in impact assessment instead of creating a new branch. Our
key objective in this study is to integrate a causal network approach in
ESIA and explore logical pathways to distinguish causes and effects
(Chen, 2009) and provide insights into cause-and-effect relationships
between development activities and their impacts (Vanclay, 2003).
A causal network approach is a technique to study multiple re­
lationships between activities and impacts of complex systems (Brismar,
2004; Niemeijer and de Groot, 2008b; Voegeli et al., 2019). It provides a
holistic perspective of the phenomenon under study by identifying
complete chains of relationships between the elements of a system
(Ackermann and Alexander, 2016; Ortiz-Lozano, 2012). The causal
network is an articulation of thought processes that facilitates iterative
improvement (Eden, 1992; Qazi et al., 2023). Importantly, Perdicoúlis
and Glasson (2006) highlight that such an approach is necessary to
effectively explore where and how impacts (direct, indirect, or accu­
mulated) arise as the consequences of a planned development. However,
some theorists argue that a causal network approach is best suited to
predict and detect impacts on the biophysical environment; its scope
falling short when it comes to assessing impacts on the social environ­
ment (e.g., Serje, 2017). Limited attempts have been made to concep­
tualise and implement a consolidated assessment of social and
environmental impacts using causal networks (Aledo et al., 2015; Aledo
et al., 2021).
We aim to address this gap by exploring a causal network approach
and identify any challenges associated with such assessments. Using a
hypothetical case of large-scale hydrogen production facility establish­
ment in regional Australia, we examine whether a causal network
approach can: (1) be comprehensive and logically consistent such that it
allows identification of actionable mitigation measures; (2) be suffi­
ciently contextualised and adequately reflect the reality; and (3)
represent social and environmental dimensions in a balanced way. In so
doing, we define an impact as any positive or negative consequence
resulting from an activity; opportunities refer only to favourable out­
comes (ISO, 2018). Similarly, risk refers to a possibility of occurring any
impact and the uncertainties with respect to the impact being
2
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188
materialised (Aven and Thekdi, 2021). To reiterate, this paper explores a
causal network approach and does not carry out an impact assessment of
large-scale hydrogen production in Australia.
2. Overarching theoretical framework
2.1. Causal network approach
The causal network used in this study formally encodes a cognitive
map or conceptual model of a system into a signed directional acyclic
graph (DAG) (VanderWeele et al., 2008; VanderWeele and Robins,
2007). A DAG consists of a set of nodes, connected by links, also referred
to as edges. Each link represents a causal relationship between two
nodes. For instance, a causal relationship between civil construction and
employment opportunities is captured as:
civil construction→employment opportunities
The direction of the link expresses the assumed causality; civil con­
struction activities cause employment opportunities and not the other
way around. The combination of all the nodes and links forms a network
of causal relationships. A causal pathway is the set of nodes and links
that connect a starting node with an end node. Causal networks are
acyclic, i.e., a causal pathway cannot link back to a parent of a node. An
often discussed drawback of DAGs is the issue of not representing
feedback loops and bidirectional multi-conditioning (Suzuki et al.,
2020). The choice of DAGs as theoretical underpinning of causal net­
works necessitates the adoption of a strict logical interpretation in which
a cause always needs to precede its effect (Dambacher et al., 2002).
Feedback loops and interactions are inconsistent with this as encoding
these in a causal network will break the causality (a feedback loop will
result in an effect preceding a cause). Representing such features in a
causal network is possible by explicitly acknowledging the time
component, for instance through ‘direct employment opportunities’ and
‘indirect employment opportunities’. It is challenging to capture these in
a causal network and that is exactly one of the strengths of this
approach. It enforces researchers to be very explicit about the direction
of causality and the sequence of events.
The final part of the definition is that the links in the causal network
are signed (VanderWeele and Robins, 2010). An edge labelled with ‘+’
indicates a direct causal connection, i.e., an increase in the starting node
leads to an increase in the end node, or vice versa. An edge labelled with
‘-’ indicates a link has an inverse causal connection, i.e., an increase in
the starting node leads to a decrease in the end node, or vice versa, a
decrease in the starting node leads to an increase in the end node.
The structure of the network allows to systematically assess for a
causal pathway, i.e., a sequence of logical cause-and-effect relation­
ships, if an increase in the start node will lead to an increase or decrease
in the condition of the end node. Causal pathways for which an increase
in a starting node leads to an increase of an end node are labelled ‘op­
portunity’ pathways, and causal pathways for which an increase in a
start node leads to a decrease of an end node are labelled ‘impact’
pathways. This is illustrated in Fig. 1. An opportunity causal pathway is
a causal pathway in which all the signs are ‘+’ or where there is an even
number of ‘-’ signs, while an impact causal pathway has an odd number
of ‘-’ signs. These results can be aggregated to make statements of the
overall direction of the effect of a starting node on an end node when
there are multiple causal pathways between the start and end node. In
Fig. 1, both causal pathways between node A and node G are opportu­
nity pathways, as all the links along these pathways are direct causal
connections denoted with the ‘+’ sign. It can therefore be stated that an
increase in A will lead to an increase in G. Both pathways between node
A and node I are impact pathways as they each have an odd number of
inverse causal connections. An increase in node A will therefore result in
a decrease in node I. There are four causal pathways linking node A and
node H. Two of these are opportunity pathways (A→B→E→H and
+ + +
Y. Malakar et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188

Fig. 1. Identifying impact and opportunities pathways; (a) shows a signed causal network diagram and a table with corresponding opportunity, impact and un­
defined pathways listed in (b).

A→C→E→H), and two are impact pathways (A→C→F→H and

+ + + + + −
A→D→F→H). In this situation it is not possible to unequivocally state
+ + −
whether node H will increase or decrease due to an increase in node A.
Despite the use of the ‘+’ and ‘-’ sign, we refrain from using the terms
‘positive’ and ‘negative’ to describe the pathways as this can lead to
ambiguity and confusion in the interpretation of the results. For
instance, civil construction leading to an increase in employment op­
portunity leads to a decrease in poverty. This is an impact pathway, as
there is an odd number of inverse relationships; hence, an increase in
civil construction will lead to a decrease in poverty. A decrease in
poverty is generally considered a positive outcome, so it would be
counterintuitive to denote this as a negative pathway. It is apparent from
this example that the terms used to define nodes have a large influence
on the sign assigned to causal links. We attempted to wherever possible
use neutral terms to describe nodes and avoid value laden terms, for
instance by choosing the term ‘cost of living’ instead of ‘poverty’. The set
of causal impact and opportunity pathways for a causal network can be
used to identify inconsistent or counterintuitive impact or opportunity
pathways, which often points to nodes and links that are poorly defined
and require refining (Niemeijer and de Groot, 2008a; Perdicoúlis and
Glasson, 2006). We have discussed examples of such pathways in the
discussion section.
It is important to note that the analysis above is limited to the di­
rection of the change, not the magnitude of the change. It allows as­
sessors identify which causal pathways have potential to lead to a
material increase or decrease in the end nodes. Assessing if these
changes are material and required mitigation (for impact pathways) or
which would benefit from incentives (for opportunity pathways) is
beyond the scope of the present study. Peeters et al. (2022) provide an
approach to assess materiality and mitigation strategies for impact
pathways, but not for opportunity pathways. Drawing from causal net­
works used in environmental impact assessments, causal networks
benefit from a structured categorisation of node types into drivers,
activities, stressors, processes, and endpoints (Peeters et al., 2022)
(Fig. 2).
The driver is a physical entity, the presence of which is likely to alter
the existing social and environmental dynamics. Simply put, the driver is
the planned development that causes the changes in the social and
biophysical and social environment. It is the crux of impact assessments,
the development of which create the risks and impacts that need iden­
tification and evaluation.
The development of a driver causes multiple planned activities, which
are essential for a successful development. To systematically map the
potential impacts of a driver, it is critical to identify all the involved
activities so that no causal pathways are left unidentified (Aledo-Tur and
Domínguez-Gómez, 2017). This requires an in-depth understanding of
what is required in the planning, construction, operation and decom­
missioning of a project. Activities are planned and intentional. For
instance, civil construction, such as earthworks, is an essential activity
to realise an infrastructure project and is therefore planned and
intentional.
Stressors are the changes, both intentional and unintentional, in the
social and biophysical environment caused by the activities. Stressors
put pressure on the social and biophysical environment by changing the
characteristics of the system. For example, the activity civil construction
can cause an increase in the stressor vehicle movements, which is
planned and intentional. Civil construction can however also lead to the
stressor accidental spills during refuelling of earthmoving equipment.
This stressor is neither planned nor intentional but needs nevertheless to
be accounted for in the causal network.
Processes are the dynamics that are naturally occurring in the system,
even without the existence of the project. Stressors cause changes in
these processes affecting the characteristics of the social and biophysical
environment. For example, traffic accidents (a process) occur on all
kinds of roads. The increase in vehicle movement (a stressor) due to
project activities could potentially increase the number of traffic
accidents.

Fig. 2. Components of a causal network approach.

3
Y. Malakar et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188

Endpoints are the elements of the social and biophysical environment Table 1
that we care about and are the ones potentially impacted by the estab­ Domains of the community well-being framework.
lishment of the project. Domains Description Dimensions

Environmental Refers to the quality of the • Environmental

2.2. Community well-being framework as endpoints well-being biophysical environment in which quality
people live. It reflects the quality • Environmental
To conceptualise a causal network approach for the assessment of of interactions between human management
and the biophysical environment
social and environmental impacts we use the concept of well-being. This
(e.g., water, soil, air, noise, nature
concept has been used in the impact assessment literature previously. reserves, parks and biodiversity).
Smyth and Vanclay (2017), for example, propose the ‘Social Framework’ Social well-being Refers to the quality of a person's • Personal safety
as a conceptual model for identifying impacts of large projects on peo­ life in the social sphere. It includes • Local trust
ple's well-being, for which they list eight categories: land, people, all the aspects that make a person • Community spirit
feel a sense of belonging in the Community cohesion
community, culture, livelihoods, infrastructure, housing, and the envi­
•
community, in which the person • Community
ronment. Grace and Pope (2021) also highlight that well-being has a trusts others and vice versa. participation
central role in the process of cumulative social impact assessment, in • Social interaction
which impacts on the biophysical and social environment are collec­ Political well- Refers to the environment in • Local decision making
being which members of the community and citizen voice
tively assessed. Additionally, they identify natural, economic, social,
feel empowered to voice their
and human capitals as dimensions of well-being. Furthermore, the In­ concerns in decision-making
ternational Principles of Social Impact Assessment recognise the well- processes about the issues that
being of the community should be a core indicator against which im­ matter to them.
pacts of a planned intervention should be assessed (Vanclay, 2003). Physical well- Refers to the quality of and the • Services and facilities
being access to essential infrastructure • Town appearance
In this study, we employ a community well-being framework
and services, such as roads, • Roads
(McCrea et al., 2015, 2016; Walton and McCrea, 2020) to inspire the hospitals, schools, shopping
definition of endpoints. Community and well-being are two key compo­ centres. It also includes the quality
nents of this framework. Community represents the notion of collective of visual appearances of local
actions, living together, and shared social values and place, whereas areas.
Economic well- Refers to income sufficiency and • Income sufficiency
well-being reflects the collective sense of satisfaction felt by the mem­ being opportunities for employment and • Employment and
bers of the community at a point of time (McCrea et al., 2015). Inherent businesses among the community business
to the sense of satisfaction is the subjective evaluation of what the place members. opportunities
offers and what is expected from the place, as such a positive evaluation Health well-being Refers to maintaining sound • Physical and mental
physical and mental health of the health
reflects a higher level of satisfaction and hence greater well-being.
community members.
Therefore, Forjaz et al. (2011, p.734) defines community well-being as
“the satisfaction with the local place of residence taking into account the
attachment to it, the social and physical environment and the services and to play a significant role in the decarbonisation of heavy transport,
facilities.” Similarly, Schirmer et al. (2021) underscores the services shipping, domestic and industrial natural gas use, electricity generation,
needed to support a high quality of life for the members of a community steel making and the production of urea for fertilisers and explosives
and are key to community well-being. Impact assessments are connected (Abdel-Basset et al., 2021; Baykara, 2018; IEA, 2021; IRENA, 2019). In
with the context in which a development is proposed or under devel­ 2019, Australia released its National Hydrogen Strategy with a vision to
opment (Bond et al., 2022), community well-being provides the con­ establish “a clean, innovative, safe and competitive Australian hydrogen
textualised information of a community, the evaluation of its industry” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019, p.27). To enable hydrogen
interactions within the members and with the natural and physical en­ industry development, the strategy aims to reform national regulations
vironments. For the evaluation purpose, community well-being can be for all jurisdictions and review Commonwealth laws. Additionally, the
divided into several domains (Christakopoulou et al., 2001; Sirgy et al., national strategy prioritises expediting technology development and
2010), we, however, employ the six domains of community well-being commercialisation through hydrogen research and development. The
proposed by McCrea et al. (2015) and Walton and McCrea (2020). strategy committed considerable funding for hydrogen projects together
These six domains and the associated 15 dimensions are presented in with enabling regulatory arrangements and technical capability. The
Table 1. number and scale of hydrogen related projects are likely to grow rapidly
A community well-being framework provides a broad structure to in the country. As at 2022, there were >100 hydrogen projects at various
identify potential social impacts, where social impacts refer to “the scales either in operation or under development in Australia (CSIRO,
impacts experienced by humans in either corporeal (physical) or 2022). Furthermore, a recent study finds Australian public generally see
cognitive (perpetual) sense” (Vanclay, 2002, p.191). For example, an hydrogen energy as a favourable future energy source (Scovell and
increase in population, due to a development, results in effects on the Walton, 2023).
community's well-being, be it the loss of community cohesion (social Hydrogen production, distribution, storage, and use necessitate a
well-being) or the addition of new services and facilities (physical well- complex set of activities, including, for example, establishing new in­
being). The change in population is a social change process, a de­ frastructures, accessing water and electricity, and import of essential
mographic process, which results in social impacts (Vanclay, 2002). In materials. Therefore, decision-making around hydrogen production
light of this, we see the use of a community well-being framework as must account for any environmental and social impacts that may arise
endpoints in the causal network are relevant, irrespective of the effects well before the industry has established. Against this backdrop, we
of development acting directly or indirectly on wellbeing. developed a large-scale hydrogen production scenario (Box 1), inspired
by some of the large-scale projects that are currently proposed in
3. Methods Australia. We used this scenario to engage with our research participants
to develop a causal network for the assessment of the potential social
3.1. Large-scale hydrogen production as a hypothetical scenario and environmental impacts. We purposefully kept the scenario infor­
mation relatively at high level and broad and made no direct reference
In this study, we used the development of a large-scale renewable to any existing brownfield sites, even though we recognise that context
hydrogen project in regional Australia as a driver. Hydrogen is expected

4
Y. Malakar et al.
Box 1
Large-scale hydrogen production scenario
This establishment is a brownfield development, aiming to produce 100,000 t of ammonia from hydrogen per year in an industrial hub. The
energy requirement is >1 GW and will be sourced from a combination of wind turbines and photo-voltaic solar panels. The combined spatial
footprint will exceed 10,000 ha. A desalination plant will produce the required 1.5 GL/year from seawater and the brine will be disposed
offshore.
There is access to basic infrastructure, such as national highway and gas pipelines, capable of transporting hydrogen, as well as a local regional
workforce. The construction phase is expected to last 5 years and will create >5000 direct jobs, while the operational phase will last up to 50
years, requiring 1000 ongoing local jobs. The current local community is of medium size (>10,000 population), and the main economic activity
in the region hosting the project is industry employment and tourism.
will play a significant role in understanding impacts. Note that the hy­
pothetical scenario assessed here only considered the hydrogen devel­
opment impacts and not existing brownfield infrastructures already in
place.
3.2. Network development process
The development of the causal network topology with renewable
hydrogen as a driver and the community well-being framework as a
structure for the network's endpoints, started with a causal network
structure that was based on a previous causal network for environmental
impact assessment of unconventional gas resource development (Peeters
et al., 2022). This initial network in combination with the large-scale
hydrogen production scenario provided the starting point for individ­
ual interviews with twelve experts. The experts represented a broad
range of experience across the assessment of social, economic, and
environmental risks and opportunities in relation to hydrogen energy.
All participants were purposefully selected to cover all aspects necessary
for establishing and operating a large-scale industry. To select the par­
ticipants, a list of potential experts was prepared (using publicly avail­
able information), and invitations were sent out via email and
telephone. The snowball method (Marshall and Rossman, 2011) was
used to identify and recruit additional participants. On average, the
duration of the interviews were 60 min. An ethics approval was obtained
before the interviews and consents sought prior to the interviews to
record audio. Three core objectives of the interviews were to: (1)
examine the use of a causal network approach for an integrated ESIA; (2)
get feedback on the hydrogen development scenario and the structure
and logic of the network (3) explore the use of community well-being
framework as endpoints.
A convergent interviewing approach (Jepsen and Rodwell, 2008)
was used to gradually refine the development scenario and the causal
network structure. Each interviewee was provided the network that
resulted from the interviews with the previous experts, meaning the
network grew organically with experts commenting on others' inputs
helping overcome the complexity and challenges. After all interviews
were finished, all the interviewed participants were invited for a half-
day hybrid workshop (in person and online). A total of 11 participants
including two hosts attended the workshop. The objective of this
workshop was to provide an opportunity for participants to provide their
inputs on the final version of the draft causal network. The workshop
discussion was mainly focused on the structure of the network, checking
the cause-and-effect logic embedded in the network, and providing an
opportunity to further refine the network. The latter was especially
important as the gradual refinement of the network (during interviews
and the workshop) meant that the network that resulted from the series
of interviews had evolved from the network the experts had seen in their
individual interviews. A copy of the draft network was supplied to the
participants prior to the workshop. Consents were sought to video re­
cord the workshop discussion.
As we intended to explore an approach and its functionality in
5
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188
assessing social and environmental impacts, we relied on bringing
together the knowledge of experts across multiple disciplines. We argue
that the real-life use of this approach warrants involvement of com­
munity stakeholders. Having said this, we also want to acknowledge that
the use of experts in identifying potential impacts associated with a
large-scale project is common and has both advantages and drawbacks.
There are models that exist such as “knowledge-based models” that use
expert knowledge elicitation to map potential impacts of an activity
(Kelly et al., 2013).
4. Results
This section describes (1) the causal network of large-scale hydrogen
production in regional Australia that resulted from the interviews and
the workshop and (2) the formal identification of causal pathways be­
tween the driver and the endpoints. Noteworthy to reiterate that the
purpose of our engagement with the experts was to explore a causal
network approach in identifying and assessing environmental and social
impacts, using large-scale hydrogen production as an example. The
actual impact assessment of the development is beyond the scope of the
paper. The results we present here are to exemplify how a causal
network approach could apply in such assessments. The limitations and
future work are explained in Section 6.
Fig. 3 shows the causal network diagram after the workshop. The
diagram reads from left to right (Driver → Activities → Stressors →
Processes → Endpoint) and shows the cause-and-effect relationships
between the large-scale hydrogen production (the driver) and the end­
points (social, environmental, physical, economic, political, and health
well-being). There are nine activities identified that are required to
establish the industry, linked to 12 stressors, 24 processes, and six
endpoints. The colour coding of the edges (or links) reflects direct (blue)
and inverse (red) relationships between nodes. The causal network has
187 links, resulting in 2360 unique causal pathways connecting the
driver and the endpoints.
Table 2 summarises the number of impact and opportunity causal
pathways between the driver and the endpoints that contain each of the
stressors. Most of the stressors lead to both opportunity pathways, i.e.,
where an increase in hydrogen development leads to an increase in the
endpoint condition, and impact pathways, i.e., where an increase in
hydrogen development leads to a decrease in the endpoint condition.
The stressors that are only connected to the well-being endpoints via
impact pathways are accidental ignition, accidental release, invasive
species, waste disposal and water extraction. Accidental ignition of fires
due to industrial activities can cause bushfires, smoke and air pollution
and can affect workplace safety (see Fig. 3). These in turn can affect
biodiversity, heritage, tourism, cost of living, debt, and emigration,
which are linked to all well-being endpoints. Accidental release is any
uncontained spillage of chemicals. This can affect water quality and
workplace safety, which in turn affects the economic, health and envi­
ronmental wellbeing endpoints. The spread of invasive species can affect
biodiversity and heritage condition, which links this stressor to the
Y. Malakar et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188

Fig. 3. The causal network diagram showing social and environmental implications of large-scale hydrogen production.

Table 2
Summary of the number of impact (− ) and opportunity (+) pathways for each stressor and endpoint combination.
Stressors Endpoints Total

Economic Environment Health Physical Political Social

− 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1

Accidental ignition 21 21 28 7 28 56 161

Accidental release 7 14 14 35
Invasive species 2 2 2 6
Waste disposal 6 18 6 6 6 42
Water extraction 3 9 3 3 3 21
Vegetation removal 6 3 9 5 2 2 6 2 8 5 48
GHG emissions 10 11 6 12 8 10 2 4 9 12 17 19 120
Land acquisition 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 4 5 26
Vehicle movement 18 6 18 18 4 10 18 4 32 10 138
Operation of industrial machinery 21 14 28 28 7 28 14 56 14 210
Demand for goods & services 128 48 64 32 8 104 32 200 88 704
Industry employment opportunities 136 64 88 32 136 40 232 120 848
Total 358 149 126 12 263 82 37 4 345 106 616 261 2359

environmental, political, and social well-being endpoints. The stressors
waste disposal and water extraction are mostly associated with the
desalination activity, respectively the disposal of desalination brines and
extraction of water for desalination. These stressors are linked to water
quality, biodiversity, and heritage, which in turn can negatively affect
the economic, environmental, health, political, and social well-being
endpoints.
The remaining stressors have both opportunity and impact path­
ways. Vegetation removal is mostly associated with impact pathways as
it can lead to decrease in biodiversity, water quality, heritage condition
and tourism. Vegetation removal is also linked to an increase in climate
change. Decreases in these processes lead to decreases in all well-being
endpoints they are connected to. The opportunity pathways however all
include the following sequence (s1):
(s1)
+ +
climate change → land use change → off − farm income
Climate change puts pressure on farmers to seek off-farm income
generating options, which changes the way they use their land. An in­
crease in off-farm income is encoded to lead to an increase in the
condition of the economic, health, political and social well-being end­
points. The above pathway therefore suggests that vegetation removal
contributes to greater well-being. Since GHG emissions contribute to
climate change, this pathway also follows s1, resulting in an opportunity
pathway. This pathway, however, seems counterintuitive to the general
understanding of how vegetation removal affects the social and envi­
ronmental system. We present this pathway as an example of counter­
intuitive pathways that may emerge during the network development
process. We explain the occurrence of pathways in Section 5.3 of the
discussion section.
Land acquisition has only a few pathways associated with it. Impact
pathways are associated with potential land price increases, changes in
land use and heritage condition, which eventually can lead to a negative
change in the economic, environmental, political, social and physical
well-being endpoints. Opportunity pathways on the other hand are
associated with off-farm income generated by land use change. Usually,
land acquisition has been identified as a significant issue in regional
areas (Vanclay, 2017), particularly if it overlaps with the interest of
Aboriginal peoples in Australia (O'Faircheallaigh, 2009). This illustrates
that the number of pathways does not necessarily reflect the actual

6
Y. Malakar et al.
impacts of land acquistion on society and the environment.
The vehicle movement stressor is mostly associated with impact
pathways, as it can lead to an increase in bushfires, climate change,
traffic accidents and light, air and noise pollution and a decrease in
public infrastructure condition and workplace safety. Opportunity
pathways that contain vehicle movement are limited to the pathways
that can potentially lead to an increase of the condition of endpoints
through the links between climate change, land use change and off-farm
income (s1).
The operation of industrial machinery has mainly impact pathways
via the processes bushfire, biodiversity and light, air and noise pollution.
Opportunity pathways arise through the potential decrease of land price,
which can lead to an increase in cost of living and debt.
The demand for goods and services stressor features in over 700
causal pathways to all endpoints except environmental well-being. Out
of these, 504 are impact pathways and 200 are opportunity pathways.
The main impact pathways are associated with increases in cost of
living, availability of services and facilities, labour shortages and de­
creases in the availability or quality of public infrastructure. The main
opportunity pathways are associated with increases of regional capacity
development and off-farm income. These pathways however can also
lead to indirect impacts or opportunities. For example, an increase in
labour shortage can lead to an increase in regional capacity develop­
ment, which ultimately increases economic, social, health and political
well-being. An increase in regional capacity development on the other
hand, can lead to an increase in cost of living.
The stressor industry employment opportunities are included in 592
impact pathways and 256 opportunity pathways. The main opportunity
pathways are to the economic well-being endpoint, via an increase in
regional capacity development, immigration or off-farm income, or via a
decrease in debt. Off-farm income also increases health well-being and
regional capacity development increases social well-being. The main
impact pathways are to economic well-being, via increased cost of
living. Like the demands for goods and services stressor, the indirect
pathways feature the same processes as the direct pathways, but they
can lead to an opposite effect. Immigration for instance is on the main
opportunity pathway, but the association of immigration with increased
inequality and crime rate, can lead to decreases in economic, social and
political well-being. When considering the above linkages and
comparing them to the needs of assessors involved in impact assess­
ments it becomes clear how complex it is to map out all the connecting
opportunities, impacts, causes and effects. The discussion now turns to
how this study and its participants shared their knowledge to improve
on this situation and add to the development of improved assessment
frameworks.
5. Discussion
The discussion section focuses on the extent to which the causal
network and representation of the well-being framework as endpoints,
addresses the main requirements for assessing environmental and social
risks and opportunities, namely, (1) comprehensive and logically
consistent causal pathways; (2) contextualised reflection of reality; and
(3) balanced representation of social and environmental opportunities
and impacts.
5.1. Comprehensive and logically consistent causal pathways
The community well-being framework with its six dimensions pro­
vides a good starting point to capture environmental and social aspects
of a region. Using this framework as endpoints of a causal network
enabled the inclusion of a wide variety of aspects, ranging from local
economy to biodiversity, workplace safety and climate change.
To capture the narratives for cause-and-effect relationships vol­
unteered by interview participants, the resolution of the network was
increased by adding process nodes. This led to detailed, but long causal
7
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188
pathways. This level of details was beneficial, as it allowed the network
to represent very nuanced viewpoints but resulted in some counterin­
tuitive or redundant pathways.
An illustration of a counterintuitive pathway is a positive effect of
hydrogen development on economic well-being due to an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions. This is counterintuitive as renewable
hydrogen production is seen as a way to decarbonise the economy. A
closer inspection of the causal pathways highlights that there is a posi­
tive link from civil construction to climate change as earth moving
equipment emit carbon dioxide. The stressor climate change increases
land use changes, which increases off-farm income, which increases
economic well-being. This causal pathway was not explicitly discussed
by any of the interviewees and is considered an artefact of coding the
cause-and-effect relationships in the causal network.
An example of redundant pathways is the following pair of pathways:
−
Cost of living → Economic well − being
+ −
Cost of living → Debt → Economic well − being
The first pathway captures in a general way that an increase in cost of
living decreases economic well-being, while the second pathway high­
lights a specific way in which an increase in cost of living decreases
economic well-being, namely through an increase in household debt. To
identify impacts and opportunities, this more nuanced pathway does not
present an added value in which hydrogen development can affect
economic well-being, it is a more nuanced expression of a pathway that
is already represented.
The above examples of counterintuitive and redundant pathways
illustrate challenges that a causal network approach may encounter
during the network building process. A deeper engagement with the
experts will most likely help identify and resolve these issues. To reit­
erate, the objective of this study was not to perform a complete impact
assessment but to explore how a causal network approach using com­
munity well-being endpoints performs in developing the causal re­
lationships of a driver with and among the endpoints. Therefore, no
further expert engagement to critically test what is encoded in the
network was conducted in this regard.
The iterative, nuanced development of the causal network, capturing
interviewees narratives, resulted in deviations from the well-being
framework as initially proposed by Walton and McCrea (2020). For
instance, political well-being in the original framework is about citizens
having a say in local decision making and trust in local government. In
the causal network, the political well-being endpoint is affected by
processes such as land price, inequality, crime rate, land use change and
heritage.
In order to address the three issues above (counterintuitive & long
pathways, redundancy in pathways and deviation from the original
well-being framework), we simplified the causal network by mapping
the process nodes onto the 15 dimensions of the well-being framework
(Table 3), such that there is only one process node between a stressor
and endpoint.
Table 3 highlights that some dimensions of the well-being framework
did not readily correspond to process nodes in the causal network, such
as local trust, community participation, social interaction, town
appearance and local decision making and citizen voice. Conversely, it
was difficult to find a corresponding dimension for the process node
heritage. Based on the interviews and the workshop, we chose to add
heritage as a dimension to the social well-being endpoint.
In the simplified causal network (Fig. 4), we added two activities and
two stressors to create pathways to some of the social dimensions that
were not well represented. The activity community engagement cap­
tures the interaction between the proponent and the local community.
This leads to stressors community consultation, which describes infor­
mation sharing and discussion with the community on the planned ac­
tivities, and corporate citizenship, about how the proponent participates
Y. Malakar et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188

Table 3 (underlined in Fig. 4). This can be an artefact of the mapping and iter­
Mapping of causal network process nodes to the well-being framework ative network topology elicitation if cause and effect relationships are
dimensions. missed. An example can be town appearance. No interviewee discussed
Well-being Dimensions Causal network process potential impact on town appearance, but it is feasible that the growth in
endpoints construction work and vehicular movements can impact the appearance
Social Personal safety Crime rate, Bushfires of a town. It is also equally feasible that increased demand for goods and
Community cohesion Emigration, Immigration, Cultural services may increase income for town council, which can be used to
diversity restore the town appearance. Isolated nodes can however also be a
Community spirit Inequality
genuine result of the network analysis, indicating that these dimensions
Local trust N/A
Community participation N/A are not affected by large scale hydrogen development. Social in­
Social interaction N/A teractions are potentially affected if support for the development is
N/A Heritage contested within the community and the community becomes frag­
Environment Environmental quality Light, air & noise pollution mented or divided in its views affecting social relationships and social
Environmental Land use change, Biodiversity,
management Climate change, Water quality
cohesion.
Economic Income sufficiency Cost of living, Debt, Off-farm The path analysis in Table 4 identifies 185 unique pathways. This a
income, Land price fraction of the pathways in the full network. This highlights that
Employment and Labour shortages, Tourism, replacing the original process nodes with the well-being framework
business opportunities Regional capacity development
considerably reduces the complexity of the network. Even so, the overall
Physical Services and facilities Public infrastructure, Services &
infrastructure facilities insights are still evident in the simplified version with the majority of
Town appearance N/A opportunity pathways associated with economic well-being and the
Roads Traffic accidents majority of impact pathways associated with environmental well-being.
Health Health Diseases and illness, Workplace The simplified network also retains the feature of a social well-being
safety
endpoint dominated by impact pathways, even though there were a
Political Local decision making N/A
and citizen voice substantial number of opportunity pathways leading to social wellbeing.
The additional activity and stressor nodes allow the network to
incorporate aspects of community engagement, which in the full
in the community, for instance through sponsorship of local sports clubs. network was not identified as a prominent feature, despite being
The activity regulatory approval describes the process to obtain mentioned by many of the interviewees. There are fewer counterintui­
approval from the relevant authorities for the planned activities, which tive causal pathways in Fig. 4. However, the abstraction of long chains of
is also linked to the stressor community consultation. Table 4 lists the processes into a single process node that corresponds to a dimension of
impact and opportunity pathways derived from the simplified network. the well-being framework loses some nuance, and the cause-and-effect
The dimensions of the well-being framework that could not be relationship is not intuitively apparent.
matched to processes in the full causal network result in isolated nodes, Finding the balance between a very detailed, but complex network
with no incoming links, in the simplified network appearance and a simplified network with limited nuance is an ongoing challenge in

Fig. 4. Simplified representation of the causal network, using the well-being framework dimensions as process nodes.

8
Y. Malakar et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188

Table 4
Summary of the number of impact (− ) and opportunity (+) pathways for each stressor and endpoint combination for the simplified causal network.
Endpoints Economic Environment Health Physical Political Social Total

Stressors − 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1 − 1 +1

Accidental ignition 14 7 7 28
Accidental release 7 7 14
Community consultation 2 2 4
Corporate citizenship 2 2
Invasive species 2 2
Waste disposal 6 6 12
Water extraction 3 3 6
Vegetation removal 1 1 1 3
GHG emissions 1 2 1 2 1 2 9
Land acquisition 1 1 1 3
Vehicle movement 2 2 2 6
Operation of industrial machinery 7 7 14
Demand for goods & services 16 8 8 8 8 32
Industry employment opportunities 16 8 8 32
Total 3 34 44 2 31 0 10 0 0 2 37 22 185

developing network representations of systems (Barbrook-Johnson and
Penn, 2022; Buede and Ferrell, 1993; Marche et al., 2022). The highly
detailed network was invaluable in understanding the system and
providing a scaffold for capturing discussions with the interviewees
(Voegeli et al., 2019). The simplified network however is a first step for
the scoping purpose and making it amenable for a complete impact
assessment that considers materiality of impact and opportunity path­
ways, as well as mitigation strategies and incentive schemes.
5.2. Contextualised reflection of reality
Impact assessment approaches that restrict a systems view are
argued to be limited in scope because they lack contextual details (Bond
et al., 2022). We used the community well-being framework with two
intents: (1) to consolidate environmental and social impact assessments;
and (2) to help draw out the information that reflects the reality of the
context. Proponents of a community well-being framework argue that it
enables a deeper understanding of the location and the people that live
in it (Brown et al., 2022; Christakopoulou et al., 2001; Forjaz et al.,
2011). Based on our exercises (interviews and the workshop) with the
participants, we found merit to this claim. The causal network approach
did provide a platform to reflect the place-specific impacts and oppor­
tunities likely to be ensued by the industry. For example, the region
being a brownfield, participants identified the availability of local skills
necessary to operate industrial machinery. Similarly, as the industry
aimed to desalinate seawater for electrolysis, participants raised
possible impacts on waste management and water quality, which were
already under pressure due to existing industries.
We also found that the causal network approach suitable for
reflecting the contextualised reality, as the identification of causal re­
lationships relies largely on inductive processes (Perdicoúlis et al.,
2007). Using this causal network approach, we were able to unpack the
underpinning industry context and the possible effects that this industry
would have on a surrounding region and the host community. The
ability to define the nodes and edges and put these in one place dia­
grammatically provided a useful medium to describe the industry-
specific impacts. For example, the accidental release stressor refers to
any spillage of chemicals that are specifically used in the hydrogen in­
dustry. Similarly, the labour shortage process refers to the unavailability
of human resources with skills and expertise necessary for the hydrogen
industry. These examples emphasise the criticality of defining nodes and
edges so that the stakeholders who make decisions based on such as­
sessments have a realistic picture of the industry context.
However, context also encompasses place-based issues. It is well-
established in the impact assessment literature that local communities
are the best source of localised information (Aguilar-Støen and Hirsch,
2017; Gulakov et al., 2020; Vanclay, 2003). The community well-being
framework also highlights the need for engaging local people as they
have the local knowledge to evaluate what their place offers (Darling
et al., 2023; McCrea et al., 2015; Sirgy et al., 2010). There are benefits in
collaboration between various actors, including academic experts and
practitioners (Pope and Morrison-Saunders, 2022). In our study, we
engaged experts as participants to assess potential social and environ­
mental impacts, using the community well-being framework. Since we
used a hypothetical scenario to test the methodology, the involvement of
experts seemed valid. However, to run the same processes in the real-life
context, it would be challenging to define the extent of involvement of
local communities, as the causal network approach is a resource inten­
sive approach, like most participatory system mapping exercises (Bar­
brook-Johnson and Penn, 2021; Barbrook-Johnson and Penn, 2022).
5.3. Balanced representation of social and environmental dimensions
To assess social and environmental risks and the associated impacts,
we have argued in the earlier sections, an important criterion is the
ability to reflect the two dimensions in a balanced way, which means
balanced representation of impact and opportunity pathways relating to
social and environmental endpoints. The community well-being
framework puts all the six dimensions on the same footing, which,
seemingly, provided a balanced way to investigate causality between the
driver and the endpoints. However, the causal network that we facili­
tated to develop has more social and economic pathways than envi­
ronmental. Although, both opportunity and impact pathways were
identified to be associated with the endpoints, the impacts outnumbered
the opportunities. A limited number of opportunity pathways were
found to be associated with the environmental well-being endpoint.
Here, we see two challenges remain to be addressed.
First, one of the strengths of the community well-being framework is
its six dimensions. We have argued before that they reflect the basic
aspects of a community to sustain and thrive, which helps to draw the
contextualised reality of the community. Although, all dimensions are
interconnected and work together to shape the well-being of the com­
munity, the dimensions may seem lopsided if we try to group them into
social and environmental dimensions. That is, five dimensions (social,
political, physical, economic, and health well-being) can be grouped
into socio-economic dimensions as opposed to only one dimension for
environmental well-being. This might have affected the causal network
developed in this study as it has more socio-economic pathways than
environmental. We also take this opportunity to identify a limitation.
The community well-being framework is largely a social framework,
with the biophysical environment given consideration only insofar as it
affects human well-being. The integration of other ecological frame­
works, such as ecosystem services (La Notte et al., 2017), may help
strengthen the environmental aspects in the network. The network

9
Y. Malakar et al.
development process may also benefit from an additional series of group
interactions among a wider range of disciplinary experts. Moreover,
providing sufficient opportunities for interdisciplinary interactions and
sharing of perspectives through multiple workshops could also ensure a
more balanced outcome between social and environmental pathways
(Partidário et al., 2023).
Second, the fundamental premise of causality is to explain effects,
both opportunities and repercussions, by finding the causes of a
particular event (Barbrook-Johnson and Penn, 2022). Irrespective of
this, causal networks are mostly studied to identify negative conse­
quences to a large extent (Schmidt et al., 2005). We would like to argue
that there may have been an epistemological influence. That is, the
advent of ESIAs was primarily guided by an objective to examine ‘what
could go wrong’ because of a new development. It is believed that doing
so would allow decision makers to compare benefits of the development
with negative consequences. This epistemology lens can be problematic
if the goal of a study is to assess impacts (positive and negative aspects of
a development). Therefore, there was, we suspect, a framing issue in our
engagement with experts. We believe that more opportunity pathways
would have been identified if we had asked more explicitly about the
potential of hydrogen energy industry opportunities instead of focussing
on its potential negative impacts (Vanclay, 2002).
6. Conclusion
This study contributes to the impact assessment literature by
exploring a causal network approach to identify and assess social and
environmental risks and the associated impacts in relation to a devel­
opmental project. To do so, we used the six dimensions of a community
well-being framework as endpoints of the causal network to examine
social and environment impacts of a hypothetical scenario of large-scale
hydrogen industry. We examined whether the causal network approach
was able to show comprehensive and logical causal pathways, suffi­
ciently contextualised reflection of reality, and appropriately balanced
social and environmental dimensions. We found that a causal network
approach along with the community well-being framework provided a
strong foundation to scope and initially assess social and environmental
effects of a project on people. The approach was particularly useful in
identifying negative consequences though more limited in identifying
opportunities of the project.
Our study suggests that even though detailed networks are very
effective at accommodating most causal pathways, establishing a
simplified network representing aggregated causes and effects is also a
valuable step for communicating and using the network practically. A
simplified network provides a general view of the impacts for decision
makers to act on, without burdening them with a complex and detailed
network that is most suitable for practitioners. This would also help
when involving stakeholders in the process as not all stakeholders have
time, resources, or knowledge to invest for an extended period, which
causal network approaches usually demand.
The research findings also suggest that the value of this causal
network approach in its current form is in the scoping stage of an ESIA.
However, strengthening the network in three areas would enable a more
trusted and comprehensive output in preparation for undertaking a
complete impact assessment.
First, the evaluation of causality needs further nuancing. The mon­
odirectional nature of causality can be challenging when assessing social
impacts underpinned by people's cognitive attribution. The evaluation
of the causal relationships between nodes may be able to tease out such
nuances and resolve any associated issues. No evaluation of the re­
lationships between nodes was performed because of the limited scope
of the study. An evaluation of these relationships is critical to assess the
magnitude of the impacts, which will help to determine the scale of the
impacts across all dimensions. This information will assist users to
identify specific mitigation measures and incentives to lower the most
salient risks and increase opportunities respectively.
10
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188
Second, we found the engagement of multi-disciplinary experts is
key to identify possible risks and opportunities. However, for a fully-
fledged impact assessment, such approaches will require involvement
from extended stakeholder engagement, including local communities
who have high stakes in any development in their region. It is possible
that causal networks developed with local communities based on real
case examples may look different because their contextual circum­
stances can vary. Although our engagement with experts shows some
positive signs that the causal network approach can accommodate
contextual differences, a real case impact assessment will further pro­
vide an opportunity to test the usefulness of this approach.
Third, the causal network approach presented in this paper though
effective at identifying social effects was less effective at identifying
potential environmental impact pathways. The use of a community
wellbeing framework as its end points under-represented the diversity
and number of possible environmental impacts from the hypothetical
development. Incorporating ecological frameworks, such as ecosystem
services or similar with the community wellbeing framework would
strengthen and balance this causal network approach. Given the com­
plexities associated with social and environmental domains, a shift from
an impact-oriented framing to a more holistic framing that encourages a
balanced discussion of risks and opportunities would enable the devel­
opment of a balanced causal network.
Author statement
YM and LP designed the overall study, collected the data, performed
the analysis, and drafted the manuscript; AW and DO contributed to
design the study, collect the data, and revise and edit the manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by CSIROʼs Responsible Innovation Future
Science Platform and CSIRO's Deep Earth Imaging Future Science Plat­
form. The authors would like to thank all the participants for contrib­
uting to this research.
References
Abdel-Basset, M., Gamal, A., Chakrabortty, R.K., Ryan, M.J., 2021. Evaluation of
sustainable hydrogen production options using an advanced hybrid MCDM
approach: a case study. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 46 (5), 4567–4591. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.10.232.
Ackermann, F., Alexander, J., 2016. Researching complex projects: using causal mapping
to take a systems perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 891–901. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.001.
Aguilar-Støen, M., Hirsch, C., 2017. Bottom-up responses to environmental and social
impact assessments: a case study from Guatemala. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62,
225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.08.003.
Aledo, A., Garcia-Andreu, H., Pinese, J., 2015. Using causal maps to support ex-post
assessment of social impacts of dams. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 55, 84–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.004.
Aledo, A., Ortiz, G., Manas-Navarro, J.J., Climent-Gil, E., Vallejos-Romero, A., 2021.
Incorporating supra-local social structure into social impact assessment using causal
network analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 89, 106604 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eiar.2021.106604.
Aledo-Tur, A., Domínguez-Gómez, J.A., 2017. Social impact assessment (SIA) from a
multidimensional paradigmatic perspective: challenges and opportunities.
J. Environ. Manag. 195, 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.060.
Audouin, M., Burns, M., Weaver, A., Le Maitre, D., O’Farrell, P., du Toit, R., 2015. An
introduction to sustainability science and its links to sustainability assessment. In:
Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., Bond, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainability
Assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 321–346.
Y. Malakar et al.
Aven, T., Thekdi, S., 2021. Risk Science: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis Group,
Milton.
Barbrook-Johnson, P., Penn, A., 2021. Participatory systems mapping for complex
energy policy evaluation. Evaluation 27 (1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1356389020976153.
Barbrook-Johnson, P., Penn, A.S., 2022. Systems Mapping: How to Build and Use Causal
Models of Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland.
Baykara, S.Z., 2018. Hydrogen: a brief overview on its sources, production and
environmental impact. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 43 (23), 10605–10614. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.02.022.
Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., 2022. Exploring the relationship
between context and effectiveness in impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 97, 106901 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106901.
Brismar, A., 2004. Attention to impact pathways in EISs of large dam projects. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 24 (1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00162-
8.
Brown, K., Batterham, P.J., Schirmer, J., Upton, P., 2022. Principles or practice? The
impact of natural resource management on farmer well-being and social
connectedness. Soc. Nat. Resour. 35 (10), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08941920.2022.2058133.
Buede, D.M., Ferrell, D.O., 1993. Convergence in problem solving: a prelude to
quantitative analysis. IEEE Transact. Syst. Man Cybern. 23, 746–765. https://doi.
org/10.1109/21.256547.
Chen, C.C., 2009. Environmental impact assessment framework by integrating scientific
analysis and subjective perception. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 6, 605–618. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF03326101.
Christakopoulou, S., Dawson, J., Gari, A., 2001. The community well-being
questionnaire: theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and
validity. Soc. Indic. Res. 56 (3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1012478207457.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2019. Australia's National Hydrogen Strategy. Canberra.
Viewed 11/03/2022. https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australia
s-national-hydrogen-strategy.
CSIRO, 2022. HyResource. https://research.csiro.au/hyresource/.
Dambacher, J.M., Li, H.W., Rossignol, P.A., 2002. Relevance of community structure in
assessing indeterminancy of ecological predictions. Ecology 83 (5), 1372–1385.
https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1372:ROCSIA]2.0.CO;2.
Darling, S., Harvey, B., Hickey, G.M., 2023. From ‘stakeholders’ to rights holders: how
approaches to impact assessment affect indigenous participation in the Yukon
territory, Canada. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 99, 107025 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107025.
Dendena, B., Corsi, S., 2015. The environmental and social impact assessment: a further
step towards an integrated assessment process. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 965–977.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.110.
Eden, C., 1992. On the nature of cognitive maps. J. Manag. Stud. 29, 261–265. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00664.x.
Emerson, K., Baldwin, E., Scott, T.A., Pidot, J.R., Lien, A.M., Currim, F., Bethard, S.,
Ram, S., Miller, M.L., Lopez-Hoffman, L., 2022. Toward NEPA performance: a
framework for assessing EIAs. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 97, 106879 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106879.
Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., Vanclay, F., 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the
art. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 30, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2012.660356.
Forjaz, M.J., Prieto-Flores, M.-E., Ayala, A., Rodriguez-Blazquez, C., Fernandez-
Mayoralas, G., Rojo-Perez, F., Martinez-Martin, P., 2011. Measurement properties of
the community wellbeing index in older adults. Qual. Life Res. 20 (5), 733–743.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9794-2.
George, C., 1999. Testing for sustainable development through environmental
assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 19 (2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0195-9255(98)00038-9.
Grace, B., Pope, J., 2021. A systems approach to cumulative social impact assessment. In:
Blakley, J.A.E., Franks, D.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment.
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, United Kingdom, pp. 174–189.
Gulakov, I., Vanclay, F., Arts, J., 2020. Modifying social impact assessment to enhance
the effectiveness of company social investment strategies in contributing to local
community development. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 38 (5), 382–396. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1765302.
Hacking, T., Guthrie, P., 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-
line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28
(2–3), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002.
Hajian, M., Jangchi Kashani, S., 2021. 1 - evolution of the concept of sustainability. From
Brundtland Report to sustainable development goals. Sustain. Resour. Manage. 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824342-8.00018-3.
IEA, 2021. Global Hydrogen Review 2021. International Energy Agency, Geneva.
IRENA, 2019. Hydrogen: A Renewable Energy Perspective - Report Prepared for the 2nd
Hydrogen Energy Ministerial Meeting in Tokyo, Japan. International Renewable
Energy Agency, Tokyo.
ISO, 2018. Risk Management: Guidelines (ISO 31000:2018). International Organization
for Standardization, Geneva.
Jepsen, D.M., Rodwell, J.J., 2008. Convergent interviewing: a qualitative diagnostic
technique for researchers. Manag. Res. News 31 (9), 650–658. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01409170810898545.
Josimović, B., Cvjetić, A., Furundžić, D., 2021. Strategic environmental assessment and
the precautionary principle in the spatial planning of wind farms – European
experience in Serbia. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 136, 110459 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110459.
11
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188
Kelly, R.A., Jakeman, A.J., Barreteau, O., Borsuk, M.E., ElSawah, S., Hamilton, S.H.,
Henriksen, H.J., Kuikka, S., Maier, H.R., Rizzoli, A.E., van Delden, H., Voinov, A.A.,
2013. Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated
environmental assessment and management. Environ. Modell. Softw.: With Environ.
Data News 47, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.005.
La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M.L., Liquete, C., Egoh, B.,
Geneletti, D., Crossman, N.D., 2017. Ecosystem services classification: a systems
ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Indic. 74, 392–402. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030.
Marche, B., Camargo, M., Rodriguez, S.C.B., Chaudron, C., Mayer, F., Bachmann, C.,
2022. Qualitative sustainability assessment of road verge management in France: an
approach from causal diagrams to seize the importance of impact pathways. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 97, 106911 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106911.
Marshall, C., Rossman, G.B., 2011. Designing Qualitative Research. SAGE, London.
McCrea, R., Walton, A., Leonard, R., 2015. A conceptual framework for investigating
community wellbeing and resilience. Rural. Soc. 23, 270–282. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10371656.2014.11082070.
McCrea, R., Walton, A., Leonard, R., 2016. Developing a model of community wellbeing
and resilience in response to change. Soc. Indic. Res. 129, 195–214. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S11205-015-1099-Y/FIGURES/4.
Morgan, R.K., 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact
Assess. Project Apprais. 30 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2012.661557.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., Gunn, J.A.E., Bond, A., Retief, F., 2014. Strengthening
impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assess. Project Apprais.
32 (1), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.872841.
Niemeijer, D., de Groot, R.S., 2008a. A conceptual framework for selecting
environmental indicator sets. Ecol. Indic. 8 (1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2006.11.012.
Niemeijer, D., de Groot, R.S., 2008b. Framing environmental indicators: moving from
causal chains to causal networks. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10, 89–106. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-006-9040-9.
O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2009. Effectiveness in social impact assessment: aboriginal peoples
and resource development in Australia. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 27 (2),
95–110. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X438715.
Ortiz-Lozano, L., 2012. Identification of priority conservation actions in marine protected
areas: using a causal networks approach. Ocean Coast. Manag. 55, 74–83. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.10.013.
Partidário, M., Monteiro, M.B., Martins, R., 2023. Novel perspectives for multi-actor
collaboration in strategic environmental assessment using ST4S. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 99, 107023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107023.
Peeters, L.J.M., Holland, K.L., Huddlestone-Holmes, C., Boulton, A.J., 2022. A spatial
causal network approach for multi-stressor risk analysis and mapping for
environmental impact assessments. Sci. Total Environ. 802, 149845 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149845.
Perdicoúlis, A., 2016. Systems thinking and SEA. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 34 (2),
176–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1152731.
Perdicoúlis, A., Glasson, J., 2006. Causal networks in EIA. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
26 (6), 553–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.04.004.
Perdicoúlis, A., Hanusch, M., Kasperidus, H.D., Weiland, U., 2007. The handling of
causality in SEA guidance. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27 (2), 176–187. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.09.001.
du Pisani, J.A., Sandham, L.A., 2006. Assessing the performance of SIA in the EIA
context: a case study of South Africa. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26 (8), 707–724.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.07.002.
Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2022. Collaboration between academic and non-
academic actors in EIA: reflections from Western Australia. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 97, 106910 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106910.
Qazi, A., Angell, L.C., Daghfous, A., Al-Mhdawi, M.K.S., 2023. Network-based risk
assessment of country-level sustainable development goals. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 99, 107014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107014.
Reynolds, A., 2023. Conservation after the fact: the prevalence of post-approval
condition-setting in environmental impact assessment processes in Australia and its
implications for achieving ecologically sustainable development outcomes. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 99, 107032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107032.
Schirmer, J., Mylek, M., Peel, D., Sellers, H., Dare, L., 2021. Commmunity Resilience,
Wellbeing and Recover: Evaluating Current Knowledge of the Role of Community
Assets. Report Prepared for NSW Menttal Health Commission and NSW Council of
Social Service. University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites
/default/files/resource-files/2021-09/apo-nid319141.pdf.
Schmidt, M., João, E.M., Albrecht, E., 2005. Implementing Strategic Environmental
Assessment. Springer, Berlin.
Scovell, M., Walton, A., 2023. Identifying informed beliefs about hydrogen technologies
across the energy supply chain. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2023.04.242.
Serje, M., 2017. Social relations: a critical reflection on the notion of social impacts as
change. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 65, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2017.04.006.
Singh, G.G., Lerner, J., Mach, M., Murray, C.C., Ranieri, B., St-Laurent, G.P., Wong, J.,
Guimaraes, A., Yunda-Guarin, G., Satterfield, T., Chan, K.M.A., 2020. Scientific
shortcomings in environmental impact statements internationally. People Nat. 2 (2),
369–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10081.
Sirgy, M.J., Widgery, R.N., Lee, D.-J., Yu, G.B., 2010. Developing a measure of
community well-being based on perceptions of impact in various life domains. Soc.
Indic. Res. 96 (2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9479-9.
Y. Malakar et al.
Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F., 2001. Function evaluation as a framework for the integration
of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 19
(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767186.
Smyth, E., Vanclay, F., 2017. The social framework for projects: a conceptual but
practical model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of
projects. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 35 (1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2016.1271539.
Sperotto, A., Molina, J.-L., Torresan, S., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., 2017. Reviewing
Bayesian networks potentials for climate change impacts assessment and
management: a multi-risk perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 202, 320–331. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.044.
Suter, G.W., 1999. Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk
assessments. Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 5, 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10807039991289491.
Suzuki, E., Shinozaki, T., Yamamoto, E., 2020. Causal diagrams: pitfalls and tips.
J. Epidemiol. 30 (4), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20190192.
Vanclay, F., 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 22 (3),
183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-9255(01)00105-6.
Vanclay, F., 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess.
Project Apprais. 21 (1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766491.
Vanclay, F., 2017. Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment
risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 35 (1),
3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1278671.
12
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (2023) 107188
Vanclay, F., 2020. Reflections on social impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact
Assess. Project Apprais. 38 (2), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2019.1685807.
VanderWeele, T.J., Robins, J.M., 2007. Directed acyclic graphs, sufficient causes, and the
properties of conditioning on a common effect. Am. J. Epidemiol. 166 (9),
1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm179.
VanderWeele, T.J., Robins, J.M., 2010. Signed directed acyclic graphs for causal
inference. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B: Statist. Methodol. 72 (1), 111–127. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2009.00728.x.
VanderWeele, T.J., Hernán, M.A., Robins, J.M., 2008. Causal directed acyclic graphs and
the direction of unmeasured confounding Bias. Epidemiology 19 (5), 720–728.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0b013e3181810e29.
Voegeli, G., Hediger, W., Romerio, F., 2019. Sustainability assessment of hydropower:
using causal diagram to seize the importance of impact pathways. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 77, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.03.005.
Walton, A., McCrea, R., 2020. Community Wellbeing and Local Attitudes to Onshore
Conventional Gas Development in the Otway Basin: Interim Report. CSIRO,
Canberra, Australia. https://doi.org/10.25919/6k8r-n625.
Wood, C., 2013. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Taylor and
Francis.
Zhang, J., Kørnøv, L., Christensen, P., 2013. Critical factors for EIA implementation:
literature review and research options. J. Environ. Manag. 114, 148–157. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.030.