Do methods used in social impact assessment adequately capture impacts? An exploration of the research-practice gap using hydroelectricity in Canada

Reviewing Social impact assessment (SIA) documents is important to understand whether SIA methods and the range of issues covered have evolved as a response to legislation changes and best practices. A national study can help researchers to understand the practice of SIA under comparable regulatory requirements. This study used available hydroelectric SIA reports in Canada (n = 37) to investigate SIA methods, and what impacts they tend to anticipate. First, compared with the scholarly literature, the study found that time (as a proxy for evolution in knowledge and legislation change) was only weakly correlated with the quality of reports. Usually, the size of projects had a greater influence on the range of social impact topics addressed within the reports. Secondly, we demonstrate that methods used to construct the reports are often poorly described. In addition, our comparison with the literature shows that SIA professional practice has not kept pace with scholarly literature that recommends incorporating more engagement components. The existence of a few community-led assessments, participatory map-based approaches, and some efforts to engage with communities outside open houses were considered positive changes. Nonetheless, baseline assessments and anticipations of social impacts remain focused on the implications of population growth, physical infrastructure, and socioeconomics with minimal consideration for the livelihoods, culture, and wellbeing of host communities. The study also identified possible root causes for the lack of innovation and narrow economic scope. Finally, we provide practical recommendations to improve SIA methods used to anticipate social impacts.