Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
values in perspective. They can be used to take the 'heat' out of a situation,
providing an objective assessment. In the Burnett water resource planning
process, such an assessment put in perspective the future needs for urban
growth compared to agriculture (Hausler and Fenton 2000) In some cases,
they reveal the values of constituents of which their representatives were not
aware. Such studies should include primary data collection from the relevant
community and region in a methodologically sound manner. Community
input is appropriate to identify perceived gaps or raise doubts about the
findings of a governmental socio-economic assessment study.
Guidelines on how to do socio-economic assessments
One readily available guideline is that produced in New South Wales, Australia
for use by community advisory committees in developing their first round of
water sharing plans. An expert Independent Advisory Committee on Socio-
economic Analysis (IACSEA) produced
Socio-economic Assessment Guidelines for
River, Groundwater and Water Management Committees
(IACSEA 1998).
These guidelines differentiate between a 'profile' (usually done in the
situational analysis stage) and 'impacts'. They include both as part of a
10-step process. The guidelines clearly identify the outcomes of each step,
accompanied by a quality assurance standard. They also describe methods
and proformas that can be used to undertake the work. An important step
in the process is 'identifying all effects of water management options' from a
number of perspectives, including effects on:
O
both extractive and non-extractive uses of water
O
different population groups, e.g. low income, Aboriginal communities, aged
O
different industry sectors
O
different communities, e.g. geographical, occupational
O
other effects - over time, e.g. short vs. long term; locations e.g. local and
regional, upstream and downstream.
This step assists in understanding the nature of the effects of each option
and how they are distributed across the range of water uses. The next step
'assessing effects' identifies the extent, likelihood, intensity, timing and
duration of the effect. A preliminary assessment enables screening options
for further consideration and evaluation if necessary; some options may be
eliminated at this point. A more detailed assessment provides a clear and
transparent account of effects, including the most affected stakeholders and
their concerns.
Another step, 'identifying the preferred option' relies on ranking alternatives
based on criteria which reflect:
O
desired outcomes and objectives of the plan as well as agreed principles
O
social, economic, financial and environmental effects of each option
