Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sponge city (SPC) is currently being promoted as an initiative under the principle of sustainable development to solve the urban water crisis across China. Moreover, with the introduction of the public-private partnerships (PPPs) in SPC development, the public’s concern regarding SPC PPPs has increased in terms of their more sophisticated outcomes and greater social impacts than general urban development. Thus, to develop an effective set of SIA key indicators for SPC PPPs, this study uses social impact theory (SIT) to explore in greater detail the influencing mechanism for the social impact assessment (SIA) conceptual model proposed in the authors’ previous studies. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to examine whether the hypothesized relationships in the influencing mechanism fit the empirical data and to further consolidate the SIA key indicators. Based on a survey questionnaire and CFA results, a verified and refined SIA framework using 23 key indicators and five corresponding dimensions was proposed, particularly within the context of SPC PPPs. Implications generated from the CFA were discussed to improve the comprehensive performance of sponge city PPPs. These 23 key indicators and the clarification of their relationships to the respective SIA dimensions and to the overall SIA results can be a useful tool for enhancing the social benefits of SPC PPPs. Moreover, this study also provides governments with insights into enabling the low-impact and sustainable development of infrastructure within urban areas.

The need to specify the expected results and to provide activities with frequent feedback appears to be a central element for measuring the educational quality of the places where learning takes place; teaching practices, as social phenomena, entail the need to also extend to users-clients, training stakeholders, the possibility of expressing themselves on the quality of the outcomes produced within learning contexts. The proposed essay therefore highlights the role of social reporting, to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the organisational-educational performances achieved; at the same time, in order to structure an ever-increasing relationship between education and context, the tool of social impact assessment is highlighted, capable of analyzing the training needs expressed by actors involved in the training intervention project in educational environments.   La misura della qualità degli spazi educativi attraverso rendicontazione sociale e valutazione d’impatto sociale. La necessità di precisare i risultati attesi e di dotare le attività di frequenti feedback risulta essere elemento centrale per misurare la qualità educativa dei luoghi in cui avviene l’apprendimento; le pratiche didattiche, quali fenomeni sociali, comportano la necessità di estendere anche agli utenti-clienti, stakeholder formativi, la possibilità di esprimersi sulla qualità degli esiti prodotti all’interno dei contesti di apprendimento. Nel saggio proposto si evidenzia, quindi, il ruolo della rendicontazione sociale, per misurare e valutare l’efficacia delle performance organizzativo-didattiche realizzate; al contempo, al fine di strutturare una relazione sempre maggiore fra educazione e contesto, viene messo in luce lo strumento della valutazione d’impatto sociale, in grado di analizzare il fabbisogno formativo espresso da attori organici al progetto di intervento formativo negli ambienti educativi.

PurposeThe main goal of this paper is to present the feasibility of the quantitative method presented in the Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) handbook throughout a case study. The case study was developed to assess the social impacts of a tire throughout its entire life cycle. We carried out this case study in the context of the Roundtable for the Product Social Metrics project in which 13 companies develop two methodologies, a qualitative and a quantitative one, for assessing the social impact of product life cycle.MethodsThe quantitative methodology implemented for assessing the social impact of a Run On Flat tire mounted in a BMW 3 series consists of 26 indicators split in three groups. Each group represents a stakeholder group. Primary data of the quantitative indicators were collected along the product life cycle of the Run On Flat by involving the companies, which owned the main steps of the product life cycle. Throughout this case study, an ideal/worst-case scenario was defined for the distance-to-target approach to compare the social performances of more products when they are available.Results and discussionThe implementation of the PSIA quantitative method to a Run On Flat illustrated the necessity to have a referencing step in order to interpret the results. This is particularly important when the results are used to support decision-making process in which no experts are involved. It frequently happens in a big company where the management level has to take often decisions on different topics. Reference values were defined using ideal or worst-case-target scenarios (Fontes et al. 2014). For those topics where it was possible, an ideal/ethical scenario was defined, e.g., 0 h of child labor per product. In other cases, we defined a worst-case scenario, e.g., 0 training hours per product. It was then possible to interpret the results using a distance-to-target approach. A matrix was developed in the case study for identifying in which step of the product life cycle data is not available; that means we need more transparency in the supply chain.ConclusionsEach value of the matrix can be compared to the ideal/worst scenario to compare the step to each other and to identify along the product life cycle which step and the relative supplier that needs further measures to improve the product performance. Furthermore, a quantitative value for each indicator related to the product life cycle is calculated and compared with the ideal/worst scenario. The case study on Run On Flat represents the first implementation of the quantitative method of PSIA.

Concerns about the social consequences of conservation have spurred increased attention the monitoring and evaluation of the social impacts of conservation projects. This has resulted in a growing body of research that demonstrates how conservation can produce both positive and negative social economic, cultural health, and governance consequences for local communities. Yet, the results of social monitoring efforts are seldom applied to adaptively manage conservation projects. Greater attention is needed to incorporating the results of social impact assessments in long-term conservation management to minimize negative social consequences and maximize social benefits. We bring together insights from social impact assessment, adaptive management, social learning, knowledge coproduction, cross-scale governance, and environmental planning to propose a definition and framework for adaptive social impact management (ASIM). We define ASIM as the cyclical process of monitoring and adaptively managing social impacts over the life-span of an initiative through the 4 stages of profiling, learning, planning, and implementing. We outline 14 steps associated with the 4 stages of the ASIM cycle and provide guidance and potential methods for social-indicator development, predictive assessments of social impacts, monitoring and evaluation, communication of results, and identification and prioritization of management responses. Successful ASIM will be aided by engaging with best practices - including local engagement and collaboration in the process, transparent communication of results to stakeholders, collective deliberation on and choice of interventions, documentation of shared learning at the site level, and the scaling up of insights to inform higher-level conservation policiesto increase accountability, trust, and perceived legitimacy among stakeholders. The ASIM process is broadly applicable to conservation, environmental management, and development initiatives at various scales and in different contexts. Las preocupaciones sobre las consecuencias sociales de la conservación han generado un incremento en la atención puesta al monitoreo y a la evaluación de los impactos sociales de los proyectos de conservación. Esto ha resultado en un creciente cuerpo de investigación que demuestra cómo la conservación puede producir consecuencias sociales, económicas, culturales, de salud y gobernanza tanto positivas como negativas para las comunidades locales. A pesar de esto, los resultados de los esfuerzos de monitoreo social rara vez se aplican para manejar adaptativamente los proyectos de conservación. Se necesita de mayor atención para incorporar los resultados de las valoraciones del impacto social en el manejo de la conservación a largo plazo para minimizar las consecuencias sociales negativas y maximizar los beneficios sociales. Juntamos el conocimiento de la valoración del impacto social, el manejo adaptativo, el aprendizaje social, la coproducción del conocimiento, la gobernanza a través de escalas, y laplaneación ambiental para proponer una definición y un marco de trabajo para el manejo adaptativo del impacto social (ASIM). Definimos el ASIM como el proceso cíclico de monitoreo y manejo adaptativo de los impactos sociales a lo largo de la vida de una iniciativa a través de cuatro etapas de evaluación por perfil, aprendizaje, planeación e implementación. Resumimos 14 pasos asociados con las cuatro etapas del ciclo del ASIM y proporcionamos una guía y métodos potenciales para el desarrollo del indicador social, la valoración predictiva de los impactos sociales, el monitoreo y la evaluación, la comunicación de los resultados, y la identificación y priorización de las respuestas del manejo. Los ASIM exitosos serán apoyados al trabajar con las mejores prácticas - incluyendo al compromiso local y la colaboración en el proceso, la comunicación transparente de los resultados a los accionistas, la deliberación colectiva y la elección de intervenciones, la documentación del aprendizaje compartido a nivel de sitio, y el incremento de conocimiento para informar las políticas de conservación de niveles más altos para incrementar la responsabilidad, confianza y la legitimidad percibida entre los accionistas. El proceso del ASIM es aplicable en general a la conservación, el manejo ambiental y a las iniciativas de desarrollo a varias escalas y en diferentes contextos.

1. Invasive species management aims to prevent or mitigate the impacts of introduced species but management interventions can themselves generate social impacts that must be understood and addressed. 2. Established approaches for addressing the social implications of invasive species management can be limited in effectiveness and democratic legitimacy. More deliberative, participatory approaches are emerging that allow integration of a broader range of socio-political considerations. Nevertheless, there is a need to ensure that these are rigorous applications of social science. 3. Social impact assessment offers a structured process of identifying, evaluating and addressing social costs and benefits. We highlight its potential value for enabling meaningful public participation in planning and as a key component of integrated assessments of management options. 4. Policy implications. As invasive species management grows in scope and scale, social impact assessment provides a rigorous process for recognising and responding to social concerns. It could therefore produce more democratic, less conflict-prone and more effective interventions.

PurposeThe Social Life Cycle Assessment guidelines (UNEP-SETAC 2009) distinguish two different SLCA approaches, type I and type II. Few comprehensive and analytical reviews have been undertaken to examine the multiplicity of approaches that have been developed within type I SLCA. This paper takes on the task of exploring the evaluation methods used in type I SLCA methods.MethodsIn order to tackle this work, a critical literature review was undertaken, covering a total of 32 reviewed articles, ranging from 2006 to 2015. Those articles have been selected for they make explicit reference to type I, performance reference points (PRPs), corporate behavior assessment, and social performance assessment or if their assessment methods generated a result located at the same point as the inventory data, with regards to the impact pathway. The selected articles were analyzed with a focus on the inventory data used, the aggregation of inventory data on the functional unit, and the type of characterization and weighting methods used. This analysis allowed to make explicit the often implicit logic underlying the evaluation methods and to identify the common denominators of type I SLCA.Results and discussionThe analysis highlighted the multiplicity of approaches that are comprised within type I SLCA today, both in terms of the data collected (in particular, its positioning along the impact pathway); the presence of some optional steps, such as the scaling of inventory data on the functional unit (FU); and in terms of the different characterization and weighting steps. With regards to data collection, this review has highlighted that the furthest indicators are positioned along the impact pathway, the hardest it is to justify the link between them and the activities of companies in the product system. The analysis also suggested that an important differentiating factor among type I SLCA methods lies in “what the inventory data is assessed against” at the characterization step and how it is ultimately weighted. To illustrate this, a typology of six characterization methods and five types of weighting methods was presented.ConclusionsIt is interesting to identify which approaches are most appropriate to respond to the various questions that SLCA aims to respond to. A question that arises is what approaches are most likely to tell us anything about the impact of a product system on social well-being? This question is particularly relevant in the absence of well-documented impact pathways between activities within product systems and impact on social well-being.