The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conceptualising social impacts
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The conceptual framework based on environmental function evaluation of Slootweg et al. [Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 19 (2001) 19–28.] is used as the basis for conceptualising social impacts. Existing lists of social impact variables, such as those of the Interorganizational Committee for Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, are examined and found to be inadequate and contradictory. A new listing of some 80-odd indicative social impacts is developed reflecting a change from project-based thinking to inclusion of the impacts of policies and programs, from thinking only about negative impacts to including positive benefits, and from thinking about unintended consequences to including intended consequences. The importance of differentiating between social impacts and social change processes is highlighted. Many of the variables typically measured in social impact assessment (SIA) studies are not in themselves impacts, but rather represent the measurable outcomes of social change processes, which may or may not cause impacts depending on the situation. Caution is expressed in the use of the list of impacts as a checklist.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Environmental Impact Assessment
(2020) · Planning Enforcement · doi:10.5040/9781526506757.chapter-009 · Cited by 1,105
Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources, and Voice
King, E., & Mason, A. (2001) · World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks · doi:10.1596/0-1952-1596-6 · Cited by 781
Encyclopedia of global environmental change
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-2532 · Cited by 759
Conserving the world's biological diversity
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-3288 · Cited by 663
Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making
de Groot, D. (1992) · Cited by 596
(1998) · Practical Action Publishing eBooks · doi:10.3362/9781780440309 · Cited by 570
Global spin: the corporate assault on environmentalism
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4090 · Cited by 460
Handbook of environmental impact assessment
petts, J. (1999) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 440
Conserving the world's biological diversity
Shiva, V. (1991) · Futures · doi:10.1016/0016-3287(91)90089-k · Cited by 393
Lock, K. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1395 · Cited by 337
Cited by
Assessing the sustainability performances of industries
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. P. G. (2005) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007 · Cited by 1,051
A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies
Gebler, M., Schoot Uiterkamp, A. J. M., & Visser, C. (2014) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.033 · Cited by 950
Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.044 · Cited by 245
Human rights and impact assessment: clarifying the connections in practice
Kemp, D., & Vanclay, F. (2013) · Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal · doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.782978 · Cited by 195
Self-citationTreviño-Lozano, L. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13179605 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Vanclay, F.
- Venue
- Environmental Impact Assessment Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 183-211
- ISSN
- 0195-9255 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2012127071
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 40.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptualising social impacts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0195-9255(01)00105-6
- The paper
- Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-9255(01)00105-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.