Clase de Social Impact Assessment

CALIDAD, CONTAMINACIN Y CONFLICTOS AMBIENTALES
Social impact assessment and Environmental conflict analysis

(SIA and ECA)
Evaluacin del impacto social y Anlisis de Conflictos Ambientales
Shannon entropy
Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

1.2. Conceptual framework
a. Environmental impact assessment (EIA)

should be conducted on the environmental
factors (Romero, 2012):
Climate.
Geology and geomorphology. Source: cipamericas.org,
2014
Surface and groundwater hydrology.
Edaphology.
Atmosphere.
Biotic environment.
Landscape.
Social, economic and cultural
environment.
In this thesis, the social environmental is Source: americasquarterly.org,

2013
studied and integrated with ECA.

b. Social impact assessment (SIA) has been mainly conducted by qualitative

approaches. In addition, SIA is a topic very subjective and inconstant.
Source: eldiario.es, 2015
c. Environmental conflicts are characterized by the interaction between (1) ecological

and (2) social complexity (Wittmer et al., 2006), which are increasing worldwide, as
shown in Fig. 1.1

Source: retrieved from environmental justice, 2015

Figure 1.1: Map of environmental conflicts.

1.3. Legal framework
a. Peruvian law
N 27446 Ley del Sistema Nacional de EIA
(MINAM, 2011) establishes EIA must include SIA and
consider measures to social management.
b. European law Source: blijem.com, 2016
Directive N 2011/92/UE establishes that the EIA

must identify, describe and asses the direct and
indirect effects on humans (Parlamento europeo,
2011).
N 21/2013 Ley de evaluacin ambiental

establishes that must considers economic, social
and envi-ronmental aspects (Jefatura del estado,
2013).
N 6/2014 Ley de Prevencin, Calidad y Control

Source: ismedioambiente.com, 2016
Ambiental: harmonize economic development,
social, and environmental (Comunitat Valenciana,
2014).

1.4. State of the art

Delphi, AHP, FAHP, GC for SIA, and EW for
ECA.
a. The Delphi method
It was proposed by Kaplan in 1949 and

consists of an expert team asking on future
events in successive anonymous rounds
(Astigarraga, 2005).
- Ecological economy (Solio Milln, 2004),

- Human nutrition (Mittnacht & Bulik, 2014),
- Learning (Davis, et al., 2014).
Delphi could summarize as following: Source: unavidaenlosaromos.org,

2016
- It uses basic statistics.

- It avoids conflict between experts.
- It does not consider uncertainty.

b. The AHP method
It was proposed by Saaty (1980), and It

was designed to select the best
alternative in function to a criteria.
- Subsidy selection (Sadeghi and Ameli,

2012),
- Priorities for recycling (Kim et al., 2013),
- Emergency treatment (Shenggang et al.,
2014).
A summary of AHP is presented below:
- It attributes weights to criteria. Source: bpmsg.com, 2015
- Its procedure is relatively easy.

- It does not consider uncertainly.

c. The FAHP method
It adds the theory of fuzzy logic

proposed by Zadeh (1965), based on
an infinite number of responses for a
proposition.
- Academic staff (Rouyendegh and Erkan,

2012),
- Learning applications (Volaric et al.,
2013),
- Software quality (Liu and Pang, 2010).
Source: answermath.com, 2014
A summary of FAHP is presented

below:
- It attributes weights to criteria.

- It considers the uncertainty.
- Clear intention and unclear
extension.

d. The grey clustering method (GC)
Grey systems established by Deng

(1985), and applied to problems with
limited information and small samples: Source: varis.com, 2015
- Evaluation of web sites (Bindu et al., 2010),

- Water management (Zhang et al., 2013),
- Safety management (Li et al., 2015).
Center-point triangular whitenization

weight functions (CTWF), as
respondents tend to be more certain (Liu
and Lin, 2010).
- It attributes weights to criteria.

- It considers the uncertainty.
- Unclear intention and clear Source: springer.com, 2014
extension.

e. The entropy-weight method (EW)
It is based on Shannon entropy (1947). It

is applied to measure the contrast
between criteria, which is important for Source: sites.com, 2015
decision-making (Zeleny, 1996).
- Neurophysiology (Cao and Slobounov, 2011),

- Transport systems (Chen et al., 2014),
- Fault detection (Bafroui et al., 2014).
It considers the uncertainty and allows

identifying the conflictive criteria
between the stakeholder groups.
Source: springer.com, 2014

2. Methodological
proposal
2.1. SIA using the GC

method
2.2. ECA using the EW

method
2.3. Integrating SIA and Entropy-weight

ECA using the GC and
EW methods

Poly-metallic mine in northern Peru, in the

department of Cajamarca (Fig. 3.1).
3. Case study in Peru
3.1. Stakeholder groups
3.2. Calculations with the

IGCEW method
3.3. Results and

Discussion
Figure 3.1: Cajamarca, Peru.

The planned duration includes 2 years of construction and 17 years in operation. The
operation consists of the removal of topsoil and rocks, with very intense use of
water. The mining company conducted an EIA in 2010 (Knight Pisold, 2010).

3.1. Stakeholder groups
G1: Urban population
This Ingroup
orderwas
to composed
test the IGCEW
of citizens from the urban areas near the exploitation site
(see method,
Fig. 15).weThey
performed an ECA
expressed of
a generally favourable opinion towards the mining project.
the expansion plans of a poly-
This group was made up of 115 interviewees.
metallic mine in northern Peru, in
the department of Cajamarca
(Figure 4.3). Our study measured
the social impact of this project on
the zone of influence and, based
on the results, determined the
criteria likely to generate
environmental conflicts between
the identified stakeholder groups.
Figure 3.2: Urban population (G1)

G2: Rural population
This group was composed of citizens from the rural areas near the exploitation site,
consisting of people related to agriculture and livestock (see Fig. 16). The group of rural
In order
population had toa generally
test the adverse
IGCEW opinion of the mining project and was made up of 105
method, we performed an ECA of
interviewees.
Figure 3.3: Rural population (G2)

G3: Specialists
This group was composed of professionals from different fields who were familiar with the
area of influence and the environmental and social impacts of the mining project, who
manifested a generally
In order neutral
to test the IGCEWassessment (see Fig. 17). This group was made up of 35
method, we performed an ECA of
interviewees.
Figure 3.4: Specialists (G3)

SIA using
Center-point Triangular Whitenization weight Functions (CTWF)

3.2. Calculations with CTWF method
Step 1: Criteria and grey classes
A set of n criteria: Cj (j=1, 2,, n), and a set of s grey classes: Vk (k=1, 2,, s) are
established.
The criteria were established by taking into account the economic and social situation
of the area of influence, and consultations with experts. Seven criteria (n=7) were
identified, see Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: ECA criteria identified in the case study.
Criterion Code Description
The GDP per capita as soles per month (annual average) in the
GDP per capita C1
department of Cajamarca.
Employment rate C2 The employment rate per year in the department of Cajamarca.
Poverty rate C3 The poverty rate per year in the region.

The number of inhabitants per doctor (GP) per year in the
Number of inhabitants per doctor (GP) C4
department of Cajamarca.
Enrolment rate in primary education C5 The enrolment rate per year in primary education in the region.
The number of reported crimes per year in the department of
Number of reported crimes C6
Cajamarca.
The access to drinking water rate per year in the department of
Access to drinking water rate C7
Cajamarca.

Five grey classes (See Table 3.2) were established on the basis of historical information in
2009-2013 (INEI, 2014), in order to satisfy the need to reflect the social impact of the specific
region as accurately as possible (Liu and Lin, 2010). It was decided that the criteria had the
same weight (j = 0.143), as they were all social criteria (Corbetta, 2007).
Table 3.2: Grey classes for each criterion determined in the case study.
Grey classes
Code
Very Negative Negative Normal Positive Very Positive
C1 0X2 2X4 4X6 6X8 8 X 10
C2 0X2 2X4 4X6 6X8 8 X 10
C3 8 X 10 6X8 4X6 2X4 0X2
C4 8 X 10 6X8 4X6 2X4 0X2
C5 0X2 2X4 4X6 6X8 8 X 10
C6 8 X 10 6X8 4X6 2X4 0X2
C7 0X2 2X4 4X6 6X8 8 X 10

Table 3.3: Center-points of the extended grey classes in the

case study.
Center-points of the extended grey classes
Criteria Very
Extra Negative Very Negative Negative Normal Positive Extra Positive
Positive
impact ( 0) impact (1) impact(2) impact (3) impact(4) impact (6)
impact (5)
Step 2: CTWF and the comprehen- C1 0 1 3 5 7 9 10

sive clustering coefficient C2 0 1 3 5 7 9 10
C3 10 9 7 5 3 1 0
The CTWF values are obtained using C4 10 9 7 5 3 1 0
Eq. (3.1), and the comprehensive C5 0 1 3 5 7 9 10
clustering coefficients are C6 10 9 7 5 3 1 0
calculated using Eq. (3.7). C7 0 1 3 5 7 9 10
Very Negative Negative Normal Positive Very Positive

The grey classes were extended in impact impact impact impact impact
= 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
two directions by adding classes
1
extra negative and extra positive,
with center-points 0 and 6, see
Table 3.3 and Fig. 3.5.

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 3.5: CTWF in the case study.

0, 0,3
0
1
1 = , 0 ,1 (3.2)
1
3
, 1 ,3
2
To illustrate, for criterion C1 (j=1), we have
the center-points: 0=572, 1=651, 2=729, 0, [1 , 5]
3=808, 4=886, 5=965, 6=1044. The 1
, [1 , 3]
12 = 2 (3.3)
values were substituted into Eq. (3.1), and 5
the CTWF were then obtained. See Eqs. , [3 , 5]
2
(3.2)-(3.6):
0, [3 , 7]
3
13 = , [3 , 5] (3.4)
2
7
, [5 , 7]
0 , 1 , +1 2
1
, 1 , 0, [5 , 9]
= 1 (3.1) 5
+1 14 = , [5 , 7] (3.5)
, [ , +1 ] 2
+1 9
, [7, 9]
2
0, [7 , 10]
7
, [7 , 9]
15 = 2 (3.6)
10
, [9 , 10]
1

Table 3.4: Questions used in the questionnaire.

Grey classes
Question Very
Negative Normal Positive
Very
Negative Positive
The data was collated by What effect would the project have on the
1 economic income per person?
Decrease
noticeably
Decrease No effect Increase
Increase
noticeably
means of direct interviews What effect would the project have on the Decrease
Increase
2 employment rate? noticeably noticeably
using a structured
What effect would the project have on the Increase
Increase No effect Decrease
Decrease
questionnaire. See Table 3.4. 3 poverty rate? noticeably noticeably
What effect would the project have on the Increase

Decrease
4 number of inhabitants per doctor (GP)? noticeably noticeably
Table 3.5 shows the results of What effect would the project have on the
5 enrolment rate in primary education?
Decrease
noticeably
Increase
noticeably
stakeholder groups. Data were What effect would the project have on the Increase
Decrease
6 number of reported crimes? noticeably noticeably
aggregated using arithmetic
What effect would the project have on the Decrease
Increase
means (Aznar and Guijarro, 2012). 7 access to drinking water? noticeably noticeably
Table 3.5: Aggregated values for each criterion for groups G 1, G2 and G3.
Group C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
G1 8.09 8.31 1.63 3.34 6.54 3.69 8.43
G2 1.97 2.60 8.03 6.26 3.80 6.20 1.57
G3 7.40 7.40 3.40 3.40 5.00 5.40 4.20

G1 CTWF values were calculated using

Eqs. (3.2)-(3.6), and comprehensive
Table 3.6: Values of CTWF and for group G1.
clustering coefficients ( ) using Eq.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
(3.7). See Table 3.6. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.23 0.34 0.00 0.11
= . (3.7) 0.46 0.34 0.31 0.83 0.77 0.66 0.29 0.52
=1 0.54 0.66 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.37
Step 3: Percentage system

SIA finishes with a percentage system
Table 3.7: The percentage system.
defined by the values: 1, 2, 3,, s, Social impact class Interval k
where s=100, 1=100/s, 2=1+1, Very negative [20, 30] 20
3=1+2, ,and s-1=1+s-2. Negative [30, 50] 40
Normal [50, 70] 60
Positive [70, 90] 80
For (s=5): 5=100, 1=100/5=20, Very positive [90, 100] 100
2=1+1=40, 3=1+2=60 and
4=1+3=80 (see Table 3.7).

SIA values of G1 were Table 3.8: Social impact assessment for group G1.
calculated using Eq. (3.8). Impact

class k C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 Total
See Table 3.8. Very
negative 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Negative 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
= . (3.8) Normal 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.29 13.71 20.57 0.00 6.37
=1 Positive 80 36.57 27.43 25.14 66.29 61.71 52.57 22.86 41.80
Very
positive 100 54.29 65.71 68.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.43 37.14
SIA values of G2 and G3
90.86 93.14 93.71 76.57 75.43 73.14 94.29 85.31
were obtained using the Very Very Very Very
Positive Positive Positive Positive
same procedure as G1. See positive positive positive positive
Table 3.9.
Table 3.9: Social impact assessment for groups G 1, G2 and G3.

Group C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 Total Impact class
G1 90.86 93.14 93.71 76.57 75.43 73.14 94.29 85.31 Positive
G2 29.71 36.00 29.71 47.43 48.00 48.00 25.71 37.80 Negative
G3 84.00 84.00 76.00 76.00 60.00 56.00 52.00 69.71 Normal

100
85.31
Social impact assessment

80 69.71
60
3.3. Results and Discussion 40

37.80
20 Positive Negative Normal

impact impact impact
First, the CTWF method helped to
0
identify major tensions among the G1 G2 G3
stakeholder groups. Fig. 3.6 shows a Figure 3.6: Total social impact assessment of G1, G2 and G3.
potential conflicts between G1 and

G2 groups.
94.29 25.71
C7 C7
73.14 48.00
C6 C6
The second finding is that the C5
75.43
C5
48.00
behaviour of the criteria is 76.57 C4

47.43
C4
considerably different. Fig. 3.7 93.71 29.71
C3 C3
shows the results of SIA for each 93.14 36.00
C2 C2
criterion. These results suggests a
90.86 29.71
detailed comparison. C1 C1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Social impact assessment (G1) Social impact assessment (G2)
Figure 3.7: Social impact assessment for each criterion for groups G1 and G2.

Clase de Social Impact Assessment

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Clase de Social Impact Assessment

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CALIDAD, CONTAMINACIN Y CONFLICTOS AMBIENTALES

Social impact assessment and Environmental conflict analysis

Evaluacin del impacto social y Anlisis de Conflictos Ambientales

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

1.2. Conceptual framework

a. Environmental impact assessment (EIA)

In this thesis, the social environmental is Source: americasquarterly.org,

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

b. Social impact assessment (SIA) has been mainly conducted by qualitative

Source: eldiario.es, 2015

c. Environmental conflicts are characterized by the interaction between (1) ecological

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

Source: retrieved from environmental justice, 2015

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

1.3. Legal framework

b. European law Source: blijem.com, 2016

Directive N 2011/92/UE establishes that the EIA

N 21/2013 Ley de evaluacin ambiental

N 6/2014 Ley de Prevencin, Calidad y Control

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

1.4. State of the art

a. The Delphi method

It was proposed by Kaplan in 1949 and

- Ecological economy (Solio Milln, 2004),

Delphi could summarize as following: Source: unavidaenlosaromos.org,

- It uses basic statistics.

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

b. The AHP method

It was proposed by Saaty (1980), and It

- Subsidy selection (Sadeghi and Ameli,

A summary of AHP is presented below:

- It attributes weights to criteria. Source: bpmsg.com, 2015

- Its procedure is relatively easy.

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

c. The FAHP method

It adds the theory of fuzzy logic

- Academic staff (Rouyendegh and Erkan,

A summary of FAHP is presented

- It attributes weights to criteria.

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

d. The grey clustering method (GC)

Grey systems established by Deng

- Evaluation of web sites (Bindu et al., 2010),

Center-point triangular whitenization

- It attributes weights to criteria.

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

e. The entropy-weight method (EW)

It is based on Shannon entropy (1947). It

decision-making (Zeleny, 1996).

- Neurophysiology (Cao and Slobounov, 2011),

It considers the uncertainty and allows

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

2.1. SIA using the GC

2.2. ECA using the EW

2.3. Integrating SIA and Entropy-weight

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

Poly-metallic mine in northern Peru, in the

3. Case study in Peru

3.1. Stakeholder groups

3.2. Calculations with the

3.3. Results and

Figure 3.1: Cajamarca, Peru.

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com

Kiko Alexi Delgado, PhD. alexidelgado@hotmail.com