Logo PTI Logo FedCSIS

Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS)

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 39

A framework for enabling ex-ante social impact assessment of project-based technological solutions: the case of Remote Infrastructure Inspection

, , , , , ,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2024F7655

Citation: Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS), M. Bolanowski, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki, D. Ślęzak (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 39, pages 513–524 ()

Full text

Abstract. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the systematic examination and management of both the intended and unintended social consequences, encompassing positive and negative outcomes, resulting from designed interventions (such as policies, plans, or projects) and any social changes instigated by these interventions. In this paper, we present a strategy to define and validate social impact indicators incorporating participatory approaches into the general impact assessment framework. The paper reports on the first results of an ongoing SIA developed for the evaluation of the impact produced by a Remote Infrastructure Inspection (RII) toolset developed to increase the resilience of critical infrastructures within the framework of the SUNRISE Horizon Europe project. Several stages of the indicators' selection procedure were proposed to ensure the validity of the selection. Our approach is then applied to identify social impact subcategories within the RII Toolset, aimed to introduce less effort-consuming ways of inspecting typically large infrastructures.

References

  1. F. Vanclay, “International Principles for Social Impact Assessment”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5-12, 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766491
  2. F. Vanclay, A.M. Esteves, I. Aucamp, and D. Franks, “Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects”, 2015.
  3. M. Di Domenico, H. Haugh, and P. Tracey, “Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises”, Entrepreneurship theory and practice, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 681-703, 2010.
  4. A. Fonseca, Ed. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022
  5. S. Kah and T. Akenroye, “Evaluation of social impact measurement tools and techniques: a systematic review of the literature”, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 381-402, 2020.
  6. D. Haski-Leventhal and A. Mehra, “Impact measurement in social enterprises: Australia and India”, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 78-103, 2016.
  7. O. Laedre, T. Haavaldsen, R.A. Bohne, J. Kallaos, and J. Lohne, “Determining sustainability impact assessment indicators”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 98-107, 2015.
  8. S.P. de Jong and R. Muhonen, “Who benefits from ex ante societal impact evaluation in the Euro-pean funding arena? A cross-country comparison of societal impact capacity in the social sciences and humanities”, Research Evaluation, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 22-33, 2020.
  9. C. Pursiainen and E. Kytömaa, “From European critical infrastructure protection to the resilience of European critical entities: what does it mean?”, Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 8(sup1), pp. 85-101, 2023.
  10. D. Haarsma and P.Y. Georgiadou, “Geo-ethics Requires Prudence with Private Data: GIM International interviews Professor Yola Georgiadou”, GIM Int., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 16–19, 2017.
  11. K.B. Culver, “From Battlefield to Newsroom: Ethical Implications of Drone Technology in Journalism”, Mass Media Ethics, 29, pp. 52–64, 2014.
  12. C.M. Gevaert, R. Sliuzas, C. Persello, and G. Vosselman, G., “Evaluating the societal impact of using drones to support urban upgrading projects”, ISPRS international journal of geo-information, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 91, 2018.
  13. R.L. Finn and D. Wright, D., “Privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone practice: A survey of industry, regulators and civil society organisations”, Comput. Law Secur. Rev., 32, pp. 577–586, 2016.
  14. C. Gagnon, P. Hirsch, and R. Howitt, “Can SIA empower communities?”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13(4), 1993, pp. 229–253.
  15. R. Howitt, “Theoretical foundations”. In New Directions in Social Impact Assessment, F. Vanclay and A.M. Esteves (Eds). Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011, pp. 78–95.
  16. A.J. Imperiale and F. Vanclay, “Using social impact assessment to strengthen community resilience in sustainable rural development in mountain areas”, Mountain Research & Development, vol. 36, no. 4, 2016, pp. 431–442.
  17. L.K. Mottee and R. Howitt, “Follow-up and social impact assessment (SIA) in urban transport-infrastructure projects: insights from the parramatta rail link”, Australian planner, 55(1), pp. 46-56, 2018.
  18. A.J. Imperiale and F. Vanclay, “From project-based to community-based social impact assessment: New social impact assessment pathways to build community resilience and enhance disaster risk reduction and climate action”, Current Sociology, 2023, 00113921231203168.
  19. R. Turner and R. Müller, “On the nature of project as a temporary organization”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2003.
  20. J.G. Turnley, “Social, cultural, economic impact assessments: A literature review. Prepared for The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response”, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
  21. H. Bakker, R. Arkesteijn, M. Bosch-Rekveldt, and H. Mooi, “Project success from the perspective of owners and contractors in the process industry”, in The 24th IPMA World Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 1-3 November 2010, pp. 1-6.
  22. E. Costa and C. Pesci, “Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter?”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 99-124, 2016.
  23. A. Passani, F. Monacciani, S. Van Der Graaf, F. Spagnoli, F. Bellini, M. Debicki, and P. Dini, “SEQUOIA: A methodology for the socio-economic impact assessment of Software-as-a-Service and Internet of Services research projects”, Research evaluation, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 133-149, 2014.
  24. A. Pastra, T.M. Johansson, V. Alexandropoulou, N.L. Trivyza, and K. Kontaxaki, “Addressing the hazards of remote inspection techniques: a safety-net for vessel surveys”, Law, Innovation and Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 43-76, 2024.
  25. C. Sandbrook, “The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation”, Ambio, 44(Suppl 4), pp. 636-647, nov 2015.
  26. G.P. Jones, L.G. Pearlstine and H.F. Percival, “An assessment of small unmanned aerial vehicles for wildlife research”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34, pp. 750–758, 2006.
  27. H.-T. Lee, L.A. Meyn, and S. Kim, “Probabilistic safety assessment of unmanned aerial system operations”, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 36, pp. 610–617, 2013.
  28. S. Kreps and J. Kaag, “The use of unmanned aerial vehicles in contemporary conflict: A legal and ethical analysis”, Polity, 44, pp. 260–285, 2012.
  29. J.D. Lewis and T. Nkuintchua, “Accessible technologies and FPIC: Independent monitoring with forest communities in Cameroon”, Participatory Learning and Action, 65, pp. 151–165, 2012.
  30. M. Yaqot and B. Menezes, “The good, the bad, and the ugly: review on the social impacts of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)”, in International Conference of Reliable Information and Communication Technology, Cham: Springer International Publishing, dec 2021, pp. 413-422.
  31. L.L. Dhirani, N. Mukhtiar, B. S. Chowdhry, and T. Newe. “Ethical dilemmas and privacy issues in emerging technologies: A review”, Sensors, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 1151, 2023.
  32. V.A. Cloquell-Ballester, V.A. Cloquell-Ballester, R. Monterde-Diaz, and M.C. Santamarina-Siurana, “Indicators validation for the improvement of environmental and social impact quantitative assessment”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 79-105, 2006.
  33. S. Schuck-Zöller, J. Cortekar, and D. Jacob, “Evaluating co-creation of knowledge: from quality criteria and indicators to methods”, Advances in Science and Research, 14, pp. 305-312, 2017.
  34. E. Brüggen and P. Willems, “A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi”, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1-15, 2009.
  35. M. Rainock, D. Everett, A. Pack, E.C. Dahlin, and C.A. Mattson, “The social impacts of products: a review”, Impact assessment and project appraisal, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 230-241, 2018.
  36. M. Skare and M. Porada-Rochoń, “Technology and social equality in the United States”, Technological forecasting and social change, 183, 121947, 2022.
  37. T.C. Lindsey, “Sustainable principles: common values for achieving sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 561–565, 2011.
  38. A. Elmualim, R. Valle, and W. Kwawu, “Discerning policy and drivers for sustainable facilities management practice”, International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 1(1), 16-25, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2012.03.001
  39. U.J. Adama, A study of the impact of technological innovations on the social sustainability of facilities management employees in South Africa, 2019.
  40. S. Amine and P.L. Dos Santos, P.L., “Technological choices and unemployment benefits in a matching model with heterogenous workers”, Journal of Economics, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 1-19, 2010.
  41. G.L. Violante, “Skill-biased technical change”, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, S.N. Darlauf and L.E. Blume (eds), Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2008.
  42. G.L. Rafnsdottir and M.L. Gudmundsdottir, “New technology and its impact on well being”, Work, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 31-39, 2004.
  43. M.J. Carley and E. Bustelo, Social impact assessment and monitoring: a guide to the literature. Routledge, 2019.
  44. W.F. Cascio and R. Montealegre, “How technology is changing work and organizations”, Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, vol. 3, pp. 349-375, 2016.
  45. S.O. Hansson, “Theories and methods for the ethics of technology”, The ethics of technology: Methods and approaches, pp. 1-14, mar 2017.
  46. S. Chuang and C.M. Graham, “Embracing the sobering reality of technological influences on jobs, employment and human resource development: a systematic literature review”, European Journal of Training and Development, vol. 42, no. 7/8, pp. 400-416, 2018.
  47. J.D. Lee, “Review of a pivotal human factors article: ‘humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse’”, Human Factors, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 404-410, 2008.
  48. C. Panari, G. Lorenzi, and M.G. Mariani, “The predictive factors of new technology adoption, workers’ well-being and absenteeism: the case of a public maritime company in Venice”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 23, 12358, 2021.
  49. K.A. Pollard, B.T. Files, A.H. Oiknine, and B. Dalangin, “How to prepare for rapidly evolving technology: Focus on adaptability”, in Technical Report ARL-TR-9432, US Combat Capabilities Development Command, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground United States, 2022.