Social impact assessment is based on the notion that there are no universal truths or causalities acco rding to which we can form a go o d living environment. Nevertheless, the research study had the hypothesis that it is possible to find some "basic rules" according to which it could be possible for social work to gain a wider outlook of social aspects. However, because
PREVEN TIVE S O C IAL P OLI C Y A ctor
Eco- so cial approach in Social Work
SIA:
The" ope rationalization"
of the s o cial asp e ct A new m ecanism o fthe civil s o cie
A new practice o f planni ng A tool for the structural
o cial w ork
I s de
Interdep en dence
" The pro j ect of mod errri sati on11 : techni ea! and ec ono mi ea! rati onality
- -y--..
h \
e w a
y
0 f
i
v i
\ 11 /
--- --- -- - -'"'"
S O C IALLY AND E C OL OG ICALLY SUS TA INAB LE LIV IN G ENV IR ONMENT
Figure 1. SIA as a part of the eco-social approach in social worh.
of the wide range of social impacts , the assessments and conclusions should be conducted and reached from a local perspective and respecting the particularities of the evaluated region , plan and/or proj ect.
One task in the initial phase of the proj ect was to develop a "checklist" or criteria indicating an eco-socially sustainable living environment as under
stood from the point of view of social workers . A wide variety of checklists and lists of impacts have been created in and around SIA (see e.g. Finsterbuch et. al. 1 9 83 ; Sairinen 1 9 9 2 ; juslen 1 995). Yet, with this particular criteria social workers aimed at pinpointing the main features that should be taken into account as minimum requirements in sustainable planning. The outline
of these criteria was constructed in a training course that involved about 25 social workers , ten social work students and eight city planners . During the spring of 1 995 the group discussed and defined the SIA criteria framework as the model for the city of Jyvaskyla (see appendix 1 ) .
Both the social workers and city planners primarily emphasised values such as a sense of community, equality and pluralism. In addition, the com
fort and security of one's living environment , and nature as a value in itself were considered important. From these j ointly shared values they proceeded to a more concrete level and eventually reached a conclusion about the main quality factors , which consisted of three aspects (Narhi 1 995) :
1 . The social and ecological diversity of the environment (including criteria like the diversity of the population structure and diversity of the community structure) .
2 . Coping in ones everyday life and access to activities (including criteria like the possibility to form a sense of community and social networks, the availability of services, and the minimisation of physical and social risks in the living environment) .
3 . The quality and state of the environment in a broad sense (including criteria connected to the physical, psycho-social and cultural living environment) . These quality factor criteria can be further divided into qualitative and quan
titative "indicators'' . To promote an eco-socially sustainable living environ
ment it is necessary to examine how the concrete indicators suggest the pos
sible conditions of sustainability. "The social and ecological diversity of the environment" is divided into two separate categories. The first includes the demographic elements of the population structure , such as the quantity, age structure and socio-economic status of the population and the course of one's life . The second deals with the diversity of the community structure , which can be measured by analysing the both the diversity of different types of housing and employment opportunities in the area and public spaces re
lated to leisure time and activities .
"Coping in one's everyday life and access to activities" is divided into three broader elements. One is the sense of community; social networks can be either within families , residentially based or networks and connections to other communities outside the residential area in question. The sense of community is measured qualitatively through experiences . In other words, residents' experiences of comfort , permanence and opportunities to influ
ence local issues are assessed. Quantitative information is gathered, for ex
ample , by collecting information about residential activities and the number of participants in these activities.
"Coping in one's everyday life and access to activities" can also be charac
terised as the availability of services and the minimisation of safety risks in the residential area. Experiences about safety can be related to both the social and physical environment . Experiences related to the physical environment are , for example, the physical structures in the area, noise and pollution.
Information about the accumulation of social problems for example can be deduced from the statistics of social services and through social workers' contacts with their service users .
The third element in the criteria list is "the quality and state of the envi
ronment in a broad sense". The physical environment is analysed by divid
ing it into the categories of the built and natural environment. In addition, the phycho-social environment, which refers to the distinguishing features of the area and the sense of identity of the local people , is taken into account.
The cultural environment is linked to the history of the residential area. (Narhi 1 9 9 5 . )
The Jyvaskyla framework i s based o n the reference points of social work
ers that it emphasises the diversity of the living environment in a broad sense as a means of supporting one's ability to cope in one's everyday life. The criteria are based on the everyday knowledge and experiences of social work
ers , and one of the essential aspects of the framework is that both "obj ective"
measurements and "subj ective" experiences are considered important. The model is based on the notion that there is no absolute model of a good living environment, because a good living environment is based on values and is dependent on the experiences of the person who evaluates it. Also , different quality factors are emphasised in different residential areas and between dif
ferent stakeholders.