Research on the adoption of rural innovations is reviewed and interpreted through a cross-disciplinary lens to provide practical guidance for research, extension and policy relating to conservation practices. Adoption of innovations by landholders is presented as a dynamic learning process. Adoption depends on a range of personal, social, cultural and economic factors, as well as on characteristics of the innovation itself. Adoption occurs when the landholder perceives that the innovation in question will enhance the achievement of their personal goals. A range of goals is identifiable among landholders, including economic, social and environmental goals. Innovations are more likely to be adopted when they have a high ‘relative advantage’ (perceived superiority to the idea or practice that it supersedes), and when they are readily trialable (easy to test and learn about before adoption). Non-adoption or low adoption of a number of conservation practices is readily explicable in terms of their failure to provide a relative advantage (particularly in economic terms) or a range of difficulties that landholders may have in trialing them.

The “International Principles for Social Impact Assessment” is a statement of the core values of the SIA community together with a set of principles to guide SIA practice and the consideration of ‘the social’ in environmental impact assessment generally. It is a discussion document for the impact assessment community to be used as the basis for developing sector and national guidelines. In the process of being developed explicitly for an international context, increasing pressure was placed on the conventional understanding of SIA and a new definition, with official imprimatur of an international professional body, has been formalised. “Social Impact Assessment includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical an...

Social impact assessment (SIA) is now conceived as being the process of managing the social issues of development. There is consensus on what ‘good’ SIA practice is – it is participatory; it supports affected peoples, proponents and regulatory agencies; it increases understanding of change and capacities to respond to change; it seeks to avoid and mitigate negative impacts and to enhance positive benefits across the life cycle of developments; and it emphasizes enhancing the lives of vulnerable and disadvantaged people. We analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing SIA. We assert that the SIA community needs to revisit core concepts, such as culture, community, power, human rights, gender, justice, place, resilience and sustainable livelihoods. It is incumbent on SIA practitioners to educate proponents, regulators and colleagues about these concepts, and to embed them into practice norms. Stronger engagement with the emerging trends of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); human rights impact assessment; social performance standards; supply chain management; governance; local content and economic development will improve the relevance and demonstrable value of SIA to all stakeholders.

An understanding of social issues, the social nature of farming, and the social basis of adoption is needed if agricultural extension is to be effective in addressing natural resource management issues, and in promoting sustainability in its triple bottom line conceptualisation. Twenty-seven principles are presented here, with the key principles being: awareness of farming as a social activity; recognition of the social diversity of farmers and the social drivers in agriculture; and the socio-cultural basis of adoption.

While the World Bank safeguard policies and International Finance Corporation Performance Standards specify the requirements to be observed when project-induced displacement and resettlement occurs, these international standards are not always followed. Governments often invoke the power of eminent domain and implement expropriation procedures instead of building support for a public or private project by negotiating with project-affected peoples. Evaluations of projects reveal that people are usually made worse off by being resettled. This paper provides a general introduction to the topic of project-induced displacement and resettlement, raising the key issues facing resettlement practice: under what conditions should projects and associated resettlements proceed; what constitutes appropriate compensation; can livelihoods be restored or improved; what is the role of benefit sharing and shared value; and how resettlement practice can be improved. Although there is ongoing improvement in the discourse and practice of project-induced resettlement, being resettled is still likely to be an impoverishment risk and have an emotional toll. Hopefully, however, under the right conditions, resettlement has the potential to be an opportunity for development.