The literature specialized in Social Impact Assessment (SIA) concurs that there is still much work to do in the discussion and thorough grounding of its theories and conceptual bases. The authors of this paper consider that the understanding of SIA as a paradigm may prove useful as a foundation on which more robust and better grounded SIA knowledge production may be built. Further, we suggest that the application of the concept of the paradigm in the terms expressed here may offer a comprehensive guide to practice in SIA studies. The paradigmatic approach to SIA is based on six basic, consecutive questions, related to each other and independent at the same time: questions in the axiological, ontological, epistemological, methodological and theoretical fields, in addition to one on governance in SIA (and in the specific project analysed). We explain how the two currently predominant SIA paradigms (which we have named technocratic and constructivist, following the commonly accepted terms) answer these questions. Finally, the variability of the different answer options may involve intermediate positions between the two paradigms which may also involve comprehensive ways of defining and grounding practice.

In the last twenty years, both the increase in academic production and the expansion of professional involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA), have evidenced growing scientific and business interest in risk and impact analysis. However, this growth has not brought with it a parallel progress in addressing their main shortcomings: insufficient integration of environmental and social features into development project analyses and, in cases where the social aspects are considered, technical-methodological failings in their diagnosis and assessment. It is clear that these weaknesses carry with them substantial threats to the sustainability (social, environmental and economic) of schemes which impact on the environment, and in consequence, to the local contexts where they are carried out and to the delicate balance of the global ecosystem. This paper argue that, in a sociological context of growing complexity, four foundation-stones are required to underpin research methodologies (for both diagnosis and assessment) in the socio-environmental risks of development projects: a theoretical foundation in actor-network theory; an ethical grounding in values which are internationally recognized though not always carried through into practice; a (new) epistemological-scientific base; and a methodological foundation in social participation.The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, in the R+D tender 2012 (project code CSO201232493), and by the Council for Innovation, Science and Employment of the Junta of Andalusia (project reference SEJ2397

The goal of this work is to detect the basic characteristics of the development of the southern border between Spain and Portugal. This trans-border area is described and analysed comparing the region of Algarve, in Portugal and the region of the County, in Huelva, Spain. The method used 15 quantitative indicators, desegregated at municipal level, obtained from different official sources and applied to 30 municipalities. The analysis includes multivariate statistic methods. The conclusions show that those indicators related to national governance systems are of utmost importance in the cluster classification. Furthermore, those municipalities with higher development levels are also less sustainable from the environmental point of view - this is probably due to the fact that tourism supports the fragile socio-economic systems in many of such regions. Significantly, the clustering tendencies show that the Portuguese municipalities are tourism oriented (or less tourism oriented) and the Spanish ones are agri-business (or less agribusiness oriented). Lastly, such geographic structures seem to have its roots in long term paths of development.