Incorporating Social Costs and Benefits into Decision-Making for On-Reserve Infrastructure

The field of civil engineering requires a clear and accessible method to account for the social impacts of infrastructure projects, products, and services. This is particularly important for infrastructure in First Nations where low-cost options are failing to meet community values and long-term needs. This paper aims to highlight potential methods for incorporating social values into technical projects and give an example of what a possible application might look like. A landscape scan found that social life cycle assessment (SLCA), social impact assessment (SIA), and social return on investment (SROI) are commonly used methods, and a database search found case studies of their application in civil engineering. The methods were evaluated based on their procedure, accessibility, range of social indicators, outputs, strengths, and limitations. An example project assessing the social impacts of lot type for a housing development in two First Nations was used to demonstrate how one of these methods (SLCA) might be applied. While all three methods have benefits, dependent on the application and phase of an infrastructure project or system, SLCA was found to be best suited for the example project because of its accessibility, coverage of a wide range of social indicators, and outputs that pair well with economic considerations for holistic decision-making. The example assessment evaluated lot designs defined as typical, wider, community-centered, single acreage, and an acreage shared by a family (cluster) for their impact on community wellbeing and way of life. It found that a cluster acreage had the most social benefit by allowing expression of cultural heritage, providing safe and healthy living conditions, respecting Indigenous rights, and promoting secure living conditions. The case is being made that the additional cost of alternative living arrangements is justified by the benefits to wellbeing and way of life.