Reviewing Social impact assessment (SIA) documents is important to understand whether SIA methods and the range of issues covered have evolved as a response to legislation changes and best practices. A national study can help researchers to understand the practice of SIA under comparable regulatory requirements. This study used available hydroelectric SIA reports in Canada (n = 37) to investigate SIA methods, and what impacts they tend to anticipate. First, compared with the scholarly literature, the study found that time (as a proxy for evolution in knowledge and legislation change) was only weakly correlated with the quality of reports. Usually, the size of projects had a greater influence on the range of social impact topics addressed within the reports. Secondly, we demonstrate that methods used to construct the reports are often poorly described. In addition, our comparison with the literature shows that SIA professional practice has not kept pace with scholarly literature that recommends incorporating more engagement components. The existence of a few community-led assessments, participatory map-based approaches, and some efforts to engage with communities outside open houses were considered positive changes. Nonetheless, baseline assessments and anticipations of social impacts remain focused on the implications of population growth, physical infrastructure, and socioeconomics with minimal consideration for the livelihoods, culture, and wellbeing of host communities. The study also identified possible root causes for the lack of innovation and narrow economic scope. Finally, we provide practical recommendations to improve SIA methods used to anticipate social impacts.

审查社会影响评估 (SIA) 文件对于了解 SIA 方法和所涵盖的问题范围是否已随着立法变化和最佳实践的发展而演变非常重要。一项国家研究可以帮助研究人员了解 SIA 在可比监管要求下的实践。本研究使用了加拿大（n = 37）现有的水电 SIA 报告来调查 SIA 方法，以及它们倾向于预期的影响。首先，与学术文献相比，该研究发现时间（作为知识和立法变化的代表）与报告质量的相关性很弱。通常，项目的规模对报告中涉及的社会影响主题的范围有更大的影响。第二，我们证明了用于构建报告的方法经常被描述得很差。此外，我们与文献的比较表明，SIA 专业实践没有跟上建议纳入更多参与成分的学术文献。一些社区主导的评估、参与式基于地图的方法的存在，以及与开放日之外的社区互动的一些努力被认为是积极的变化。尽管如此，社会影响的基线评估和预期仍然侧重于人口增长、物质基础设施和社会经济的影响，而很少考虑东道社区的生计、文化和福祉。该研究还确定了缺乏创新和经济范围狭窄的可能根本原因。最后，