Laserfiche WebLink
<br />034) <br /> <br />data later could be analyzed in a standardized and useful <br /> <br />manner. The interviews varied ~n length anywhere from 15 <br /> <br />minutes to over an hour. <br /> <br />1.3.9 Modular Analysis of Impacts <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Once qll the data were collected, a pre-arranged sequence <br /> <br />of analytic activities was undertaken. <br /> <br />Essentially this involved <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />a three step process. <br /> <br />First, a series of modular analyses was <br /> <br />conducted on an issue-by-issue, variable-by-variable basis (pre- <br /> <br />sented in Section Three). <br /> <br />Second, data from all of the modular <br /> <br />analyses were brought together for a comparison of the collective <br /> <br />impacts of each of the project alternatives (Section Four). <br /> <br />Third, impacts were aggregated into the concepts of Quality of <br /> <br />Life, Social Well Being, and Relative Social Relationships (Sec- <br /> <br />tion Five). <br /> <br />The latter two activities will be addressed in <br /> <br />the following sections. <br /> <br />Modular analysis was employed to identify the differential <br /> <br />impacts of the project alternatives. <br /> <br />These are contained in <br /> <br />Section Three of this report. <br /> <br />Essentially, seven types of <br /> <br />impact analyses were involved: <br /> <br />A. Categorical (e.g., education, health. family life) <br />B. Project Specific (i.e., construction and disruption) <br />C. Social Process (e.g., effects on institutions) <br />O. Attitudes (e.g., toward the project alternatives <br />and their likely impacts <br />E. Groups Affected (e.g., age, occupational, ethnic) <br />F. Timeframe of Impacts (i.e., long vs. short term) <br />G. Advocate Groups (e.g., environmentalists, businessmen, <br />farmers) <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />I <br />f <br /> <br />38 <br />