Public Engagement for Large Infrastructure Projects - Can it be Meaningful?

Professional planners and engineers are coming to more fully appreciate that public and stakeholder engagement can play a critical role in the success of many projects [i]. That said, it can be difficult to understand the role that meaningful public engagement can play in projects where decision-making seems to belong squarely in the realm of experts or elected officials. When the primary purpose of an engagement process is to keep the public and stakeholders properly informed or to consult at a surficial level, can such engagement still be considered meaningful?

The IAP2 Spectrum Disadvantage

The IAP2 Spectrum (the Spectrum) has proved to be a helpful tool in understanding the variety of approaches to public and stakeholder engagement by looking through a specific lens of decision-making control. The Spectrum sets out the level of control that stakeholders are ‘promised’ as part of a particular project (Figure 1) [ii]. For example, at the ‘high end’ of the Spectrum, a column labelled Empower indicates that project stakeholders will have full control over project decision-making, while at the ‘low end’ of the Spectrum a column labelled ‘Inform’ indicates that project stakeholders will receive pertinent information regarding the project but have little or no decision-making control.

Figure 1 – IAP2 Spectrum of Engagement

Source: IAP2Canada.ca

Although this IAP2 decision-making lens appears to have been helpful throughout industry practice, certain drawbacks have been highlighted [iii]. One such drawback is the propensity for practitioners to judge that engagement processes conducted at one end of the Spectrum, namely the ‘high end’, are more appropriate (or laudable) than engagement processes conducted at the ‘low-end’ of the spectrum’[iv]. The Spectrum, by its design [v], perhaps unintentionally, seems to suggest that it would be better to cede as much project decision-making control to stakeholders as possible, regardless of project circumstances. 

In an IAP2 training course I attended [vi], participants were provided guidance as to how to categorize a project engagement process at a specific level of the Spectrum. During the course, the instructor offered their professional opinion that practitioners should not be involved in projects that fall anywhere below the mid-range of the Spectrum (i.e. below ‘Involve’). Similar assertions have gone so far as to say that the Inform level of the IAP2 Spectrum “is not really community engagement” [vii].

Such commentary weakens the importance of the who, what, where, when and why considerations of appropriate ‘low-end’ engagement. This negative sentiment also has unfortunate consequences for industry and for industry stakeholders, since, I suggest, the vast majority of engagement processes for large infrastructure projects cannot be viably positioned at the ‘high-end’ of the Spectrum. This limitation may be due to a variety of factors associated with a series of constraints including professional, regulatory or technical expertise requirements and, importantly, jurisdictional realms of authority.

Meaningful engagement at the ‘low-end’

Meaningful engagement does not need to be synonymous with a high level of decision-making control. At times, highly impacted project stakeholders have indicated project acceptance and have, perhaps surprisingly, extended significant gratitude for thoughtful, respectful, meaningful low-end Spectrum projects. Why is this? An engagement process that is designed at any-level of the Spectrum can be meaningful so long as stakeholders feel respected and understood – sentiments that can serve as a litmus test for meaningful engagement. How then do practitioners design a low-end engagement process such that stakeholders feel respected and understood? 

Principles of meaningful engagement

Fundamental principles of meaningful engagement have been extensively outlined in the literature, in governance documents, and in practice [viii]. Principles generally include careful planning, transparency, adaptability, inclusion and accountability among others. These principles can and should be applied at all ‘levels’ of the Spectrum of engagement, not just the high end. For projects where stakeholders have a relatively low level of control over project outcomes (i.e. at the ‘low-end’ of the Spectrum) it becomes particularly important that these principles are applied, since, as psychologists and other professionals have reported, the likelihood of dissatisfaction is higher when stakeholders have less control [ix]. These principles can be summarized under the general banner of respect, and by looking through this lens the engagement practitioner can better understand aspects of process design including the timeliness, notification methods, meeting format, meeting content, reporting and process. The following are suggestions for designing an engagement process at the low-end of the Spectrum:

·        Timeliness of notification – ‘Respectful’ notification means that invitations to meet arrive early enough in the project to avoid surprising a stakeholder, and to provide sufficient time for the stakeholder to plan to attend a meeting or to review project materials. Lead time for notification may vary depending upon the project and or the relative relevance to the stakeholder. Furthermore, a rushed engagement process at any Spectrum level, will likely be perceived as unprofessional and disrespectful.

·        Method of notification – A ‘respectful’ notification method will vary depending on the type of stakeholder. For example, a public advertisement may be an effective means of inviting a broad audience to attend a public open house, whereas this method would be inappropriate for a stakeholder that perceives themselves to be directly impacted by a project (i.e. so-called ‘Tier 1’ stakeholders [x] such as a landowner facing expropriation). Such a stakeholder should be invited to a meeting directly, in person, by phone, by personal email or by personal letter.

·        Meeting format and timing – A ‘respectful’ meeting format for a directly impacted stakeholder (i.e. Tier 1) most likely means an in-person or small group invited meeting, whereas an appropriate meeting format for a broad public audience (so called 'Tier 3' stakeholders) could be an open house or townhall-style meeting. Treating a potential Tier 1 stakeholder in the same manner as a Tier 3 stakeholder is likely to be perceived as disrespectful. On this basis it would also be better to meet a Tier 1 stakeholder prior to a Tier 3 stakeholder as a means of acknowledging the difference. 

·        Appropriateness of the information and timing – All stakeholders deserve to understand ‘the full story’ of the project, and to receive the information prior to any final decisions being made. This means that the content of information shared should include for example any project options under consideration or options no longer under consideration, the evaluation framework for options, the decision-making process, relevant project timelines, a description of any ‘project unknowns’, disclosure that confidential information exists, and any other relevant information. Proponents should avoid the temptation to filter out information they deem to be ‘no longer relevant’ to the project stage if that information was important in arriving at the current project description.

·        Reporting of commentary – Similar to completing a conversation once started, all input/responses gathered should be restated publicly to all stakeholders, and a comprehensive assessment of how the project does or does not address a particular concern (including the rationale as to why) should also be provided.  So long as the proponent is actively listening, an engagement process that is being carried out primarily at the lower end of the Spectrum can still be a two-way conversation [xi]. Restating the perspectives provided, and then providing honest, thorough responses is a respectful means of completing the conversation once started.

·        Timing of next steps – It would be disrespectful to stakeholders if one stage of a process proceeds too quickly after another. The perception (and likely reality) of this situation is that a project proponent has not actually been listening to a stakeholder or has not actually considered the input provided. Even if the level of decision-making control for stakeholders is low for a given project, proponents should not take advantage of this ‘decision power dynamic’ by moving too quickly through important project stages.

Outcomes of Meaningful Engagement at the Low-end

There is extensive research regarding indicators for evaluating the success of engagement projects. The following list of indicators can be useful for project reporting and for continuous improvement of engagement processes. An appropriate feedback mechanism can be designed to capture individual stakeholder sentiments about each indicator.

·        Stakeholder understands the reasons for the project being undertaken;

·        Stakeholder understands the rationale for the project or the selected alternative;

·        Stakeholder feels that their particular interest in the project is recognized and understood by the project proponent;

·        Stakeholder feels that the proponent has performed satisfactory due diligence in arriving at the project or the selected alternative;

·        Stakeholder recognizes the extent of diverse stakeholder opinion and impact; and

·        Stakeholder can identify the ways in which the proponent has integrated participant input or addressed factors relevant to the participant;

Conclusion

Many large public infrastructure engagement projects may not be positioned to accommodate a high level of decision-making control for project stakeholders for a variety of fundamental reasons. In such circumstances meaningful public and stakeholder engagement becomes more important, not less important. In these circumstances, meaningful engagement can be achieved by applying the fundamental principle of respect when designing an engagement process to help ensure project stakeholders feel they were engaged in a meaningful way. Efficacy of the engagement process can be assessed by understanding the range of stakeholders’ sentiments about the process.

 Notes and references:

 [i] See for example: Devine-Wright (2014) Renewable Energy and the Public: from NIMBY to Participation; Morrisey, Bill The importance of stakeholder and community engagement in engineering projects, Engineers Journal (Ireland) https://www.engineersjournal.ie/2015/04/21/importance-stakeholder-community-engagement-engineering-projects/ ; Sir John Armit quoted in Infrastructure Intelligence (UK): Engaging the public early on infrastructure is essential  https://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/nov-2018/engage-public-early-infrastructure-says-armitt; Legacy, Crystal. Sidelining citizens when deciding on transport projects is asking for trouble The Conversation (Australia) https://theconversation.com/sidelining-citizens-when-deciding-on-transport-projects-is-asking-for-trouble-92840

[ii] IAP2.org https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars

[iii] See for example: Max Hardy (2015) Reflections on the IAP2 Spectrum. https://www.maxhardy.com.au/reflections-on-the-iap2-spectrum/; Steph Roy McAllum (blog date unknown) Re-imagining the IAP2 Spectrum https://medium.com/@RedheadSteph/re-imagining-the-iap2-spectrum-9d24afdc1b2e; Les Robinson, (2016) Is the Spectrum Dead?  https://changeologyblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/is-the-spectrum-dead/

[iv] Hardy (2015) indicates “Doing a simple Consult level process for something highly complex will probably result in having to start all over again, after having done some damage.”

[v] The single-headed arrow at the top of the Spectrum schematic is labeled “Increasing impact on the decision” moving distinctly from left to right (i.e. lower to higher) with the fill becoming increasingly solid towards the high-end. A less biased schematic could have included a two-headed arrow with consistent fill and a centre-justified label reading “Less Impact” at the left and “More Impact” at the right. These subtle cues might help alleviate the impression that stakeholders having greater decision-making control is inherently better, versus the level of decision-making control being stated purely as factual.

[vi] IAP2 “Foundations in Public Participation Training” course (Winnipeg) January 31, 2017

[vii] Graeme Stuart (2017) What is the Spectrum of Public Participation?” https://sustainingcommunity.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/spectrum-of-public-participation/

[viii] Core Principles for Public Engagement (2009) various authors https://ncdd.org/rc/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/PEPfinal-expanded.pdf; Government of Canada, Public Engagement Principles https://open.canada.ca/en/content/principles-and-guidelines

[ix] Mills et al (2008) have noted “A large amount of research has demonstrated quite convincingly that possessing high levels of self-efficacy acts to decrease people's potential for experiencing negative stress feelings by increasing their sense of being in control of the situations they encounter. Self-Efficacy And The Perception Of Control In Stress Reduction Harry Mills, Ph.D., Natalie Reiss, Ph.D. and Mark Dombeck, Ph.D. https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/self-efficacy-and-the-perception-of-control-in-stress-reduction/

[x] Donovan Toews (2013) The Stakeholder Tier System: A tool for management of public engagement processes for large infrastructure projects. Plan Canada (Spring 2013).

[xi] Stuart (2017) argues that “Community engagement is a two-way process, which means that the first level of the Spectrum, Inform, is not really community engagement because it only involves a one-way flow of information”. This perspective undermines the importance of conversations that should be considered essential when engaging at the Inform level. Consider a conversation that a doctor must have when delivering a negative health report to a patient. Although the objective of the conversation may be considered ‘informational’, a great deal of care should be given as to how this information flows – when, in what setting, and what content, etc. Similarly, even though the key piece of information (i.e. the health report) would flow in one direction from doctor to patient, most certainly a careful conversation would have taken place to ensure the stakeholder not only received the information but also felt respected (cared for) when receiving it. Therefore, the ability to deliver information with care and respect, is undermined by a conceptualization that Informing is simply “a one-way flow of information”.