Jenny Stafford - Principal Consultant
At Temple, we believe engaging early with stakeholders to
identify local benefits reduces the cost of implementing infrastructure
projects, sometimes quite significantly. Our approach is to involve communities
in decision making and ensuring local benefit as far as possible (rather than simply
informing or consulting on proposals).
We presented some of our thinking about this at a recent CIRIA
event on community engagement on infrastructure projects. One of the tools
we use is our Controversy-Local Benefit
matrix for infrastructure projects, see below. The matrix provides a broad
categorisation of projects by levels of controversy and local benefit and makes
it easy to see why more controversial projects, either locally or nationally,
and those bringing low levels of local benefit are challenging in terms of community
engagement. Recognising this, finding ways to reduce impacts – sometimes through
the process of considering different options – and increase local benefit (see
graph below), helps move projects towards the top left quadrant i.e. those that
are more straightforward to engage on.
Controversy-Local
Benefit Matrix. The position of example projects in the matrix
reflects Temple’s views but the precise location of the projects in a quadrant
or between quadrants is open to debate.
Good engagement can
increase benefit and reduce controversy
Another key message at our CIRIA event was the wide variety
of reasons why engaging early adds value: early
community engagement builds trust, eases the process overall and reduces costs.
This front loading of engagement is the same principle as that adopted by the BREEAM Communities assessment
process which demonstrates the importance of early engagement in informing
design. It is less expensive to engage early with the costs of doing so increasing
during the development process, particularly during the approval or consents
stage when there may be legal costs to such engagement and less opportunity to
make changes which reduce impacts or increase benefit.
The International Association
for Public Participation (IAP2) identifies a spectrum of participation or engagement
ranging from informing and consulting with the public to involving,
collaborating or empowering. Use of approaches and techniques further along the
spectrum see greater levels of involvement and participation and, as a result,
increasing levels of public impact and likely benefit. At its simplest therefore, the IAP2 spectrum
suggests that finding ways to better involve the community will be a more
effective way of ensuring local benefit and gaining acceptance.
A final key point about controversial projects is something
that may surprise many technical specialists. It might be anticipated that it is important to share technical details
when undertaking public consultation on controversial projects. However, what
is most important is being able to relate to the views of individuals or
empathising, gaining their trust and demonstrating commitment to listening
to their views, according to work done by Vince
Covello on risk communication. These factors are far more important than
sharing their technical expertise about the project itself. In lower concern
situations – or less controversial projects - sharing this technical expertise
has a greater role to play, see below.
Temple Group is hosting the IAP2 Foundations in Public Participation course in London, 1-5
December. Click here to find out
more and register.