Upload
placespeak
View
620
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This paper outlines best practices in online public consultation, focused specifically on municipal land development.
Citation preview
Prepared by:
Colleen Hardwick
1005 Cypress Street
Vancouver, BC V6J 3K6
Composition and Working ArrangementsThis paper was authored by Colleen Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban
geographer. It was produced under the direction of Dr. Penny Gurstein, head
of the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British
Columbia. Dr. Andrew Csinger of Interspect Systems consulted on identity and
privacy-related technologies.
This research project received support of the MITACS Accelerate program as
part of Ms. Hardwick’s academic research work within the Interdisciplinary
Studies Graduate Program.
The research team:
•sought input from online public consultation practitioners and software engineers specializing in engagement technology;
• liaised with the Urban Development Institute and received input from its members;
•consulted with City of Vancouver staff from Corporate Communications, the Community Services Group, Community Planning, Development Services, and the Planning Department.
Table of Contents
Introduction 1Preamble 1
Purpose and Objectives 2
Priorities 3
Structure of this Report 3
Challenges in public consultation 4
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 61.1 Guiding Principles 6
1.2 Historical Context 7
1.3 Existing Practices 7
1.4 Shortcomings 15
2.0 Objections Against Public Participation in Planning 162.1 Lack of Expertise 16
2.2 Inequity of Access 16
2.3 Elected Officials and Representative Democracy 16
2.4 Time Wasting 16
3.0 Barriers and Opportunities 173.1 Language and Cultural Barriers 17
3.2 Institutional – Governance Changes 17
3.3 Owners Versus Renters 18
3.4 Existing Biases 18
3.5 Uncertain Legal Landscape for Public Engagement 19
4.0 Current State of the Art 214.1 Tactics and Tools 22
4.2 Application of Online Consultation to Planning and Development 24
5.0 Recommendations and Conclusions 32
In conclusion 34
Acknowledgements 34
Appendices 36Appendix 1 - Catalogue of selected online tools 36
Appendix 2 – Interviews with City Staff 37
Appendix 3 - IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation 38
References 39
Abbreviations and Acronyms:
ICTS Information Communications Technologies
GIS Geographical Information Systems
PSS Planning Support Systems
PPGIS Public Participation Geographic Information Systems
UGC User Generated Content
List of Figures
Figure 1 — Existing Practices re: IAP2 8
Figure 2 — Existing Community Planning Public Practices 9
Figure 3 — Existing Practices Major Development Permit 11
Figure 4 — Existing Minor Development Permit Practices 12
Figure 5 — Existing Rezoning Public Practices 14
Figure 6 — Community Planning Strategy 26
Figure 7 — Major Development Permit Strategy 29
Figure 8 — Minor Development Permit Strategy 30
Figure 9 — Rezoning Application Strategy 31
Introduction
PreambleThe City of Vancouver is currently reviewing, updating and improving its public
consultation and engagement processes and tools. This includes the manner
in which the City conducts public consultation related to major land use and
transportation initiatives, the City's budget and capital plan, major policy
development, site specific rezonings, and development permitting processes.
This paper focuses its research on the public consultation and engagement work
conducted by the City's Community Services Group (CSG) and particularly the
Development Services, and Planning departments.
The City’s building and development permitting processes all provide for public
involvement. However, this paper will focus on the processes which, because
of location, scale or context of the proposal, will have significant impact on the
surrounding neighbourhood and/or are likely to be controversial and therefore
attract greater public involvement.
There is considerable overlap between the City’s building and development
processes and the way it manages Community Planning activities. As a result,
this paper will also address public consultation best practices in respect of
City-wide and local area planning initiatives. It focuses on Vancouver’s newest
Community Plans currently in development for the neighbourhoods of
Grandview-Woodland, the Downtown Eastside, Marpole, and the West End.
The City of Vancouver constantly seeks to update its approach to Civic
Engagement and Participation. Over the years, and particularly since the advent
of Web 2.0, traditional consultation methodologies have become less relevant
and effective, and require updating to fully contemplate societal change and
information and communications technologies (ICTs).
The objective of this paper is to specifically recommend updated
best practices for public consultation in respect of the
Community Services Group in the areas of planning and
development.
Introduction1
Purpose and ObjectivesA cornerstone of democracy is the idea that citizen participation is essential to
good government. Nowhere is this truer than at the municipal level, where City
government decisions so directly affect people’s daily lives.
When the City invites the public to participate in any decision-making process,
there is an inherent expectation, and an implicit commitment, that the public’s
contribution will influence the outcome. However, despite an emphasis on open
and transparent processes, there remain obstacles and barriers to widespread
public participation. People don’t necessarily trust the process anymore. To fix
what ails public consultation, people need to believe that they actually can
influence decision-making.
On the other hand, public officials need hard evidence to inform their decisions
and policies. They need feedback from the broadest possible population within
affected geographic areas. They need to reach people where they live and
communicate their priorities accurately and transparently. Internet technology, like
Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) makes this possible.
The City of Vancouver is faced with tough decisions if it is to continue to build a
vibrant, sustainable city. Fully involving its citizenry is core to its future success.
It needs to rethink consultation for the 21st century. The difficulty in reaching
and engaging with citizens is not unique to Vancouver but rather stems from an
overarching sense of alienation and disenfranchisement that is pervasive globally.
The good news is that there are new Information Communications Technologies
(ICTs) which enable interaction in ways never before possible that can contribute
to the advancement of public consultation in the City.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the range of these approaches and
technologies as applied to certain activities, specifically the community planning
and land use approval processes.
This paper was created to advise the City of Vancouver’s Corporate Communications
department and Community Services Group on Best Practices in Online Public
Consultation. Its goals and objectives include the following:
•Examine existing consultation practices in Planning and Development;
• Identify opportunities to integrate online applications into existing practices;
•Offer suggestions on tactics and tools for different scenarios;
•Explore new Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS);
•Review opportunities for systemizing governance consultation; and
•Consider additional issues that may assist in developing recommendations on how best to increase the quality of public participation in Vancouver.
PrioritiesEffective public consultation means different things to different people. This
paper focuses its efforts squarely on addressing the need to provide online
public consultation tools that support evidence-based decision-making and
policy development. It should be understood, however, that because different
people respond to different incentives and processes, we advocate using both
online and face-to-face engagement techniques and integrating them both into
any consultative process.
Until now, public comments received during online consultation processes
have been anonymous. Any data analysis has been anecdotal at best. If public
participation is to fully inform decision-makers, obtaining verifiable data
is essential. The kinds of location-based land-use planning issues that are
governed at the civic level lend themselves ideally to deliberative democracy
which can be enabled through advancing the use of ICTs and, in particular,
identity-based PPGIS.
The City has established as a priority “the need to continuously improve and
indeed rethink approaches and techniques for public engagement in community
planning, providing opportunities for broad, diverse and meaningful participation
in plan-making so that plans reflect the widest possible range of perspectives.”
It is therefore a priority of this paper to expand upon the range and depth of
innovative applications available to address this mandate.
This priority is not without its challenges. So-called ‘third generation
engagement’ is by its nature disruptive to existing power structures, as the
agenda-setting power is in the hands of the participants. This requires engaging
people where they are and giving them the tools to become engaged on their
terms. How this plays out in respect to the land-use planning and development
decision-making and policy development process remains to be seen.
It should be noted that Internet use varies by age, income, race and education.
However, the so-called ‘digital divide’ is disappearing amongst historically
underrepresented groups. In Vancouver, greater than 90% of the population is
online in one way or another, chiefly through email and social media.1 Groups
traditionally viewed as disenfranchised, such as the homeless and seniors, are
surprisingly well represented online.
1 Statistics Canada. Table 1 Individuals using the Internet from any location, based on an extrapolation of 2010 data.
Introduction2 3Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Structure of this ReportThis report begins with a broad examination of public participation in urban and
community planning with a review of the history of public consultation practices
in the City of Vancouver dating back to the late 1960s.
It further explores the existing status quo of practices in the Community
Services Group with respect to both City-driven community planning initiatives
and private sector (property development) applications for rezoning and
development permits. The shortcomings of existing practices are underscored
but balanced in the second section with a review of objections against public
participation in the planning arena.
A detailed examination of the rezoning and development permit process follows,
demonstrating barriers, challenges and opportunities related to each form
of consultation. Where appropriate, it sets out recommendations for further
consideration. It also includes additional matters for special consideration by the
City of Vancouver in its immediate and longer term deliberations about online
petitions, plebiscites and, ultimately, voting. These include:
•Privacy and security;
•Obstacles to adoption;
•The importance of geography in digital communications;
•The challenges of reaching renters;
•A review of competing demands from City Hall departments; and
• Innovative ideas to encourage participation.
The fourth section of the paper examines current state-of-the-art tools and
tactics for public engagement and then organizes these activities around
the International Associations for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum
of Participation. It further juxtaposes this approach to considering online
engagement strategies for each of:
1. Community Planning
2. Major Development Permits
3. Minor Development Permits
4. Rezoning Applications
Finally, the fifth section offers conclusions and recommendations on best
practices including an Online Consultation Check list.
Challenges in public consultationIncreasing disillusionment and the divide between elected officials, bureaucrats
and citizens are major impediments to progressive governance. Decision-making
that is deliberative and that recognizes the complexity of public issues and the
need for a framework to engage citizens in these issues is a prerequisite to more
livable, equitable and sustainable communities. Deliberative decision-making
supports effective citizen participation by addressing the structural barriers to
citizen participation and good leadership by focusing on increasing accountability
within the system, and by preparing citizens to participate.
More than ever before citizens have the capacity to engage their government and
to insert themselves into policy making processes. The internet has accelerated
this shift, but it has been evident for some time in traditional face-to-face
settings, first in local government and then provincial and federal. Faced with
these new citizen capacities and expectations, government leaders have realized
the need to be more proactive in their approach to the public, resulting in a wave
of civic engagement effort over the past ten years.
To engage a large and diverse group of citizens, city staff have employed a
targeted network-based recruitment strategy. To ensure that the process is
productive, they have employed techniques such as impartial facilitation, ground
rules set by the group, and discussion guides or agendas that lay out a range of
policy options.
Ten years ago, these engagement initiatives were primarily face-to-face efforts;
now they commonly employ both online and face-to-face formats. The next
incarnation of civic involvement must be characterized by interaction, innovation
and responsiveness. Community planners have used the lessons learned from this
work, the most basic of which is that engagements efforts must be built around
the needs, goals and concerns of the potentially engaged citizens, not just the
engagers, i.e. the City. In managing 21st century consultation civic officials, need
to:
•develop a long-term policy and plan for public engagement (that includes online as well as face-to-face communication) in the issues area in which they are operating; and
• respond to short-term needs, crises, and opportunities in ways that reflect the ideas contained in the long-term plan, that draw on the extra-government allies involved in the planning, and that help to build the long-term resources and assets necessary for the plan’s success.
In keeping with these objectives, the City seeks to inform its update of public
engagement policies with an emphasis on Information Communication
Technology (ICT) best practices.
Introduction4 5Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning
1.1 Guiding PrinciplesTwo preconditions for successful participation of citizens in urban planning are:
(1) they must offer some real opportunity for public influence; and (2) they must
provide space for deliberation to reach some common preferences.
To ensure that direct participation has a real impact on the decision-making
process, that citizens are well informed about the impact of their participation
and see tangible results. Participation that is purely symbolic or used to simply
grant legitimacy to pre-ordained decisions is unlikely to win public support.
Government planners have not readily adopted Internet tools to engage the
public in urban planning processes partly because of the lack of appropriate
technologies. The work of creating plans is not limited to individual
communications with the general public, but involves working with groups of
people to identify problems and build consensus.
In creating their plans, planners must engage multiple distinct stakeholders,
and often reach out to specific communities, organizations and government
agencies. Planners need easy-to-use tools that allow multiple constituencies
to hold a mutual conversation. They need appropriate means to moderate the
conversation as well as present a large amount of visual, cartographic and
textual data. Finally, despite advances in teleconferencing, the subtle aspects
of face-to-face interaction cannot be easily reproduced virtually. Technologies
emphasizing individual communication have limited utility to planners trying to
build consensus between people and groups.
The creation of plans is fundamentally different from many other government
actions. It often involves a large volume of information, takes place over a
relatively long period of time and entails abstract and value-laden policy choices
such as defining the future vision for a city. As well, planning processes involve
public input and engagement with multiple constituencies.
Transparency of process is a key element on the City’s side, but so too is
authenticity of citizen identity. To be genuinely representative it is necessary
that people be verified as being who they say they are and living where they
say they do. Anonymity runs counter to the emphasis on open data and
government. For this reason online consultation must, by definition, extend
participants beyond the existing conditions of anonymity in order to weigh in.
1.2 Historical ContextBeginning in the 1960s, the planning profession increasingly turned to the problem
of defining participation and describing what it would mean in practical terms.2
•The first wave from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s, involved the use of a variety of communication and participatory techniques including information brochures, media releases, citizen surveys, public hearings, workshops, task forces and advisory committees to involve citizens in social and environmental concerns. These techniques were soon met with cynicism and perceived to be time-consuming and costly, and unsuccessful in resolving issues. Vancouver’s history of community planning dates back to the Local Area Plans begun in 1974.
•The second wave, in the second half of the 1980s, focused on sustainable development and the use of negotiation, facilitation, and mediation techniques involving multiple-stakeholder, conflict-resolution, and consensus building processes. Vancouver’s 1995 City Plan and Community Visions process fell into this phase. By the mid-1990s, the hugely ambitious innovations were once again being questioned. They were perceived to be too lengthy and costly and of limited value in terms of reaching and implementing agreements that met the interests of the diversity of stakeholders.
•As part of its Better City Government initiative, the City undertook a comprehensive public involvement review in the late 1990s. When the review began in 1999, there were over 100 public processes underway. Over the years, Internet and email have allowed easier public access to civic information and provided new ways for the public to voice their views.
•At the beginning of the twenty-first century a third wave participatory processes emphasize the fundamental strategic importance of the revitalization of democratic governance in fostering improved understanding of sustainability problems and choices, and in effecting change. Without fundamental changes in governance systems, citizen participation will continue to be limited.
In Vancouver, this has been recognized with “the need to continuously
improve and rethink approaches and techniques for public engagement in
community planning, providing opportunities for broad, diverse and meaningful
participation in plan-making so that plans reflect the widest possible range of
perspectives.”3
The City has embarked on several online consultation initiatives in the last
several years including the “Talk Green to Us” campaign, and established www.
talkvancouver.com where it has conducted consultations including Shannon
Mews, Housing, Transportation and Budget. These initiatives have attracted
good attention, however, the reliable data generated has been limited in value
from a decision-making and policy development perspective.
2 Gurstein, Penny. Creating Digital Public Space: Implications for Deliberative Engagement. p. 94
3 City of Vancouver Administrative Report: Vancouver’s Next Community Plans. p. 2
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 6 7Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
City staff develop proposal for a planning process.
City Council or Park Board approvesterms of reference.
Delegations can be heard.
City Actions Public Role
City staff initiate research and data analysis.
City staff work with the community to developvisions and broad concepts identify issues forconsideration, and develop recommendations
for the choices between options.
City Council or Park Board briefing.
Council or Park Board Public Meeting of Hearing.
Council or Park Board Decision.
Meetings held with key community leadersand organizations.
Public open house, meeting, newspaperadvertisements and /or newsletter to
inform people about the proposed planning process.
Meetings held with key community leadersand organizations.
Focus groups or kitchen table meetingswithin the community.
Formation of a stake holder working group.
Information distributed to the entire community.
Further meetings held with key community leadersand organizations and working groups.
Community forums, design charettes, surveys,open houses, and priority setting activities.
Community wide mail-in or telephone surveys,public meetings, newsletters to advise communityof proposed choices, policies, etc. and notification
of Council meetings.
Community briefings.
Delegations at the public meeting or hearing.
Information sent to community aboutdecision and next step.
City Actions Public Role
Community Planning
Lead Department(s): Planning, Engineering Services, Housing Centre, or Park Board with involvement of other Departments.
Figure 2 — Existing Community Planning Public Practices
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate
Mailers Focus GroupsDeliberative
PollingCitizen Advisory
Committees
Emails Surveys Workshops Consensus-building
Web sites Public Comment Participatory DecisionMaking
Open Houses Public Meetings
Media
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate
Figure 1 — Existing Practices re: IAP2
1.3 Existing PracticesWhile this paper focuses on online engagement, it is important to note that
working productively with the public also requires face-to-face engagement.
The two forms of communication have unique strengths and limitations; nothing
can beat the convenience and choice of online tools, and nothing can beat the
emotional impact of a face-to-face conversation. This is nowhere more true than
in the case of community planning and public consultation on land use.
Community Planning
The City has focused increasingly on smaller-scale community planning
processes for specific communities or particular community issues. In
community planning, the following describes the public role and existing
practices:
•Meetings held with key community leaders and organizations;
•Public open houses, meetings, newspaper advertisements and/or newsletters to inform people about the proposed planning process; and
•Focus groups with neighbourhood stakeholders.
In the parlance of the IAP2 existing practices fall into the following spectrum categories:
Of these activities, the biggest challenges are with (1) notification and (2)
ease of receiving verifiable feedback. The problems inherent in the notification
practices are detailed elsewhere in this paper. Notification is the first step in the
INFORM process, which also comprise information dissemination and education
about the details of the proposed development or land use change. Generally
information is easily available on the City’s website, once citizens are aware in
the first place. Creating awareness is a road block in the existing system.
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 8 9Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Predesign conference with applicant.
City Actions Public Role
Application submitted for a development permit.
Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines andpolicies, seek advice from other departments, and
evaluate responses from advisory bodies andneighbours. The application is forwarded to theDirector of Planning with a recommendation to
approve (usually with conditions) orrefuse the applications.
Development Permit Staff Committee and staff from relevant departments review all issues and input and develop a recommendation which is
forwarded in a report to the Development Permit Board and Advisory Panel.
Development Permit Board (City Staff).
Development Permit Board Advisory Panel(Council Appointees).
Final decision made by Development Permit Board.
Planning staff alert applicant to neighbourhoodissues and advise applicant to get input from the
neighbourhood and interested groups.
Neighbourhood property owners and /or local neighbourhoodadvisory committees are advised
of the proposal, invited to view the plans,and submit their written comments usually
within two weeks.
Applicant is advised to erect a sign on the sitedescribing the proposal and advising interested
parties to contact the City.
All major applications are referred to theUrban Design Panel for comment.
Only staff and the applicant attend.
If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown,or Shaughnessy,it is referred to the appropriate
Historic Area Planning Committee for comment.Only staff and the applicant attend.
If the application involves a heritage issue, it is referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee
for comment. The public may attend.
Significant applications are referred to local Citizens’ Planning Committees in those
communities where local planning programs are underway, or just completed. The public may attend.
All parties expressing opposition are advised of the Development Permit Board meeting. Members
of the public can appear as delegations.
Occasionally the Development Permit Board mayask City Council for comment before naming
a decision. The public can provide further inputas a delegation to Council.
Anyone who objected to the proposal is notified ofthe final decision and advised of their right to
appeal to the Board of Variance. The applicant can also appeal.
City Actions Public Role
Figure 3 — Existing Practices Major Development Permit
In the CONSULT category, some strategies work better than others. Public
meetings are as a rule are an unsuccessful strategy. The social pathologies
revolving around public meetings are legion. Elected officials and staff are all too
aware of the pitfalls of meetings and hearings that go on interminably and do
little to assist in balanced decision-making. The only real evidence is based on
the minority who attend, typically those with their own agenda or a single-issue
concern, the more ideologically focussed, NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard) and
public meeting enthusiasts. Further, misinformation is propagated (see INFORM).
This reality underscores the need for alternative means to gather authentic,
verifiable feedback.
In contrast, stakeholder focus groups are very effective mechanisms for
consulting with neighbourhood groups, but only where there is agreed-upon
representation. Because City staff may have long-standing relationships with
leaders in the community including, but not limited to, residents’ associations,
ratepayer and business improvement groups, it has been possible to receive
constructive feedback at a hyper local level. Still, these groups attract people
with the time and inclination to participate, and a broader base of locally-
relevant feedback is desirable.
As with stakeholder focus groups, workshops can be very effective in the
INVOLVE category of public participation. Community planners are keen to
obtain site specific insights that can develop from workshop sessions. At each
stage of the community visioning process, residents can become increasingly
engaged, time and access permitting.
A further extension is the COLLABORATE category. The City of Vancouver does
not have specific Neighbourhood Advisory Committees but rather an ad hoc
network of associations. While consensus-building is often a core objective,
there is no real participatory decision-making. At the end of the day, the
decisions reside with elected officials and staff.
Building and Development
Physically, development projects and buildings are what make a city look
like a city. The City’s building and development processes all allow for public
involvement as well as relying on several appointed boards. The public
consultation process can become quite contentious given competing demands
of local and city-wide priorities. Therefore, it is important that the City know
the location of the citizens who are providing input on individual permit
applications.
Major Development Permits
A major development permit application is one that, because of location,
scale and/or context of the proposal has a significant impact on the
surrounding area and/or is likely to be controversial. It may also be a
proposal that challenges existing policies and guidelines. Major development
applications are referred to the Development Permit Board.
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 10 11Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Application submitted for a development permit.
City Actions Public Role
Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines andpolicies, seek advice from other departments,
and evaluate responses to notifications. Theapplication is forwarded to the Director of Planning
for approval (often with conditions that respondto the public input) or refusal.
Where a policy matter or a very contentious application is involved, the Director of Planning may refer an application to
Council for advice.
Final decision made by City staff.
Neighbouring property owners and/or localneighbourhood advisory groups who are
affected by the proposed changes are advised of the application, and invited to view the plans, and submit their written comments, usually within two weeks. (If the Director of Planning is satisfied that the changes will
not affect neighbours (i.e., they are minor), then notification is not undertaken.
If a site sign is required, applicant is advised to erect the sign.
If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown, or Shaughnessy, it is referred to the appropriate
Historic Area Planning Committee for comment.
All parties expressing interest are advised of the Council meeting.
Anyone who objected to the proposal is notified of the final decision, and advised of their right of
appeal to the Board of Variance. If refused, or if any of the conditions of approval aredisputed, the applicant may also file an
appeal to the Board of Variance.
City Actions Public Role
Figure 4 — Existing Minor Development Permit Practices
The City notifies residents typically within a two block radius via direct mailer or post
card to property owners. The proponent erects a sign on the site. An advertisement is
placed in the local newspaper, and the media may be alerted.
Significant applications are referred to local citizens’ planning committees where they
exist, and the public may attend. Members of the public may appear as delegations
before the Development Permit Board. As part of the Staff Report, the number and
types of public response are listed to inform the decision. There significant opportunity
for enhanced pubic consultation through online activities that would enhance the quality
of data for decision-making.
Minor Development Permits
Under the City’s Zoning and Development By-law, development applications are required
for new construction, alterations or a change of use on the property. Minor development
applications are approved by planning department staff.
The notification process for minor permits is limited to advising neighbouring
property owners and/or local neighbourhood advisory groups who are affect
by the proposed changes. They are invited to view the plans and submit their
written comments, usually within two weeks. The Director of Planning may
determine not to notify neighbours if the requested changes are minor.
As a rule, minor development permits will have limited public consultation but
nevertheless should embody a transparent and open decision-making process.
Rezoning Applications
Zoning regulates the use and form of development permitted on a site.
Applications for rezoning can be made to change from one set of regulations
(called a District Schedule) to another or to amend the regulations in the
zone. Applications can be made by the public or the Director of Planning. All
public hearings connected with these applications are advertised by the City.
The existing public role in the rezoning process is similar to that on major
development permits. There are subtle differences, such as erecting a yellow
notification sign on the site. City staff informs, in writing, nearby property
owners (within about a two block radius) and community groups about the
application and invite comments.
If the application is found to be contentious, a public information meeting or
open house is held with nearby property owners. However current notification
systems can be ineffective. Further, the ability for many citizens to attend
events at prescribed times limits the breadth of reach and information
dissemination/input.
Rezonings tend to notify a larger area than do development permit
applications. In determining the boundaries, staff first consider what
constitutes a neighbourhood when applying the two block radius rule, which
is not drawn as a circle but best approximation of impact area. Staff also
consult with longstanding interested individuals, local planning committees,
NGOs, and other organizations, including ratepayer groups, and BIAs.
Notification is not legislated but nevertheless required.
Rezoning applications can be contentious as they signal potential major change
in a neighbourhood. Although it is true that change is a constant, it is also true
that people fear change, and certainly don’t want it in their own backyards.
Sometimes the City’s objectives and obligations to mandates developed
outside its control must supercede that of an individual area. The longer-
term best interests of the City or region can outweigh those of entrenched
communities. It is important for the City to be informed as to the location of
respondents in these circumstances.
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 12 13Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Rezoning application submitted, usually by an architect on behalf of the developer.
City Actions Public Role
City staff analyze the application, and the public input, and prepare a report to council.
Public Hearing(staff presents the application).
Application distributed to reviewing departments and Council Advisory Committees for comment.
The applicant is required to erect a yellownotification sign on the site including the applicant’sname and telephone number for further information.
City staff inform in writing nearby property owners (approximately a two block radius),
and community groups, about the application, and invite comments.
Any member of the public may speak at the Public Hearing with the applicant speaking first.
City Actions Public Role
The applicant is required to alter the site signto indicate time and place of the Public Hearing.
City staff inform, in writing the same propertyowners and community groups about the
Public Hearing, inviting their participation.
Notifications of the Public Hearing are placed in local newspapers (both legal and display advertisement with map showing rezoning
with location.
The application isrefused, typically after
referral to Council’sCommittee of Planning
and Environment.
The application is referred to a formal
Public Hearing.
OR
City Council Decision.
Applicationis refused.
Applicationis granted
with changes.
Applicationis granted
as is.
Rezoning bylaw.
Rezoning
Lead Department(s): Development Services.
Figure 5 — Existing Rezoning Public Practices
1.4 ShortcomingsThe intellectual tradition that emphasizes collaborative planning has become
so established within the planning profession that inclusion of residents in
information gathering, policy study, and policy formation hardly requires
argument and there is near total consensus that local knowledge enriches
decision-making and benefits both residents and planning agencies by
mitigating adversarial politics.4
Despite this intellectual undercurrent, legislated methods of public engagement
have remained unresponsive to the public and unsatisfactory to planners,
participants and elected officials. Given this efficacy, it is unsurprising that
civic engagement in public meetings and membership in committees has been
waning for decades.
Traditional engagement methods do not achieve genuine participation in
planning or other decisions; they do not satisfy members of the public that
they are being heard; they seldom can be said to improve the decisions that
agencies and staff make; and they do not incorporate a broad spectrum of the
public. Conventional approaches create animosities and foster the belief that
participation is a disingenuous ritual.
The public hearing as a primary tool for participation is easily manipulated
by organized and well-resourced interest groups. Participating in time-
consuming meetings and hearings has become increasingly difficult for many
individuals who have less free time and less predictable schedules than previous
generations. For example people who are at an economic disadvantage,
who perform shift work, or who have young families are hampered from
participating.
All of these larger trends combine to complicate public involvement in
contemporary planning, and challenge the relevance of conventional
approaches to participation that revolve around open houses and public
hearings. These factors suggest a need for new frameworks to enable direct
democracy in planning decision-making.
4 Epp, Michael. Assessing incidence of and Experiences with New Information Communications Technologies in Planning Practice in Canada and the United States
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 14 15Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
2.0 Objections Against Public Participation in PlanningThere are several arguments questioning the quality improvement and
fairness propositions.
2.1 Lack of ExpertiseMany professional urban planners claim that they have the expertise to develop
plans in the public interest. The public may be consulted, but because they
lack the expertise, they should have no influence on the final decision. Political
obligations to give the public more influence are perceived as undermining their
expertise and professional status.5
2.2 Inequity of AccessA second argument questions that participation advances fairness and justice
because certain groups of people who have more time and engage more have
their voices heard, while others do not have the time and their concerns are not
entered into the decision process. Therefore decision-makers cannot truly find
out what the public’s preferences are, just the preferences of certain groups.
2.3 Elected Officials and Representative DemocracyA third argument comes from elected representatives who appreciate partial
supplementing of representative democracy but fear that this extension may not
be kept under control and in the end lead to ultimately damaging representative
democracy as evidenced in the situation with taxation propositions in California.
2.4 Time WastingSome argue that public engagement leads to an explosion of conversations that
go nowhere, while distracting governments from making decisions and getting
on with governing. The charge is that the reason for turning to engagement is
that governments are increasingly unwilling and/or unable to make decisions.
5 Kubicek, Herbert. “Putting e-democracy into context.” p. 4
3.0 Barriers and OpportunitiesThe use of the Internet to engage citizens in urban planning has been constrained
by the limited availability of suitable technical tools, concerns about digital
inequality, and a lack of a clear understanding about how technology can meet
the needs of citizens and professionals. New internet technologies and expanding
internet access addresses these concerns, and illuminates why urban planning
requires a distinct technological approach from other e-government initiatives.6
3.1 Language and Cultural BarriersVancouver has evolved into a multicultural city. There is a very large ethnic
Chinese population and high representation of other Asian groups. In each
case, particularly with new residents, language can be a barrier to participation.
Online participation is affected as most communication materials are created
in English only and Chinese, Punjabi or Persian new citizens may not have the
experience or the inclination to utilize ICT tools.
However, the challenge is not just with language. Cultural values regarding
public involvement also stem from how representative democracy is perceived.
Generally speaking, the belief is that once you’ve elected representatives, they
should be left to govern without interference from the public unless something
is going seriously off the rails. This flies in the face of the western notion of
participatory democracy. Thus where these cohorts are present, it is necessary
to undertake special measures with the support of transition groups.
Wherever there are organizations within ethnic communities, such as
S.U.C.C.E.S.S., there is an opportunity to provide exposure to new methods of
public consultation. With new immigrants there is an emphasis on education
that might be extended here. (what does that mean?)
The same is true to a certain extent with the senior cohort. Although internet
adoption is growing rapidly among seniors, they are more acculturated to
traditional methods of public consultation and are less likely to engage online
without individual prompting. This is not necessarily a problem as their voices
will be captured in public meetings and in other face-to-face interactions.
3.2 Institutional – Governance ChangesThe Vancouver Charter reads that rezoning applications must be “advertised in
the newspaper legal section for two consecutive days”. Newspapers per se no
longer have the relevance they once did, and many more people nowadays
obtain their news online. This is one example of how governance changes must
be implemented in alignment with the changing realities of public information.
6 Goodspeed, Robert. Citizen Participation and the Internet in Urban Planning. p. 2
3.0 Barriers and Opportunities16 17Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
3.3 Owners Versus RentersOver fifty percent of Vancouver’s population are renters. Reaching renters
presents some very real challenges for the City. They are highly mobile and do
not register their addresses with the City. Unaddressed direct mail typically ends
up in the mailroom recycling bin in apartment buildings and seldom makes it
through to the intended recipients.
In contract, informing owners is a relatively easy matter of sending personalized
mailers to individuals on the Property Assessment rolls. Because they pay
property taxes, owners can be reached via mail. Online notification would be a
desirable option, as the majority of Vancouverites are online (greater than 90%)
and renters tend to skew younger demographically, which corresponds
to heightened internet use.
Decreased postal costs and use of paper aligns with the City’s Greenest City
goals and fiscal prudence measures.
A wish list item is to level the playing field in respect of delivering notification
evenly to owners and renters. The solution may well be online with further
authentication of digital identity to place of residence and, potentially,
workplace as well.
3.4 Existing BiasesCertain groups of people who have more time and engage more often have their
voices heard, while others do not have the time and their concerns or ideas are
not entered into the process. Therefore decision-makers cannot truly find out
what the public’s preferences are, but only the preferences of certain groups.
Public Meetings
Public meetings have been the status quo of consultation over decades.
However, they attract individuals who have the time and inclination to
participate in this manner. Further, public meetings tend to attract the more
ideological or NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard) who attempt to dominate the
proceedings. Many people are intimidated and alienated by public meetings that
can feature angry clashes between factions, name calling and other undesirable
pathologies.
Politicians and civil servants alike struggle with making balanced decisions
based solely on the experience of public meetings, as they recognize that they
are receiving a skewed sample. A very small percentage of the population is
influencing outcomes disproportionately. In many cases, they are affecting
policy based on the input of a hundred individuals representing far less than 1%
of the population.
As a rule, younger people, and young women in particular, are less likely to
participate as a cohort in public meetings. They do not possess the same
cultural history of traditional participation. Parents of young children often will
not engage because of schedule demands. Often public meetings occur in the
evenings, when lessons and other family activities are priorities. Single parents
are further disenfranchised, as obtaining babysitters is a further complication
and expense.
Online consultation provides a positive solution for those with accessibility
issues. People can inform themselves and provide feedback online at their
convenience in the privacy of their own homes.
Landline Telephones
Public opinion polls have relied on telephone polling for decades. With
the advent of ubiquitous mobile phones, the use of land lines is in decline.
Furthermore, those who still have land lines are unlikely to answer them. People
are tired of being “sold or polled” on the telephone. Those who still have land
lines and answer them, tend to be older, and certainly not representative of the
general population. While it may be possible to obtain a statistically relevant
sample size, of say 1%, the internal composition of the sample may be skewed.
3.5 Uncertain Legal Landscape for Public EngagementMuch of the legal framework for citizen participation predates the rise of social
media and other online technologies. In fact, most of the laws governing public
engagement at the local, state and federal levels are several decades old, and
do not reflect recent innovations. This has created some confusion about what
legal public engagement is supposed to look like.7
On some kind of policies, such as rezoning decisions, the public manages
continue to follow the traditional practice of public hearings, written notices and
comment periods. They also rely on advisory committees made up of non-
governmental stake-holders. Generally speaking, these formats aren’t
considered very effective for eliciting or structuring public engagement. Some
officials have experimented with new ways of improving public hearings. Others
have stuck with the traditional formats, partly because they believe the laws on
participation do not allow such changes.
There are now several major questions confronting decision-makers as they
being to increase their use of new tactics and tools to engage citizens. They
are uncertain how the laws on public meetings and public information should
be applied to online environments. They are uncertain how geo-location
technologies will be treated in light of an individual’s right to privacy.
7 Leightinger, Matt. p. 6
3.0 Barriers and Opportunities18 19Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
In most of these areas, there are simply no easy answers. This is not only because
the laws vary, and are interpreted differently by different legal experts, but
because in many places, the laws have yet to be written. Writing about geo-
location technologies, legal expert Kevin Pomfret states that these online tools
“will never reach (their) full potential until consistent and transparent laws and
policies surrounding location privacy are developed”. 8
After more than fifteen years of online consultations, there is a persistent reason
to suspect that their democratic potential is nowhere near to being realized.
Despite the widespread availability of online forums for political expression,
few are tied in any ascertainable, accountable way to actual government policy
making. That is, a citizen participating in most online forums has no assurance
that his or her effort will have any effect on the government’s decision making
process or on the actual policy that emanates from that process. 9
8 Pomfret, Kevin. Location and Privacy – what is the new reasonable?
9 Coleman, Stephen and Peter M. Shane. Connecting Democracy. p. 3
4.0 Current State of the ArtDeciding how best to use online tools to engage the public may be the
ultimate moving target for City Hall staff. This is not just because of the rapid
development of new tools or “apps” for engagement. The main challenges are in
understanding:
1. the increasing complexity of how people organize themselves online, and;
2. Citizens’ evolving expectations of government.
These challenges reflect an environment of increasing social media activity
where citizen users are organizing themselves into communities defined
by shared interests, relationships or geography. In the case of land use and
community planning-related consultation, the importance of a “spatial graph”,
organized around geographical boundaries of local areas within the City are of
particular relevance. Tying the digital world with the real world and “making it
real” is an overarching challenge.
Within the context of a long-range strategic civic engagement plan, there are
different short-term and long-term online tactical tools that will make sense
in different scenarios. This section suggests the tactics and online tools that
make the most sense for those. The IAP2 Spectrum here provides organizing
principles for this exploration.10
A general rule of thumb – and one that applies to engagement at any level of
government – is that tasks that require only a one-way flow of information are
easier to organize and scale than activities based on two-way interaction. Surveys,
for example, can reach large numbers of people more easily than projects that
engage citizens in deliberation or action planning.
There are two caveats, however: first, the number of participants in any
engagement effort is heavily dependent on the effectiveness of the recruitment
strategy. Second, the more meaningful and productive forms of engagement
that have emerged in the last twenty years rely heavily on well-structured
interaction between citizens and government and among citizens themselves.
Many online consultation experiments have been conducted and evaluated
recently, resulting in diverse insights on a variety of situations. However, these
studies usually do not enhance the understanding of what may work, when
and why. To answer these questions, research must move from descriptions of
isolated projects toward comparative evaluation. Local government is an online
consultation laboratory.
Those who work in the field of public engagement and online consultations
describe their efforts and motivations in similar terms: they are seeking to
enhance participation, create deliberative democracy and make government
10 See Appendix 3
4.0 Current State of the Art20 21Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
more accountable. A key challenge is to find a new balance between
participatory and representative forms of democracy.
Appendix 1 contains a short inexhaustive list of online public engagement
platforms and toolkits. The majority of them are useful for informing, consulting
and involving the general public. None of them — except Vancouver-based
PlaceSpeak — authenticate citizens to their residential addresses to enable
location-based decision-making. A few of them aggregate ongoing communities
of engagement. With the imminent delivery of the new City of Vancouver
website, there will be many more opportunities for engendering an authentic
relationship between the City and its citizenry online.
4.1 Tactics and Tools
Inform — aggregate opinions expressed on social media networks11
What is the tactic: Aggregation tools allow the user to listen in on existing online
discussions of public issues rather than try to bring citizens to a new online
space.
Use this tactic when: sampling the state of online conversation about a
particular issue or decision, either by testing how often certain terms are used,
by finding more in-depth posts and statements express online, or both.
Limitations: the technology of aggregating opinions expressed online is still
being developed. Even when it is more fully operational, aggregation seems
unlikely to provide a representative sample of public opinion, not just because
of “digital divides” but because the people participating in most online
discussions are a self-selected group that is not necessarily representative of the
larger population.
Consult — survey citizens12
What is the tactic: online survey websites that make it easy to design and
disseminate surveys.
Use this tactic when: a quick reading of where people stand on a particular issue
or decision is needed.
Using this tactic online allows you to: reach more people with less time, effort,
and expense than required by traditional polling. The survey can also help
connect users to other opportunities for engagement. After answering the
questions, the respondent can be presented with links to activities including the
other types described in this paper.
11 Leighninger, Matt. Using online tools to engage – and be engaged by – the public. p. 27
12 Ibid. p. 25
Limitations: an online survey is not the same as a scientific opinion poll, unless
the user builds in other aspects of traditional polling, such as random selection
of participants. And as with traditional polls, question wording influences how
people respond. In designing the survey, questions can be added that collect
demographic data to provide a better idea who is responding, and how well they
represent the broader community.
But regardless of the demographics, this type of survey will tend to oversample
informed, active citizens and under-sample those who are currently less
engaged in public life. Further, geographic location is important when it comes
to land-use oriented questions, and needs to be built into any survey process
tied to decision-making around property development.
Involve — facilitate large-scale deliberation online13
What is the tactic: tools that create a more direct exchange between citizens,
engaging them in discussion and dialogue on policy options.
Use this tactic when: the objective is for citizens to learn more about the issues,
communicate with one another across divisions, wrestle with policy options, and
find common ground on a particular decision, issue or plan. The objective is to
galvanize citizen-driven action efforts in addition to gathering recommendations
to government.
Using this tactic online allows people to: participate in a way that is generally
more convenient and versatile that face-to-face deliberation. People who
are geographically very far apart can be brought together; citizens who are
more comfortable in online environments can be included in the process;
and “asynchronous” deliberation can take place (in other words, people can
participate on their own time rather than having to be in a certain place at a
certain hour).
Limitations: lacks the emotional power and empathy level of face-to-face
deliberation.
Collaborate — create shared work space for citizens14
What is the tactic: closed online “work spaces” can make it easier for a group of
people to communicate, plan, write and make decisions.
Use this tactic when: small groups of citizens, or some combination of citizens
and City staff, are working together on an idea or plan.
Using this tactic online allows people to: stay connected with one another and
continue working together without having to be in the same place at the same
time. It can either replace or complement face-to-face meetings. It can also
encourage use of related online tools for editing, polling and research.
13 Leighteninger, Matt. Ibid. p. 21
14 Ibid. p. 19
4.0 Current State of the Art22 23Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Limitations: if the online work space is not connected strongly enough to the
rest of the participants’ daily activities (for example, if the editing process
does not automatically generate updates that go straight to the participants’
email boxes, and/or it does not include face-to-face group meetings), then
participation will wane, sometimes dramatically.
Empower — help citizens to visualize geographic data15
What is the tactic: interactive maps can incorporate economic, environmental,
demographic, traffic and other data, along with architectural and land use
design tools, to depict different planning options.
Use this tactic when: citizens need to see how their neighbourhoods and
communities will look in order to better understand the possibilities and
ramifications of planning decisions.
Using this tactic online allows people to: reshape their visions on the fly.
Limitations: needs to be surrounded and supported by some of the other tactics
described in this paper in order to have value.
4.2 Application of Online Consultation to Planning and Development
Community Planning
The internet is a powerful tool for planners to expand the base of participants in
planning processes and enhance traditional engagement approaches. There are
several opportunities to insert online consultation into the existing process(es).
Using the IAP2 spectrum of participation, community planning activities
currently fall into the first three categories, Inform, Consult and Involve. There
are further programmatic opportunities for extending further to Empower, but
this will require more than technology to advance, as it anticipates a greater
level of direct democracy than currently exists in the City’s governance system.
INFORM – Community planning occurs at a hyper local level and requires a
spatial approach. Notifying citizens within specific geographical communities
can be challenging. As noted elsewhere in this paper, mailers are not a
successful tactic with renters, as they end up in the mailroom recycling more
often than not. Furthermore, anecdotally, staff suggested that of 10-15,000
notices sent out through Canada Post, perhaps 500 people might respond.
Posting notices in visible areas can help somewhat, such as in community
centers and cafés. Working through community groups is important but should
be understood that it does not necessarily capture or represent the entire
neighbourhood.
15 Ibid p. 33
Online notification currently occurs through email wherever lists are compiled.
Email lists are incomplete, transient, and require constant management. A new
approach is opt-in notification through solutions such as Placespeak.com. Where
citizens register and are verified to their residential (and potentially work)
address, they may opt-in to notification.
The new City website will contain specific community pages which should
always include up-to-date information on any community planning activities.
Destination websites have their limitations as a standalone draw, thus a multi-
pronged approach that includes cross-links with social media and other relevant
sites are constructive strategies for reaching citizens.
Open houses are very useful mechanisms for engendering community
awareness. However, as stated elsewhere, not everyone has the time and ability
to attend in person. Thus online open houses which contain the same visual
collateral are a helpful adjunct. Staff can be on hand in real time to answer
questions online through chat or email as required. No citizen should be
excluded because they were unable to attend.
CONSULT – Internet technologies lend themselves well to consultation activities.
Public meetings, as with open houses, can be conducted in real time online as
well as in person. It is possible to stream live video and audio from the open
house venues via a variety of services, or alternatively real time chat can be
enabled.
Online surveys have become very common and there are multiple user-friendly
applications in the market. The trick in the case of community planning is to be
sure that respondents are located in relevant areas. Conducting a survey about
hyper-local attitudes and needs without the assurance that you’re hearing from
the right places is not particularly useful.
Again, PlaceSpeak, which has been beta-tested with the City, provides a
platform that connects people to place and enables local spatial analysis.
Public comment online is usually conducted through Discussion Forums.
Historically, online forums have been anonymous. Anonymity unfortunately
allows inappropriate behavior and as a result city efforts have been fraught
with “Troll attacks”.16 This has necessitated full time moderation to ensure that
the integrity of discussion is maintained. However, new technology that verifies
identity whilst protecting private information is helping to ameliorate these
concerns.
It should be noted that many more citizens will view public commentary than
will actually contribute, thus opportunities to “like or dislike” or “agree or
disagree” with comments is an important additional feature that helps determine
16 In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
4.0 Current State of the Art24 25Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
City staff develop proposal for a planning process.
City Council or Park Board approvesterms of reference.
Delegations can be heard.
Online consultation created.
City Actions Public Role
City staff initiate research and data analysis.
City staff work with the community to developvisions and broad concepts identify issues forconsideration, and develop recommendations
for the choices between options.
City Council or Park Board briefing.
Council public meeting; online consultationreport given to Council for review.
Council Decision.
Meetings held with key community leadersand organizations.
Public open house, meeting, newspaperadvertisements, online consultation page, and/or
newsletter to inform people about the proposed planning process.
Meetings held with key community leadersand organizations.
Focus groups or kitchen table meetingswithin the community.
Formation of a stake holder working group.
Information distributed to the entire community.
Community forums and conferences.
Online discussions with users verifiedby address.
Further meetings held with key community leadersand organizations and working groups.
Community forums, design charettes, surveys,open houses, and priority setting activities.
Online and telephone surveys, public meetings, email newsletters to advise community of
proposed choices, policies, etc., and notification of Council meetings.
City Actions Public Role
Community Planning
Lead Department(s): Planning, Engineering Services, Housing Centre, and Park Board.
Figure 6 — Community Planning Strategy
the larger attitudes of the community. The rule of thumb is that ninety percent
of online viewers are “lurkers” and only ten percent will actually contribute ideas
to the process.
INVOLVE – As a rule, workshops work best in person, however there are some
online technologies that provide for interactive participation such as Crowdbrite.
Deliberative polling can quite easily be conducted online, again provided
participants have been location verified.
COLLABORATE – Citizen advisory committees will continue to meet in person
as there are some activities that are best conducted in person. That said, there
are numerous consensus-building tools available to assist in the development of
alternatives. Pre-visualization platforms, such as Vancouver’s own Metroquest,
offer creative opportunities for deliberation about preferred solutions.
Community notice boards are another way to involve citizens as they permit
the uploading of photos and other UGC (user-generated content). Further
opportunities of interactive engagement include the ability to use GIS tools to
map location-specific items, such as public amenities, relative to individual sites.
Vital to whatever tactics are undertaken is the need to start early and
maintain ongoing communication with community residents. In order to keep
people engaged, it is necessary to keep them notified of updates and new
developments. Thus developing online communities that mirror geographical
areas, and engage on a regular basis will lead to successful outcomes.
Vancouver’s next community plans recognize neighourhood-level challenges
that must be addressed at a hyper local level. Council’s clear direction regarding
the need to enhance and diversify public engagement in community planning,
and the desire to deliver plans more quickly and create processes which are
nimble and responsive to pressing issues, can be enhanced, for example, through
the increased integration with and deployment of PPGIS (Public Participation
Geographic Information Systems) technology. The political will is definitely
there. Introducing new tools and technologies to support broader participation
is now part of the prevailing wisdom.
New Approaches to Outreach and Engagement
A key component of the renewed approach to community plans is providing
enhanced and creative ways to connect with residents and other stakeholders
and ensure broader, more representative participation using innovative tools and
techniques. This new approach is characterized by the foregoing:
Broader and More Representative Outreach
•Ensure that residents (both owners and renters), local businesses, non-profit organizations and agencies, community service groups, landowners and developers all have the opportunity to be involved and engaged in discussion about the future of the community.
4.0 Current State of the Art26 27Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Pre-design conference with applicant.
City Actions Public Role
Application submitted for a development permit.
Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines andpolicies, seek advice from other departments,
and evaluate traditional and online responses fromadvisory bodies and neighbours. The application
is forwarded to the development with arecommendation to approve (usually with
conditions) or refuse the application.
Planning staff alerts applicant to neighbourhoodissues and advise applicant to get input from
the neighbourhood and interested groupsvia multiple methods
and online, location-verified, consultation.
Neighbourhood property owners and/or localneighbourhood advisory committees are advised
of the proposal, invited to view the plans andsubmit their written comments usually within
two weeks, this is done via traditional methodsand Online discussions with users
verified by address.
Applicant is advised to erect a sign on the sitedescribing the proposal, specifying the URL ofthe online consultation, and advising interested
parties to contact the City.
All major applications are referred to theUrban Design Panel for comment. Only staff and
the applicant attend.
If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown, or Shaughnessy, it is referred to the Historic
Area Planning Committee for comment.Only staff and the applicant attend.
If the application involves a heritage issue, itis referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee
for comment. The public may attend.
Significant applicants are referred to localCitzens’ Planning Committee in those
communities where local planning programs areunderway, or just completed.
The public may attend.
City Actions Public Role
...
Figure 7 — Major Development Permit Strategy
•Promote, facilitate and celebrate the involvement of each section of the Local Area’s diverse population. Ensure the voice of community members that represent the diversity in the community is heard throughout the planning process.
•Report back on public input quickly and show measurements of representation (e.g. through the tracking of demographics).
In each Local Area, greater emphasis will be directed towards involving sections
of the community members which are typically under-represented in planning
processes. In the case of Grandview-Woodland, the emphasis could be directed
towards better involving renters (approximately 65%), Aboriginals (9%), and
low-income individuals and families as well as youth and seniors. In Marpole
where 41% of the population speaks Mandarin or Cantonese, key materials will
be translated into Chinese. And in the West End reaching out to renters (81%),
low-income households (33%), the 20-39 year olds (50%), and seniors (17%) and
youth (5%) will be a priority.
The CLEAR model is useful to determine when participation is most effective by
ensuring citizens:
•C an do – have the resources and knowledge to participate.
•L ike to – have a sense of attachment that reinforces participation.
•E nabled to – are provided with the opportunity for participation.
•A sked to – are mobilised through public agencies and civic channels.
•R esponded to – see evidence that their views have been considered.
Innovative Techniques and Diverse Opportunities for Informed Engagement
•Encourage community participation by providing a broad range of tools, techniques and information to facilitate the exchange of ideas and diverse perspectives. Collaboration will help build stronger partnerships between different stakeholders and provide staff with a greater understanding of the community and its assets and issues.
•Utilize innovative new techniques such as visualizations and multimedia simulations to engage people in a dialogue about the future of their community.
Specific outreach and engagement initiatives will vary by neighbourhood and
could include: the use of video, visualization, scenario modeling, walking tours,
workshops, interactive community events and social media.
Major Development Permits
Many of the methods described in the Community Planning section are also
germane to participating in building and development processes.
Notification post cards and flyers are delivered by Canada Post at considerable
cost to the City. Delivery is spotty in apartment/condo areas and most often
end up in mailrooms, garbage and recycling. There is a distinct discrepancy
between owners and renters. Property assessment information makes it possible
to connect with owners, but it is difficult to reach renters. As a result, City Staff
have done personal mail drops in high renter areas, e.g. West End, but this too
has its shortcomings as staff can be harassed.
4.0 Current State of the Art28 29Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Application submitted for a development permit.
City Actions Public Role
Final decision by City staff.
Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines andpolicies, seek advice from other departments,
and evaluate traditional and online responses fromadvisory bodies and neighbours. The application
is forwarded to the development with arecommendation to approve (usually with
conditions) or refuse the application.
An online consultation site is set up, thesite will provide detailed information on the
application such as maps and importantdates, as well as a discussion forum.
Neighbourhood property owners and/or localneighbourhood advisory groups who are
affected by the proposed changes are advisedof the application and invited to view the plansand submit their written comments either viatraditional methods or the online consultation
site within two weeks. If the Director of Planningis satisfied that the changes will not affectneighbours (i.e., they are minor), then the
notification is not undertaken.
If a site sign is required, the applicant is advisedto erect it. If an online consultation page wasset up, the URL will be included on the sign.
If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown orShaughnessy, it is referred to the appropriate
Historic Area Planning Committee for comment.
City Actions Public Role
Where a policy matteror a very contentious
application is involved,the Director of Planning
may refere an applicationto the Council for advice.
Figure 8 — Minor Development Permit Strategy
The application is referred to a formal publichearing and online consultation page.
City Actions Public Role
City Council decision.
City staff review report of online consultation.The report details the number of supportersand opponents, a breakdown of local and non-local participants, and a summary of
arguments presented during the online discussions.
An online consultation page is created andincludes discussion forums, maps showing
rezoning, and detailed informationon the proposal.
The applicant is required to alter the site sign toindicate time and place of the public hearing.
City staff inform, in writing, the same propertyowners and community groups about thepublic hearing and online consultation.
Notifications of the public hearing are placed inlocal newspapers (both legal and display
advertisements with maps showingrezoning with location).
City Actions Public Role
Public hearing(Staff presents the application).
Figure 9 — Rezoning Application Strategy
90% of responses to post cards and notices are now digital despite the fact that
the City still responds with hard copy mail. A Digital Notification system would
therefore be a good thing. It would be possible to do a better job digitally than
mail particularly with the renter problem of access to apartment buildings and
condos. Fostering a system of opt-in registration to enable both notification
and verifiable interaction on consultation topics would be desirable for a whole
range of reasons. Further, update notifications could be auto-generated as the
Development Permit application proceeds through its various stages through to
the final decision.
Minor Development Permits
In the case of Minor Development Permits, public commentary is limited to
local advisory bodies and immediate neighbours. Typically, the area notified is
approximately a two-block radius. Flyers and postcards addressed to home owners
are currently used for the notification piece. Email notification is also conducted
where lists have been compiled of local area residents. There is also the opportunity
to notify residents within specific spatial boundaries utilizing the PlaceSpeak
platform. Signage should include a website URL, a contact email address and
preferably a QR code for mobile device access of site specific information.
The City’s website will display details around the application and there should be
opportunities for comment in a variety of forms. Care should be taken to ensure
that comments are from relevant areas. Minor development permits are hyper
local and should restrict input spatially.
Rezoning Applications
As established above, rezoning applications tend to be publically contentious
and thus transparency and accuracy of public interaction are key.
Every Major Development Permit application and Rezoning application should
be encouraged to undertake online public consultation as a matter of practice.
This should commence at the same time as the application is submitted and
continue throughout the approval process. City staff should have access to the
proponents’ web data in order to evaluate the consultation on an ongoing basis.
4.0 Current State of the Art30 31Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
5.0 Recommendations and ConclusionsThere is an increasing drive to online public consultation as older methods lose
their relative relevance. The once prevalent “digital divide” argument has faded
as the internet has become the dominant form of communication. Greater
than ninety percent of Vancouverites are now online, including previously
unconnected groups like the homeless and seniors.
Overwhelmingly, youth today are “digital natives” — they have never known a life
without the Internet and cell phones. The pervasiveness of participatory digital
media in their lives has had substantial impact on how digital natives interface
with the world. Thus future methodology around consultation must reflect this
reality.
The future of online public consultation as it relates specifically to land use
change decision-making and policy development involves its own set of
requirements. To make it “real” the process must include two key additions:
(1) location; and (2) identity verification. For online consultation to provide
anything more than anecdotes, the entire process must become increasingly
authenticated. The City should continue to engender awareness by its use
of social media and dissemination of information through the City’s website.
However, in order to further advance its planning and policy activities through
evidence-based decision-making, the City needs to provide leadership in
requiring hard data. The good news is that the City is a leader in the open data
movement, and increasingly is fueling a more transparent and accountable
public process.
Specific consultation guidelines for city staff and developer proponents alike
need to be established. Minimally each consultation must include a meaningful
online component. Setting up a blog or a Facebook page is insufficient. Basic
recommended requirements are covered in the Online Consultation checklist
(above), and fall into four categories:
1. Open DataAdd public “consultation” category to the City’s Open data
catalogue http://data.vancouver.ca/ and standardize the
schema city-wide.
2. Inform/NotifyAdd an online notification system that ties digital identity
to physical address. This will help address the problem with
renters not receiving mailers.
3. Consult/FeedbackDiscussion forums should be encouraged early and often.
Polls and Surveys should be tied to place to avoid distortion
of responses.
Virtual open house/public meeting should be available for
accessibility purposes to broaden the reach beyond those
with the time to attend.
4. Report/AnalyticsConsultation reports must be attached to Rezoning and
Development Permit Applications showing the number and
distribution or respondents and both quantitative and
qualitative data distilled from the online consultation.
In conclusion32 33Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Online Consultation Check list:Open Data Schema:
Name of consultation
Abstract of not more than 140 characters, containing relevant key words for tagging
URL for City of Vancouver website listing
Location address of site
City contact information including email and telephone number
Calendar including dates of public meetings, information sessions, etc.
Note: this data is sufficient to create an open data list entry
Information features:
Notification though various online channels
Mapping of notification area (which will minimally be the standard two block radius)
Mapping of other city areas (optional) from where to gather additional feedback
Dissemination of application specific information including:
• Documents
• Photos and other images such as elevations, and shadow studies
• Videos
• Links to other related information sites
• Proponent contact information including email and telephone number
Consultation features:
Discussion forums including the ability to vote up and down comments
Polls with dynamic results (i.e. results displayed after response given)
Surveys containing more detailed questions providing for open answers
Social Media plug-ins primarily to Facebook and Twitter
Virtual notice board for collecting and compiling USC
Notification ability to continually update citizens on new content, event dates
Invite neighbours and community members to participate and share
Report features:
Demonstrate the number and distribution of respondents
Description of quantitative data derived from polls and surveys
Description of qualitative data derived from algorithmic prioritization of comments
Site analytics including time on site, bounce rate, number of page views, etc.
In conclusionAs long as the City’s online public consultation is not tied in any ascertainable,
accountable way to actual governmental policy making, a citizen participating in most
online forums has no assurance that their effort will have any effect on the decision-
making process. Until such time as online public consultation can been shown to
affect the lives of those who participate, it is not obvious how significant new numbers
of citizens would be attracted to the public consultation process. Success therefore
will be tied to authenticating the process.
Measuring success is integral to the public consultation process. Effective evaluation
is not something that can be tagged onto the end of an engagement process. It needs
to be considered from the start, begin as early as possible and continue throughout
the process.
Hopefully this paper has identified issues that warrant further discussion and
investigation by City staff, architects, developers, and community leaders alike.
These include dispelling the many myths and misconceptions such as the prevalence
of “digital divide.” It is further intended that this paper will contribute to a better
and more constructive dialogue with neighbourhoods who will ultimately support
necessary changes to Vancouver’s planning and development practices. Only in this
way can Vancouver expect to have sustainable relationship with its citizens.
AcknowledgementsMany people assisted the author in undertaking research and preparing this
paper. They include:
•Mairi Welman, Director of Corporate Communications for supporting this research and in the interest of bringing the City’s public consultation practices into the 21st century
•David McLellan, Deputy City Manager for encouraging the underlying exploration that led to this study
•Brenda Prosken, for arranging the meetings with other senior staff.
•Vicki Potter, for sharing the details of the Vancouver Services review.
•Doug Robinson, for going the extra mile by providing template documents for existing practices.
•Catherine Buckham, for her insights into the community planning process.
•Matt Shilito for sharing his knowledge of the planning process and public consultation.
•Laurie Best for her work spearheading the City’s new web development initiative.
•Tracy Vaughan for ongoing insight into public engagement priorities.
•Yuri Artibise and Lee Gildemeester of PlaceSpeak for their research assistance.
•Finally, City Manager, Penny Ballem for having the imagination, and making it possible to pursue this project by encouraging city departments to engage in the discussion around next generation public consultation best practices.
Appendices34 35Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Catalogue of selected online toolsName Website
All Our Ideas allourideas.org
Ascentum ascentum.com
Brainstorm Anywhere launch.brainstormanywhere.net
Citizen Space citizenspace.com/info
CitizenScape citizenscape.net/core
CitySourced citysourced.com
CivicEvolution civicevolution.org
Community Forums CommunityForums.org
Corum corum.ca
Crowd Fanatic crowdfanatic.com
CrowdMap crowdmap.com
Debategraph debategraph.org
Debatepedia wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia!
Delib delib.com
DemocracyLab democracylab.org
DEMOS demos-project.org
eConsult communitypeople.net
EngagementHQ corporate.bangthetable.com
Engaging Plans engagingplans.com
Facilitate.com facilitate.com
FixMyStreet fixmystreet.ca
Get Satisfaction getsatisfaction.com
Group Systems groupsystems.com
Icanmakeitbetter icanmakeitbetter.com
Metroquest metroquest.com
IdeaVibes ideavibes.com
Mediem idealogueinc.com
Mind Mixer mindmixer.com
Next Door nextdoor.com
OnlineTownhalls OnlineTownhalls.com
Open Town Hall peakdemocracy.com
Option Technologies optiontechnologies.com
PlaceSpeak placespeak.com
Regulations.gov Regulations.gov
SeeClickFix seeclickfix.com
User Voice uservoice.com
Votorola zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht
Zilino zilino.com
Appendix 2 – Interviews with City StaffVicki Potter
Director, Development Services
Community Services
Doug Robinson
Assistant Director, Development Services
Community Services
Matt Shillito
Assistant Director, Community Planning
Community Services
Catherine Buckham
Senior Planner
Laurie Best
Director, Web Redevelopment Project
Tracy Vaughan
Public Engagement Manager
Appendices36 37Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Appendix 3 - IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation References1. Assessing Incidence of and Experiences with New Information Communications
Technologies in Planning Practice in Canada and the United States by Michael D. Epp, Pratt Institute, School of Architecture, February 2012.
2. Citizen Participation and the Internet in Urban Planning by Robert C. Goodspeed, University of Maryland, Urban Studies and Planning Program, May 9, 2008.
3. Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication, edited by Stephen Coleman and Peter M. Shane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012.
4. Electronic Democracy and Deliberative Consultation on Urban Projects: “Putting E-Democracy into Context”, prepared by Prof. Dr. Herbert Kubicek, University of Bremen, Germany, October 2007.
5. Creating Digital Public Space: Implications for Deliberative Engagement, by Penny Gurstein in Learning Civil Societies: Shifting Contexts for Democratic Planning and Governance, University of Toronto Press, 2007.
6. Planning, technology, and legitimacy: structured public involvement in integrated transportation and land-use planning in the United States, by Keiron Bailey, Benjamin Blandford, Ted Grossardt and John Ripy in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2011, volume 38, pages 447-467.
7. Using online tools to engage and be engaged by the public by Matt Leighninger, Deliberative Democracy Consortium for the IBM Center for the Business of Government.
8. Using Geographic Information Systems to Increase Citizen Engagement, Sukumar Ganapatti, IBM Centre for the Business of Government, Washington DC, 2010.
9. Citizenship and governance in a wild, wired world, National Civic Review, Spring 2011, Matt Leighninger.
10. Location and Privacy – what is the new reasonable? Spatial Law and Policy, Kevin Pomfret, 2010.
11. Wikiplanning: engaging the public in new ways online, Planning and Technology today, Ryan, Deborah, 2010.
12. The internet and civic engagement, Aaron Smith. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC, 2009.
13. Virtual Communities: Bowling Along, Online Together, Song, Felicia Wu, 2009
14. The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and the Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society, Arno Scharl and Klaus Tochtermann (Eds.) Austria 2007.
15. Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement, Don Lenihan, Public Policy Forum, 2012.
References38 39Best Practices in Online Public Consultation