Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009

Structured Public Involvement™ Workshop

Helsinki City AuditoriumKansakoulukatu 3Helsinki, Finland

May 18, 20099 am-12 noon

Dr. Ted GrossardtLexington, Kentucky, USA

Dr. Keiron BaileyTucson, Arizona, USA

Mr. John RipyLexington, KY, USA

John’s the One on the Left

Today1. SPI as a Response to Public Participation Problems

– Large groups and complex questions– John Rawls and the ‘Veil of Ignorance’– Translating Justice/Fairness to Process Rules

2. SPI Session Planning, Design, and Implementation– What is SPI? Performance of SPI– Group Process Design: Questions and Polling– Representation Strategies– Decision Support Tools– Comparison to Some Current Practices

3. Case Studies (Your choice)– Large Bridge Design– Small Area Design for Light Rail Station– Land Development Planning– Highway/Electric Transmission Line Corridor Planning– Nuclear Industrial Site Cleanup and Future Uses

Press the Number That Best Describes You

60%

40%

0%0%

Transporta... Electric U...

Elected Of... None of th...

1. Transportation Professional

2. Electric Utility Professional

3. Elected Official4. None of the above

Years of Experience in Your Field

20%

0%

60%

20% 1. 1-52. 5-103. 10-154. More than 15

My Familiarity with ARS (Keypads)

Nev

er H

eard

of I

t

See

n, but N

ever

Use

d

Par

ticip

ated

in a

Mee

ting

Hav

e Use

d It a

Litt

le

Hav

e O

ur O

wn S

yste

m

0% 0% 0%0%0%

1. Never Heard of It2. Seen, but Never Used3. Participated in a

Meeting4. Have Used It a Little5. Have Our Own System

SPI as a Response to Public Participation Problems

85% of Kentucky citizens believe the public should be more involved in the project development process.

(Meeting Kentucky’s Transportation Needs and Priorities: Citizen’s Perceptions and Recommendations. KTC-05-23/TA12-04-1F, p. 72)

The Arnstein Ladder: Degrees of Citizen Participation in Planning (Arnstein 1969)

Manipulation

Therapy

Informing

Consultation

Placation

Partnership

Delegated Power

Citizen Control Degrees of citizen power

Degrees of tokenism

Nonparticipation

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

The Arnstein Ladder: Degrees of Citizen Participation in Planning (Arnstein 1969)

1. Where are we now?

2. Where should we be?

Where are we now?

Manipulation

Therap

y

Info

rming

Consulta

tion

Placation

Partnersh

ip

Delegate

d Power

Citizen Contro

l

0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%

Mean =

1. Manipulation2. Therapy3. Informing4. Consultation5. Placation6. Partnership7. Delegated Power8. Citizen Control

Where should we be?

Manipulation

Therap

y

Info

rming

Consulta

tion

Placation

Partnersh

ip

Delegate

d Power

Citizen Contro

l

0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%

1. Manipulation2. Therapy3. Informing4. Consultation5. Placation6. Partnership7. Delegated Power8. Citizen Control

Mean =

Manipulation

Therapy

Informing

Consultation

Placation

Partnership

Citizen Control

Delegated Power

Mean score ~3.7

Desired level ~6.1

Arnstein Gap

The Arnstein Gap

N > 1000, various public and professional forums in the U.S.

3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

Actual level

Desired level

The Professionals’ Conceit…

“We’re doing OK”

Breakdown of the Arnstein Gap for Professionals

3 4 5 6 7

American PlanningAssociation (2007)

ProfessionalEngineers (2007)

Localplanners/professionals

in KY (2006)

TransportationResearch Board

(2006)

Some observations on the Arnstein Gap

The public recognizes and wants expert domain

Professionals and public want the same level of participation

BUT

A Gap exists. The public would like a greater degree of participation.

HOW can we close the Arnstein Gap?

• Professional skepticism of the justification for, and the practicality of, including large numbers of people in planning and design

• Bad experiences on the part of the public cause hostility and suspicion. This causes professionals to fear public engagement.

• Professionals seek to limit public involvement

Factors that Contribute to the Arnstein Gap

Partition the Decision Domain: current situation

Input from professionals

Input from public

Problem domain: financial, technical, legal, aesthetic

Degrees of citizen power

Degrees of tokenism

Nonparticipation

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Partition the Decision Domain: SPI model

Input from professionals

Input from public

Problem domain: financial, technical, legal, aesthetic

Degrees of citizen power

Degrees of tokenism

Nonparticipation

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

• “D.A.D.” Method……. (O’Connor et. al. 2000)• Disagreement Within Design Authority About Goals and

Priorities (Comeau et. al. 2000)• Vague Charge to Consultant (Behroozi 2000)• Limited Range of Design Options (Unsworth 1994)• Public Distrust of Motives (Bailey and Grossardt 2005)• Difficult to Gather Relevant Information (Ewing 2001)• Public Unhappiness with Results (Booth and Richardson

2001)• Awkward Methods for Response (Lidskog et. al. 1999)• Public Embarrassment for Agencies (popular press)• Recurring Questions about Legitimacy (Maier 2001)

Classic Problems with Unstructured Public Involvement

Structured Public Involvement: Foundational Assumptions

We work in a democratic polity and we are dealing with public goods i.e. infrastructure, using public money ($88 billion in 2001, Bureau of Transportation Statistics).

Principles of justice apply (Rawls 1971: A Theory of Justice; derived from Von Neumann 1947: A Theory of Games)

Rawls and the ‘Veil of Ignorance’

John Rawls’ principles of justice

Rawls argues that self-interested rational persons behind the “Veil of Ignorance” would choose two general principles of justice to structure society in the real world:

1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)

2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

John Rawls’ Principles of Justice/Fairness

Everyone has the same minimum set of liberties that do not invalidate anyone else’s same right.Inequalities must meet two conditions: everyone is equally likely to be subject to them, and they must provide the greatest benefit to the least advantaged. (Maximin)

Distributive AspectRatio of positive and negative impactsInherent property of public infrastructure and designEnvironmental Justice

Procedural AspectMethods by which decisions are made.

Access AspectWho is included in decision-making process.

Justice Problem

• Distributive Justice is inherently unattainable in transportation (and many other) infrastructure projects.

• SPI seeks to deliver Procedural and Access Justice to mitigate Distributive Injustice.

Methodological Implications

This means in the context of Structured Public Involvement

1. Soliciting participation from all representative stakeholder groups and public.

2. Identifying and including all criteria of significance to all parties.3. Establishing an agreed-upon weighting scheme for criteria among

stakeholder groups.4. Using geovisual/geospatial methods as part of a participatory

decision support system5. Facilitating participation of disadvantaged groups through

distributed outreach.6. Revisiting all groups with interim conclusions to allow iterative

evaluation.

Functional Process• Accommodate large numbers of participants.• Give each equal voice.• Make them anonymous, independent, and diverse.• Explain general problem clearly.• Solicit their input efficiently, transparently.• Have a process that fits the input into decision

process. • Do it rapidly.

– (Send them home in 2 hours or less.)

Unit 2: Session Planning, Design and Implementation

• What is SPI™? SPI™ performance• Group Process Design: Questions and Polling• Representation Strategies• Decision Support Tools

Representation Decision Modeling

Group DialogicMethods

Structured Public Involvement (SPI)

What is Structured Public Involvement or SPItm

SPItm delivers high performance evaluations from stakeholders, project sponsors and professionals.

It streamlines public involvement, reduces process irregularity and increases defensibility and sustainability of decisions.

It does so because it is theoretically strong and it has been improved over ten years of applications.

25-33% of performance of SPI is derived from the use of the electronic polling system; what about the rest?

How do we achieve these goals?

Structured Public Involvement: preparation is critical

The public sees this….

• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Planning, Environmental, Districts)• Indiana DOT• Arizona DOT (pilot study)• FHWA : TCSP, FTA, NCHRP• National Science Foundation• National Academies of Science• Michael Baker Jr. Inc.• Wichita State U.• LexTran (Lexington)• Transit Authority of River City (Louisville)• Bluegrass ADD• Jeffersonville, IN• Woodford County, KY• Jessamine County, KY• Parsons Transportation• Lochner and Associates• Wilbur Smith and Associates • Lardner-Klein Landscape Architects• Burns and McDonnell Engineering

Some SPI Partners

Project Manager, State Transportation Agency (Bridge project 2005-07)

“For the state of Kentucky, as owner of the bridge, the polling process proved to be an efficient way to get the thoughts from the public that we were after.

Lead engineer (Bridge project, 2007)

“The polling process used in the Louisville Bridge project gave us more specific feedback than ever before…This way, more vocal contingents at public meetings can’t dominate the debate. People get excited about it, because they see that their participation is real.”

Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)“I’ve never seen this level of public involvement before”

Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)“I wish my neighbors were here”

Resident of retirement community (Noisewall Design 2006)“Thank you. Your team is doing a good job”

Evaluation and commentary from clients, partners, project managers and citizens

Federal official (Bridge project 2005-07)

“I had never been through a process using this type of activity. This was very transparent, very open, available to all stakeholders. There’s a lot more credibility from the public’s perspective this way.”

Federal official (Bridge project 2005-07)

“We were very impressed. The polling process gave a true picture of what the public liked and didn’t like and the final designed reflected that. We thought the process was excellent.”

“I was amazed by how accurately this process predicted the public’s wishes.”

“When you see members of the public after they’ve seen their comments incorporated, they’re excited. There’s a sense among them that, ‘I counted.’”

Evaluation and commentary from clients, partners, project managers and citizens

SPI Stakeholder satisfaction evaluations

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rural Highw ay improvement (KY, 2000)

Transit Oriented Development (KY, 2002)

Noisew all Design (KY, 2004)

Noisew all Design (AZ, 2006)

Bridge AAT (KY, 2005)

Bridge Meeting 1 (KY, 2005)





Land Use Planning (KY, 2005)

Bypass study (KY, 2008)

Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)

Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)

Mean satisfaction with SPI Processes

Structured Public Involvement Design Process

How to convert principles of SPI™ into action

Structured Public Involvement Design Process

Using Casewise Visual Evaluation

BRIDGE DESIGN AESTHETICS1

Vote For Your Favorite Bridge

Choice O

ne

Choice Two

Choice Thre

e

Choice Fo

ur

0% 0%0%0%

1. Choice One2. Choice Two3. Choice Three4. Choice Four

How Suitable Is...Bridge 1

Very Unsuita

ble ... ... ...

So-So ... ... ...

Very Suita

ble

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%

1. Very Unsuitable2. ...3. ...4. ...5. So-So6. ...7. ...8. ...9. Very Suitable

Mean =


Very Unsuita

ble ... ... ...

So-So ... ... ...

Very Suita

ble

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%


Mean =

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

How Suitable Is...

Basics of Questions and Polling

• Nature of Question Should be Clear– Cost versus Appeal versus Other Factors?

• Avoid “Yes-No” Questions– Use Continuous Scale– Use Multiple Criteria

• Input is Usually Evaluative, Not Decisional– Contributes to Overall Project in Specific Way– ‘Partnership’

Scoring Summary and Standard Deviation by Groups

Representation Strategies

• Goal is to Assure Competent Responses from Group

• May Use Data, Photos, Videos, GIS, etc.• Use Minimum Necessary to Achieve Good

Feedback• Save Sophisticated Expensive Material for

Proper Time: Detailed Work, Fine Distinctions

Item: Image 1

Positives - Looks like Bardstown road, the openness, trees, plaza is neat with the commercial, mixed use, it fits the neighborhood, the brickwork, Multi-Use, Green space, Pedestrian Friendly, Nice Blend of Old & New

Negatives - Like to see more brick, narrow street, parking availability, traffic looks tight, Where is the rail?

First Vote:

Second Vote:

Example: Community Planning

Green Space

Single Family

Townhouses

Multi - Family

Commercial

Mixed - Use

Scenario 10

Scenario 10

Decision Support Modeling

• How Does Data Become Incorporated Into Project?

• Simple Comparative Scoring• Multiple Criteria-Weighted Evaluations• Used to Feed Spatial Analytic Tools to Answer

‘Where’ Questions• Used to Feed/Generate Robust Models of

Group Preference

Innovative Decision Support Tools

• Analytic Hierarchy– Allows Limited Preference Analysis Data to be Comparatively

Organized– Useful for Ranking Large Sets of Complex Items

• Eg. Multiple data layers in GIS

• Fuzzy Set Analysis– Allows Preference Data for a Small (5-10%) Subset to Inform

Preference for the Remainder of the Solution Domain– Adapted for Sparse Data and Non-Linear Multi-Variable

Problems– Allows Complex Problems to be Covered by Analyzing Small

Portion of Hundreds of Possible Solutions

Dress This Man

2 Jackets x 3 pants x 2 shirts x 3 ties = 36 combinations

5 3 3 3 3

5 3 1 1 3

5 7 5 1 3

8 7 5 3 3

9 8 5 3 3

CAsewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE) Decision Support

LOWLOW

HIGH

HIGH

Following Modules:

• Land Use• TOD Design• Routing Problem• Major Bridge Design• Nuclear Industrial Cleanup and Re-Use

Example: Community Planning

Planning Problem• How do people’s judgments articulate with different

“kinds” of developments?• Distinguishing Properties of Developments?

– Housing Mix– Land Use Mix– Walkability– Street Network Connectivity– Greenspace

Green Space

Single Family

Townhouses

Multi - Family

Commercial

Mixed - Use

Scenario 1

Scenario 1

Green Space

Single Family

Townhouses

Multi - Family

Commercial

Mixed - Use

Scenario 10

Scenario 10

Describing Development Patterns

Parameters Value and Meaning

Low Medium High

Mix of Housing Types 80-100% Single Family Detached

70-80% SFD App. 50% SFD

Mix of Land Uses 0-10% Commercial/ Retail

10-20% C / R 20-30%+ C / R

Proportion of Greenspace

0-4% Total Area, excluding pavement

5-10% of Total Area 11-15% + of Total Area

Non-Auto: Ratio of Sidewalk Area to Roadway

0-10% of Surface is Sidewalk



Connectedness: Avg. # of Intersection Spokes (3-4)

3 - 3.1 3.1 – 3.3 3.3 – 3.6

Mix Housing TypesMix Building/Land

Use Greenspace Walkability Street Connectivity

LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH

1 x x x x x

2 x x x x x

3 x x x x x

4 x x x x x

5 x x x x x

6 x x x x x

7 x x x x x

8 x x x x x

9 x x x x x

10 x x x x x

11 x x x x x

12 x x x x x

Some Possible Development Patterns

Housing Mix (HOU) = Var Land Use Mix (BLU) = VarGreenspace (GRN) = Low

Sidewalk Ratio (ACT) = Low Street Connectivity (CON) =Low

1

Land Use Mix

Housing M

ixLow

High

High

Low

High

Housing Mix (HOU) =Var Land Use Mix (BLU) = VarGreenspace (GRN) = Low

Sidewalk Ratio (ACT) = High Street Connectivity (CON) =Med

9

Housing Mix (HOU) = Var Land Use Mix (BLU) = VarGreenspace (GRN) = Med

Sidewalk Ratio (ACT) = High Street Connectivity (CON) =High

4

TOD Design

Architects’ Design Language

Height: (L, LM, M, MH, H) Low-rise, low-medium, mid-rise, medium-high, high-rise

Typology: (C, L, B, A) Courtyard, linear, block, assembly of parts

Density: (L, M, H) Low, medium, high Open space: (S, P, C) Sidewalk, public

plaza, central courtyard

Item: Image 1

Positives - Looks like Bardstown road, the openness, trees, plaza is neat with the commercial, mixed use, it fits the neighborhood, the brickwork, Multi-Use, Green space, Pedestrian Friendly, Nice Blend of Old & New

Negatives - Like to see more brick, narrow street, parking availability, traffic looks tight, Where is the rail?

First Vote:

Second Vote:

Item:Image 10

Positives - Playground (residential), Patios & Balconies

Negatives - Looks disposable, Parking detracts, Too plain, Lacks Arch detail

First Vote:

Second Vote:

First Scoring

Second Scoring

Output Preference Surface: Height v Density

Routing Problem

New Transmission Line: Somerset to London

Real-time Data Collection

Landscape Features Subject to Physical Damage

• Wildlife management area• National Forest• Wetland• Archaeological feature• Prime farmland• Springs

• Streams• Sinkholes• Caves• High poverty levels• Indian tribe land• National and State Park• Cemetery

Significance for Physical Damage: Power and Non-Power ProfessionalsSubject to Physical Damage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Wild

life m

anag

emen

t are

a

Nation

al For

est

Wet

land

Archa

eolog

ical fe

atur

e

Prime

farm

land

Spring

s

Stream

s

Sinkho

les

Caves

High p

over

ty lev

els

India

n tri

be la

nd

Nation

al an

d Sta

te P

ark

Cemet

ery

Global Impedance Values Power Professionals' Impedance Values Non-Power Professionals' Impedance Values

Features Subject to Visual and Proximity Impacts

• Human Habitation• School• National Properties Register• Hospital• Church

• Wild and scenic river• Public campground• Threatened and endangered

habitat• Picnic area• Golf course

Non-Point Features

• Electric Fields• Magnetic Fields• Radio Frequency

Interference• Audible Noise• Visual Impacts

300 200 100 0 100 200 3000

2 104

4 104

6 104

8 104

0.001

0.0012

0.0014

Distance -Feet

Mag

netic

-F

ield

( m

-T)

BCP d 0( )

BCE d 0( )

BC d 0( )

d

Significance for Visual / Proximity Impacts: Power and Non-Power Professionals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

HumanHabitation

School NationalPropertiesRegister

Hospital Church Wild andscenic river

Publiccampground

Threatenedand

endangeredhabitat

Picnic area Golf course

Global Impedance Value Power Professionals' Impedance Non-Power Professionals' Impedance

Features Affecting Constructability • Strip or shaft mines• Public water supply• Airport• Sewage treatment• Pipeline• Railroad• Dams• Powerline crossing• Hazmat site• Landfills• Military installation• 15 - 25% slope• 10-15% slope• 5 - 10% slope

• Rock base• Water tower• Oil and gas wells• Water treatment station• Mixed/unknown base• Floodplain• Soil resistance• Forested• High land cost• Lightning risk• Radio or TV tower• Superfund or other EPA Project

Site• Bodies of water e.g. river, lake

Construction CostsConstruction Feature Multiply base cost by

Angle of turn

16-30o 1.1

30-90o 1.2

Grade

5-30% 1.0 + grade(%)/100

Vegetation

Light forest (accessible by truck)

1.05

Heavy forest (not accessible by truck)

1.2

Most Important Landscape FeaturesAirport

Superfund or other EPA Project SiteMilitary installation

National and State ParkHazmat site

Threatened and endangered habitatStrip or shaft mines

Oil and gas wellsWild and scenic river

Important Landscape Features

Archaeological featureNational Properties Register

High land costBodies of water

DamsNational Forest

School

WetlandRadio or TV tower

LandfillsWildlife area

15 - 25% slope

Reverse Viewshed Analysis

Visualization

Source: DOE/EIS-0325, Jan. 2003

Impact of Color Value on Visual Impact

Color + Complexity

Color + Simplicity

Nuclear Industrial Site Cleanup and Re-Use

TVA

WKWMA

DOE

DOEleased toWKWMA

DOESecurity

fence

PGDP Future Vision Process

StakeholderInterviews

CBPC SPI

StakeholderCommunityMeeting (s)Stakeholder

Focus Groups

Future Vision Advisory Panel (Representatives Drawn from Stakeholders)

UK/KRCEE

AssessmentProtocol/ScenarioTriggers

ScenarioMatrix

CommunityFutureVision

Community Based Participatory

Communication(CBPC)

Structured Public Involvement

(SPI)

CommunityPreference Model

ReviewRefinement

ReviewRefinement

ReviewRefinement

Data/TechnicalSupport



Input/Feedback Input/Feedback Input/Feedback

Case wise Visual

Evaluation(CAVE)

Example Scenario MatrixFuture Vision Categories Scenario

1Scenario

2Scenario

3Scenario

4

Land Use

a. Nuclear Industry

:

z. Residential Apartments

Waste Disposal

a. On-site

b. Partial

c. Off-site

Groundwater

a. Water Policy & Active Treatment

:

z. Monitoring & Enhanced Inst. Controls

Surface Water

a. Monitoring

:

z. Sedimentation Basins/Removal

Example Scenario Fact Sheet

Impacts:

Health

Economic

Environmental

Trends:

Energy Needs

Economic

Environmental

Uncertainties:

Funding

Regulations

Demographics

Structured Public Involvement

Future Vision Scenarios

Fact Sheets

Future Sate Visualizations

Future State Visualizations

Discussion

Vote on Scenarios

CAsewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE)

Fuzzy Knowledge BuilderOptimal Solution

5 3 3 3 3

5 3 1 1 3

5 7 5 1 3

8 7 5 3 3

9 8 5 3 3

Sampled Scenarios Modeled Scenarios Selected Scenario(s)

Myths of Public Involvement

1. “difficult to have consensus without leadership” (CORP speaker, May 2007)

2. “without leadership participation is impossible” (CORP speaker, May 2007)

3. “the public are uninformed” (CORP panelist, Feb 2004)

4. “in this environment, it is impossible to involve people” (CORP speaker, May 2007)

5. “people will never be satisfied” (Planner, 2005)

Myths about Public Involvement in Planning

“in this environment, it is impossible to involve people” (CORP speaker, May 2007).

It is only impossible if there is no analytic method or if the will to include citizens is lacking. Citizen preferences and professional design practice must be brought into genuine dialog: even if it is ideologically unpalatable to professionals.


“the public are uninformed” (CORP panelist, Feb 2004)

The public may not have expert knowledge of structural properties, but they know their cultural, visual and financial preferences. In democratic societies where public money is being spent, this claim should not be used to exclude their participation. Their opinion should be respected to the greatest feasible extent.


“without leadership, participation is impossible” (CORP speaker 2007)

Participation occurs without political or professional leadership. However, tame participation, i.e. participation that agrees with expert opinion, is only possible through a certain kind of leadership.


“people don’t know what they want” (Planning meeting participant, 2006)

People’s preferences appear opaque because they aren’t being asked…..or because they’re not participating because they’re not being listened to….or because the professionals lack analytic methods to help them understand what people mean.


“difficult to have consensus without leadership” (CORP speaker, May 2007)

Consensus is not a useful goal in large-scale planning projects. Achievement of consensus is only possible through deployment of power: silencing of opposing views, exclusion of certain groups from participation.

Does nonconsensual planning mean morally or practically inferior planning?

• “..there has been little attempt to develop [more general] theories within the context of transportation projects, possibly because systematic public involvement is a relatively recent development in this field.” (Barnes and Langworthy 2004:8-9)

Methodological Suggestions from Transportation Literature

Methodological Suggestions from Transportation Literature

Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009

Technology

Transcript of Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009