wpe13.jpg (5038 bytes)

Public Consultation: Market Research and Beyond

Alberta Recreation and Parks Association

Conference 25 October 1999

Jasper Alberta

Joe Pavelka

Calgary Parks & Recreation

 

Objective...

___________________________________________________________________________

Most Parks & Recreation agencies can claim that a central objective of theirs is to "deliver customer-based services (products) in an effective and efficient manner".

Whereby:

    Effective refers to... ‘doing what we say we are doing’; and

    Efficient refers to... optimal use of resources

Public consultation is a tool to assist the agency in meeting its mandate and to ensure resources are directed to areas of greatest need, impact and value.

The objective within public consultation is to:

    a.) reflect the public will within the delivery of recreation and parks services; while

    b.) maintaining operations and service delivery; that is

    c.) public consultation is to be seamlessly integrated into decision-making and              service delivery.

Public Consultation as a Central Management Function

__________________________________________________________________________

Public consultation has evolved into a central management function. Public consultation may impact any number of management decisions.

Public Involvement in Decision-making

___________________________________________________________________________

Decision-making continuum

Expert Driven                                                                                  Public Driven

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

The level and type of public involvement has changed in recent years. Consider, where is your agency’s decision-making is on this continuum.

 

Where was it 10 years ago?

 

Where is it today? Has it changed over time? Why?

 

Where might it be in the future?

 

Also consider the evolution of public involvement from the ‘what’ (that is; involvement in what is to be built or re-developed) to include the ‘how’ (that is; involvement in daily operations)

 

Prince’s Island Park Master Plan (Case study)

___________________________________________________________________________

Prince’s Island Park is the centre-piece of the Calgary park system located in the heart of the downtown entertainment district. It is also:

  1. The most used park, 75% of Calgarians visit the park once a year and up to 25,000 people visit this 33 acre island park each day during July and August.
  2. The park also serves as an important commuter route into the downtown.
  3. It is the location for the six largest festivals in Calgary and many other smaller events. Festival attendance alone averages 350,000 each summer.
  4. The adjacent area to the south is slated grow from 3,500 to 11,000 residents in the next six years, in up-scale condo development.
  5. There have been three previous attempts at developing a Master Plan since 1990 - all were unsuccessful for various reasons pertaining to public involvement.

Prince’s Island Park (case study) continued...

Key Park Planning Issues were focused on:

a.) Dominance of passive vs. festival activity;

b.) Access and enjoyment concerns of adjacent vs. non-adjacent residents

Other issues include:

c.) Noise, traffic and parking issues from festival activity

d.) Pathway conflict

e.) General park aesthetics and greening

Process Issues...

___________________________________________________________________________

Three key process issues identified that had to be addressed:

  1. Lack of trust - of most stakeholder groups with the Department and among stakeholder groups
  2. Representation - would the less vocal Calgarian who also uses the park not be heard? Would the process be directed by the most vocal groups?
  3. Decision-making vs. Stalling - will there be enough of an imperative to decide on a future to for a consensus? Will there be a political will to decide on a future if only a majority decision could be reached?

    4.  

    Process Strategies...

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Planning strategies were developed to address the process issues, key features included:

     

    Process issue

    		 Process strategy
    Lack of trust  

    ‘Public Steering Committee’ structure

    Representation  

    Extensive public consultation

    Decision-making vs. Stalling  

    Future demand analysis

     

    Public Steering Committee Structure...

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    The planning committee for the Master Plan, consisted of a Public Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC was a fifteen member, ‘arms-length’, citizen group charged with directing the planning process, while the Department took on a facilitation role. It included one Parks staff person as an ex-officio member to facilitate.

    Advantages:

  4. It addressed the lack of trust issue (ie. The Public Steering Committee was in charge)
  5. Committee held greater ownership of the process and the results;
  6. Committee members became the public/media spokes-people; and
  7. Committee created and policed their own rules of conduct.

    Disadvantages:

  1. The Department had considerably less control over the planning process and results;
  2. Ensuring that the concerns and requirements of the Department were clearly heard and incorporated into planning; and
  3. The planning process tends to be slower.

    Extensive Public consultation...

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Public consultation was considered to be a critical component of the process. It was seen to have two objectives, that is; to allow public close to the issue to voice their concerns and aspirations about the park, as well, it was required to be representative of all residents and park users.

    Public consultation included:

    Nine open house meetings at three different stages, park intercept survey, random telephone survey, separate stakeholder mail-in surveys, newsletters to communications listing, telephone hot-line, and the involvement of the Public Steering Committee.

    What worked well and why?

  1. Open house meetings

    2. i. Provided in-person contact;

    ii. Provided informal discussion among various stakeholder groups; and

    iii. Provided an opportunity to vent.

  2. Park User Intercept Surveys (N=663)
    1. Equalized representation by targeting park users

ii. Large-sample allowed for analysis of sub-groups within the sample eg users from adjacent and non-adjacent communities

  1. Random telephone survey (N=818)
    1. Equalized representation further by reaching Calgary households
    2. Over-sampling of adjacent communities added credibility which was later required
    3. Large sample allowed for analysis of sub-groups within the sample
    4. Provided base-line data for demand analysis
  1. Communications list/newsletter
    1. Communicated study results to all interested parties via newsletters
    2. Increased awareness of big-picture issues

The balance of quantitative and qualitative methods allowed for greater representation.

Future Demand Analysis...

___________________________________________________________________________

What if we did nothing? What would happen to the park in the future? What would it look like? Is doing nothing an option at this time?

  1. The Future Demand Analysis involved projecting passive and festival use at the park through to a 25-year horizon utilizing key variables such as:
  1. Present park use patterns and volume
  2. Adjacent residential build-up
  3. City-wide build-up and general growth
  4. Downtown planning policies
  5. Festival trends
  6. Demographic affects
  7. Impact of other park development plans

    8. b.) Based on the understanding that there are two critical ‘case for action’ periods throughout a planning process of this type, that is:

    i. When the issue is first raised (usually by a stakeholder group); and

    ii. When the impasse is realized after all the stakeholders are brought together and differing views are expressed.

    The Future Demand Analysis allowed for greater cohesion and clarity of purpose once the impasse was realized.

    Results - how did it turn out?

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    The people of Calgary envision the Greater Prince’s Island Park as a park where they can gather to play, quietly connect with nature, attend special events, mingle with diverse cultural communities, and experience the excitement and activity characteristic of a vibrant City and its downtown. Vision Statement

    Further...

  8. Multi-use park whereby passive use and festival activity are the two predominant uses;
  9. Enhanced usable green space;
  10. Capped festival activity, improved the festival infra-structure towards enhanced performance and mitigation of stray sound; and
  11. Improved park access, and traffic calming measures.

    12. Intangibles...

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Observations on the intangible elements of public consultation in park planning.

    Park/facility planning is about people; how people use the park/facility; how people feel about it, and mostly; how people perceive it to fit into their own lives. Concerns are often expressed in ‘carrying capacity’ terms (eg. How much and what type of use can a limited space hold before the asset and the user-experience begins to erode). Carrying capacity is seldom if ever absolute - it is a subjective science. Therefore, the intangibles, that is peoples’ perceptions, must be understood and addressed. Often there is a perception that people are not getting what they deserve, relative to what they think they deserve.

    Three insights into the intangibles...
  12. The pie is shrinking

    13. Refers to the general perception that the sum of expected resources is declining and less will be remain for everyone. This may act as a catalyst for organized responses - and it may offer insight into the mind-set of the public stakeholder within the process.

  13. Fear and aspirations

    14. It is said that people tend to act on fears before they act on aspirations. Those who believe that their piece of the pie is shrinking are more likely to be involved. These fears are real and they need to be addressed before a vision of the ideal future can be discussed.

  14. Fractured public

Is a term given to the trend of identifying segment specific solutions vs. broad-based solutions to social issues. For example private vs. public schools, two-tiered health care, NIMBY, gated communities, etc.

 

The value of public input is in understanding its motivation and basis as it relates to each individual.

HOPE

_________________________________________________________________________

What can the agency do to improve integration of public input into decision-making?

Heard

Options

Purpose

Equity

 

Heard: People want to be heard. They want to know they have been heard by all affected parties within a situation. They want to know that their concerns have been understood as being impacting on a personal level. They want to know that their concerns will be considered in the solution mix. People are more likely to feel heard in an open house than a survey.

 

Options: People want to know that if the status quo or the desired option is eliminated they will have other options to choose from (though the value of other options may not readily apparent). They want be involved in the development of options. Without options there is no need for the individual or group to work within the process.

 

Purpose: People want to understand the purpose of the initiative. They want to know that there is a legitimate ‘case for action’ driving the initiative. They want their purpose or reason for being at the table recognized as being valid and legitimate. The agency often struggles with getting the public to understand and/or accept the ‘big-picture’ purpose and trade-offs.

 

Equity: People want to see equity within the process, that is, everyone can be heard and the best possible research is used in decision-making. Ultimately, they need to feel a sense of equity in the trade-offs supporting the options and final results. They need to feel that the pie has been distributed fairly.

 

Various elements of HOPE can be built into the public consultation process. Public confidence will be based, in part, on the agencies ability to deliver HOPE elements within the process.

Direct Dialogue Strategies

____________________________________________________________________________

Facilitated discussion directly between and among stakeholder groups can be very effective in reaching consensus. Otherwise all dialogue tends to filter through the coordinating agency and contact is lost among stakeholder groups.

Two quick and strategies include:

  1. Running text at open house venues. Offer script sheets adjacent to poster boards containing key ideas and statements. Solicit written comments for all to read and respond to in the course of the event. Divergent opinions will appear in the running debates.
  2. Say it out loud. An 11th hour strategy to maintain positive dialogue between groups may include something as simple as getting the groups around the table to verbally express the concerns and aspirations of other group members around the table. An 11th hour strategy to deal with impasses.

    3.  

    Key Success Factors...

    __________________________________________________________________________
  3. Citizen ownership of the process through a planning committee charged with directing the process
  4. Survey research involving random and/or systematic sampling with large sample sizes - a consultation process that balances key stakeholder venting and representative sampling.
  5. Market research used to support decision-making rather than supercede stakeholder decision-making.
  6. ‘What if’ scenarios such as the Future Demand Analysis to provide clarity of purpose and planning impetus.
  7. Communication of the results... to everyone and on a regular basis.
  8. Application of HOPE principles into various elements of the public consultation process, from the selection of key stakeholders to open house formats to stakeholder negotiations.
  9. Recognizing and addressing stakeholder fears and aspirations.

    Further consideration...

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Why do we undertake elaborate (business) planning exercises if we’re only going to change direction with public input anyway?

    For some people, the acceptance of public consultation as a central management function may contradict the purpose behind typical 3 to 5 year business planning efforts.

    Two possible responses:

  1. Some initiatives, especially capital intensive initiatives, require the stability of a solid 3 to 5 year plan that sets a course and discourages deviation. Extensive public input is ideal at the front end of this type of process and with appropriate feedback throughout.
  2. Consider what we expect the agency business plan to address and what we expect on-going public consultation to address?

The stop light example... what if the red light represents organizational values and major goals - the yellow light represents policy - and the green light represents programs and services?

 

What part of the stop light is your business plan most focused on?

 

What part of the stop light do you expect public consultation to impact the most?

 

_____________________________________________________________________

About the presenter...

Joe Pavelka is presently the Executive Assistant to the Director of Calgary Parks & Recreation. In the past, he has held various positions related to public consultation such as; Research Co-ordinator, Business Analyst, Recreation Planner and Project Manager/Public Consultation. Joe also practices public consultation, market research and business planning with numerous groups in the not-for-profit, public and commercial sectors across Canada.

 

Joe teaches Leisure and Tourism studies within the degree-programs of the Faculty of General Studies and the Faculty of Management at the University of Calgary. He has also published a number of articles on various aspects of recreation management. Joe holds two undergraduate degrees in Outdoor Recreation and Geography and a Master’s Degree in Recreation Administration.

Joe Pavelka may be reached at 403.268.1375 or at jpavelka@calgary.gov.ab.ca or at planvision@home.ca

The Public Consultation ‘crux’

____________________________________________________________________

 

To develop a common understanding and working acceptance of the big-picture including the range of trade-offs within issue resolution.

LIN logoAppropriate Use of Documents: Documents may be downloaded or printed (single copy only). You are free to edit the documents you download and use them for your own projects, but you should show your appreciation by providing credit to the originator of the document. You must not sell the document or make a profit from reproducing it. You must not copy, extract, summarize or distribute downloaded documents outside of your own organization in a manner which competes with or substitutes for the distribution of the database by LIN.