Public Involvement Techniques
From EIA_Wiki
There are a number of public involvement techniques used in Environmental Impact Assessment.
Contents |
Tools and Techniques
The following is a list of the tools and techniques used in Public Involvement based on their level of public involvement in the EIA process (Source: International Environmental Management Association, 1999).
Education and Information Provision
The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Education and Information Provision, as well as a description f their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.
| Technique | Description and Use | Advantage | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leaflets/ Brochures | Used to convey information. Care should be taken in distribution. | Can reach a wide audience, or be targeted. | Information may not be understood or be misinterpreted. |
| Newsletters | May involve a series of publications. Care should be taken in distribution. | Ongoing contact, flexible format, can address changing needs and audiences. | Not everyone will read a newsletter. |
| Unstaffed Exhibits/Displays | Set up in public areas to convey information. | Can be viewed at a convenient time and at leisure. Graphics can help visualise proposals. | Information may not be understood or be misinterpreted. |
| Local Newspaper Article | Conveys information about a proposed activity. | Potentially cheap form of publicity. A means of reaching a local audience. | Circulation may be limited. |
| National Newspaper Article | Conveys information about a proposed activity. | Potential to reach a very large audience. | Unless an activity has gained a national profile, it will be of limited interest. |
| Site Visits | Provides first hand experience of an activity and related issues. | Issues brought to life through real examples. | Difficult to identify a site which replicates all issues. |
Information Feedback
The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Information Feedback, as well as a description of their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.
| Technique | Description and Use | Advantage | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staffed Exhibits/Displays | Set up in public areas to convey information. Staff available. | Can be viewed at a convenient time and at leisure. Graphics can help visualise proposals. Groups can be targeted. | Requires a major commitment of staff time. |
| Staffed telephone lines | Can phone to obtain information, ask questions or make comments about proposals or issues | Easy for people to participate and provide comments. Promotes a feeling of accessibility. | May not be as good as face-to-face discussions. Staff may not have knowledge to respond to all questions. |
| Internet | Used to provide information or invite feedback. On-line forums and discussion groups can be set up. | Potential global audience. Convenient method for those with internet access. | Not all parties will have access to the Internet. |
| Public Meetings | Used to exchange information and views. | Can meet with other stakeholders. Demonstrates proponent is willing to meet with other interested parties. | Can be complex, unpredictable and intimidating. May be hijacked by interest groups. |
| Surveys, Interviews and Questionnaires | Used for obtaining information and opinions. May be self-administered, conducted face-to-face, by post or telephone. | Confidential surveys may result in more candid responses. Can identify existing knowledge and concerns. | Response rate can be poor. Responses may not be representative and opinions change. |
Involvement & Consultation
The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Involvement & Consultation, as well as a description of their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.
| Technique | Description and Use | Advantage | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workshops | Used to provide background information, discuss issues in detail and solve problems. | Provides an open exchange of ideas. Can deal with complex issues and consider issues in-depth. Can be targeted. | Only a small number of individuals can participate. Full range of interests not represented. |
| Open-House | Location provided, e.g. at a site or operational building, for people to visit, learn about a proposal and provide feedback. | Can be visited at a convenient time and at leisure. | Preparation for and staffing of the open house may require considerable time and money. |
Extended Involvement
The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Extended Involvement, as well as a description of their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.
| Technique | Description and Use | Advantage | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Advisory/Liaison Groups | People representing particular interests or areas of expertise, e.g. community leaders, meet to discuss issues. | Can consider issues in detail and highlight the decision-making process and the complexities involved. | Not all interests may be represented. Requires on-going commitment from participants. |
| Citizen Juries | Group of citizens brought together to consider an issue. Evidence received from expert witnesses. Report produced, setting out the views of the jury. | Can consider issues in detail and in a relatively short period of time. | Not all interests may be represented. Limited time may be available for participants to fully consider information received. |
| Visioning | Used to develop a shared vision of the future. | Develops a common view of future needs. | Lack of control over the outcome. Needs to be used early in the decision -making process. |
Communication Techniques
The following table provides a list of techniques for communicating with the public, including the communication characteristics and what public participation objectives they meet.
| Communication Characteristics* | Public Participation/ Communication Technique | Pubic Information and Participation Objectives | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level of Public Contact Achieved | Ability to handle Specific Interests | Degree of 2-way Comm. | Inform/ Educate | Identify Problems/ Values | Get Ideas/ Solve Problems | Feedback | Evaluate | Resolve Conflict/ Consensus | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | Public Hearings | | X | | X | | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | Public Meetings | X | X | | X | | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Informal Small Group Meetings | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | General Public Information Meetings | | X | | | | |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | Presentation to Community Organization | X | X | | X | | |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Information Coordination Seminars | X | | | X | | |
| 1 | 2 | 1 | Operating Field Offices | | X | X | X | X | |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Local Planning Visits | | X | | X | X | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | Public Displays | X | | X | X | | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | Model Demonstration Projects | X | | | X | X | X |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | Material for Mass Media | X | | | | | |
| 1 | 3 | 2 | Response to Public Inquiries | X | | | | | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | Press Releases Inviting Comments | X | | | X | | |
| 1 | 3 | 1 | Letter Requests for Comments | | | X | X | | |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Workshops | | X | X | X | X | X |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Advisory Committee | | X | X | X | X | |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Task Forces | | X | X | | X | |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Employment of Community Residents | | X | X | | | X |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Community Interest Advocates | | | X | | X | X |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Ombudsman or Representative | | X | X | X | X | X |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | Public Review of Initial Assessment Decision Document | X | X | X | X | X | X |
- Level of participation: 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high.
References
Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (1999), Draft Guidelines on Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, Lincoln, UK.
