Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Prepared by: Colleen Hardwick 1005 Cypress Street Vancouver, BC V6J 3K6
Composition and Working Arrangements

This 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. Hardwicks 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
Introduction1
Preamble1 Purpose and Objectives 2 Priorities3 Structure of this Report 3 Challenges in public consultation 4
1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning

1.1 Guiding Principles 1.2 Historical Context 1.3 Existing Practices 1.4 Shortcomings
6
6 7 7 15
2.0 Objections Against Public Participation in Planning

2.1 Lack of Expertise 2.2 Inequity of Access 2.3 Elected Officials and Representative Democracy 2.4 Time Wasting
16
16 16 16 16
3.0 Barriers and Opportunities

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Language and Cultural Barriers Institutional Governance Changes Owners Versus Renters Existing Biases Uncertain Legal Landscape for Public Engagement
17
17 17 18 18 19
4.0 Current State of the Art

4.1 Tactics and Tools 4.2 Application of Online Consultation to Planning and Development
21
22 24
List of Figures
Figure 1 Existing Practices re: IAP2 Figure 2 Existing Community Planning Public Practices Figure 3 Existing Practices Major Development Permit 8 9 11 12 14 26 29 30 31
5.0 Recommendations and Conclusions In conclusion
Figure 4 Existing Minor Development Permit Practices
32 34
Figure 5 Existing Rezoning Public Practices Figure 6 Community Planning Strategy Figure 7 Major Development Permit Strategy Figure 8 Minor Development Permit Strategy Figure 9 Rezoning Application Strategy
Acknowledgements34 Appendices36
Appendix 1 - Catalogue of selected online tools Appendix 2 Interviews with City Staff Appendix 3 - IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation 36 37 38
Abbreviations and Acronyms:

ICTS GIS Information Communications Technologies Geographical Information Systems Planning Support Systems Public Participation Geographic Information Systems User Generated Content
References39
PSS PPGIS UGC
Introduction
Preamble
The 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 Citys 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 Citys 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 Vancouvers 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.
Introduction
Purpose and Objectives

A 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 peoples 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 publics contribution will influence the outcome. However, despite an emphasis on open and transparent processes, there remain obstacles and barriers to widespread public participation. People dont 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 Vancouvers 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.
Priorities
Effective 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.
Best Practices in Online Public Consultation
Introduction
Structure of this Report

This 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 consultation

Increasing 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 plans 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.
Introduction

1.1 Guiding Principles
Two 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 Citys 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 Context

Beginning 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 timeconsuming and costly, and unsuccessful in resolving issues. Vancouvers 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. Vancouvers 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: Vancouvers Next Community Plans. p. 2
1.3 Existing Practices

While 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
Lead Department(s): Planning, Engineering Services, Housing Centre, or Park Board with involvement of other Departments.
City Actions
City staff develop proposal for a planning process. City Council or Park Board approves terms of reference. Delegations can be heard.
Public Role
Meetings held with key community leaders and organizations. Public open house, meeting, newspaper advertisements and /or newsletter to inform people about the proposed planning process.
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:
Meetings held with key community leaders and organizations. City staff initiate research and data analysis. Focus groups or kitchen table meetings within the community. Formation of a stake holder working group. Information distributed to the entire community.
Inform
Mailers Emails Web sites Open Houses Media
Consult
Focus Groups Surveys Public Comment Public Meetings
Involve
Deliberative Polling Workshops
Collaborate
Citizen Advisory Committees Consensus-building Participatory Decision Making
Further meetings held with key community leaders and organizations and working groups. City staff work with the community to develop visions and broad concepts identify issues for consideration, and develop recommendations for the choices between options. Community forums, design charettes, surveys, open houses, and priority setting activities. Community wide mail-in or telephone surveys, public meetings, newsletters to advise community of proposed choices, policies, etc. and notification of Council meetings.
City Council or Park Board briefing.
Community briefings.
Figure 1 Existing Practices re: IAP2

Council or Park Board Public Meeting of Hearing. Delegations at the public meeting or hearing.
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 Citys website, once citizens are aware in the first place. Creating awareness is a road block in the existing system.
Council or Park Board Decision.
Information sent to community about decision and next step.
Figure 2 Existing Community Planning Public Practices
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 locallyrelevant 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.
City Actions
Predesign conference with applicant.
Public Role
Planning staff alert applicant to neighbourhood issues and advise applicant to get input from the neighbourhood and interested groups.
Application submitted for a development permit.
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 site describing the proposal and advising interested parties to contact the City.
Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines and policies, seek advice from other departments, and evaluate responses from advisory bodies and neighbours. The application is forwarded to the Director of Planning with a recommendation to approve (usually with conditions) or refuse the applications.
All major applications are referred to the Urban 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.
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.
Building and Development

Physically, development projects and buildings are what make a city look like a city. The Citys 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.
Development Permit Board (City Staff). Development Permit Board Advisory Panel (Council Appointees).
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 may ask City Council for comment before naming a decision. The public can provide further input as a delegation to Council.
Final decision made by Development Permit Board.
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.
Anyone who objected to the proposal is notified of the final decision and advised of their right to appeal to the Board of Variance. The applicant can also appeal.
Figure 3 Existing Practices Major Development Permit
10
11
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.
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 dont want it in their own backyards. Sometimes the Citys objectives and obligations to mandates developed outside its control must supercede that of an individual area. The longerterm 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.
Minor Development Permits

Under the Citys 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.
City Actions
Public Role
Neighbouring property owners and/or local neighbourhood 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.
Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines and policies, seek advice from other departments, and evaluate responses to notifications. The application is forwarded to the Director of Planning for approval (often with conditions that respond to 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.
All parties expressing interest are advised of the Council meeting.
Final decision made by City staff.
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 are disputed, the applicant may also file an appeal to the Board of Variance.
Figure 4 Existing Minor Development Permit Practices
12
13
Rezoning
Lead Department(s): Development Services.
1.4 Shortcomings
The 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 timeconsuming 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.
City Actions
Rezoning application submitted, usually by an architect on behalf of the developer.
Public Role
Application distributed to reviewing departments and Council Advisory Committees for comment. The applicant is required to erect a yellow notification sign on the site including the applicants name and telephone number for further information.
City staff analyze the application, and the public input, and prepare a report to council.
City staff inform in writing nearby property owners (approximately a two block radius), and community groups, about the application, and invite comments.
The application is refused, typically after referral to Councils Committee of Planning and Environment.
OR
The application is referred to a formal Public Hearing.
The applicant is required to alter the site sign to indicate time and place of the Public Hearing. City staff inform, in writing the same property owners 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.
Public Hearing (staff presents the application).
Any member of the public may speak at the Public Hearing with the applicant speaking first.
City Council Decision.
Application is refused.
Application is granted as is.
Application is granted with changes.
Rezoning bylaw.
Figure 5 Existing Rezoning Public Practices

4 Epp, Michael. Assessing incidence of and Experiences with New Information Communications Technologies in Planning Practice in Canada and the United States
14
15
2.0 Objections Against Public Participation in Planning

There are several arguments questioning the quality improvement and fairness propositions.

The 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
2.1 Lack of Expertise

Many 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
3.1 Language and Cultural Barriers

Vancouver 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 youve 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.
2.2 Inequity of Access

A 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 publics preferences are, just the preferences of certain groups.
2.3 Elected Officials and Representative Democracy

A 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 Wasting

Some 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.
3.2 Institutional Governance Changes

The 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
5 Kubicek, Herbert. Putting e-democracy into context. p. 4
16
17
3.3 Owners Versus Renters

Over fifty percent of Vancouvers 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 Citys 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.
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.
3.4 Existing Biases

Certain 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 publics preferences are, but only the preferences of certain groups.
3.5 Uncertain Legal Landscape for Public Engagement

Much 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 nongovernmental stake-holders. Generally speaking, these formats arent 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 individuals right to privacy.
7 Leightinger, Matt. p. 6
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.
18
19
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 geolocation 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 governments decision making process or on the actual policy that emanates from that process. 9

Deciding 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
8 Pomfret, Kevin. Location and Privacy what is the new reasonable? 9 Coleman, Stephen and Peter M. Shane. Connecting Democracy. p. 3 10 See Appendix 3
20
21
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.
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.
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.
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.
Consult survey citizens
12
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.
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
11 Leighninger, Matt. Using online tools to engage and be engaged by the public. p. 27 12 Ibid. p. 25
22
23
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.
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 multipronged 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 youre 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 ontopic discussion.
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 Citys 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 cafs. 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
24
25
Community Planning
Lead Department(s): Planning, Engineering Services, Housing Centre, and Park Board.
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 Vancouvers 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. Vancouvers next community plans recognize neighourhood-level challenges that must be addressed at a hyper local level. Councils 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.
City Actions
City staff develop proposal for a planning process. City Council or Park Board approves terms of reference. Delegations can be heard.
Public Role
Meetings held with key community leaders and organizations. Public open house, meeting, newspaper advertisements, online consultation page, and/or newsletter to inform people about the proposed planning process.
Online consultation created.
Meetings held with key community leaders and organizations. City staff initiate research and data analysis. Focus groups or kitchen table meetings within the community. Formation of a stake holder working group. Information distributed to the entire community. Community forums and conferences. City staff work with the community to develop visions and broad concepts identify issues for consideration, and develop recommendations for the choices between options.
Online discussions with users verified by address.
Further meetings held with key community leaders and 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 Council or Park Board briefing.
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:
Council public meeting; online consultation report given to Council for review.
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.
Council Decision.
Figure 6 Community Planning Strategy
26
27
Promote, facilitate and celebrate the involvement of each section of the Local Areas 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.
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.
City Actions
Pre-design conference with applicant.
Public Role
Planning staff alerts applicant to neighbourhood issues and advise applicant to get input from the neighbourhood and interested groups via multiple methods and online, location-verified, consultation.
Neighbourhood property owners and/or local neighbourhood advisory committees are advised of the proposal, invited to view the plans and submit their written comments usually within two weeks, this is done via traditional methods
and Online discussions with users verified by address.

Applicant is advised to erect a sign on the site describing the proposal, specifying the URL of the online consultation, and advising interested parties to contact the City. Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines and policies, seek advice from other departments, and evaluate traditional and online responses from advisory bodies and neighbours. The application is forwarded to the development with a recommendation to approve (usually with conditions) or refuse the application. All major applications are referred to the Urban 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, it is referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee for comment. The public may attend. Significant applicants are referred to local Citzens Planning Committee in those communities where local planning programs are underway, or just completed. The public may attend.
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.
Figure 7 Major Development Permit Strategy
28
29
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.
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 Citys 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.
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
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.
City Actions
Public Role City Actions

An online consultation site is set up, the site will provide detailed information on the application such as maps and important dates, as well as a discussion forum.
Neighbourhood property owners and/or local neighbourhood 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 either via traditional methods or the online consultation site within two weeks. If the Director of Planning is satisfied that the changes will not affect neighbours (i.e., they are minor), then the notification is not undertaken. If a site sign is required, the applicant is advised to erect it. If an online consultation page was set up, the URL will be included on the sign. Where a policy matter or a very contentious application is involved, the Director of Planning may refere an application to the Council for advice. If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown or Shaughnessy, it is referred to the appropriate Historic Area Planning Committee for comment. The application is referred to a formal public hearing and online consultation page.
Public Role
An online consultation page is created and includes discussion forums, maps showing rezoning, and detailed information on the proposal.
The applicant is required to alter the site sign to indicate time and place of the public hearing. City staff inform, in writing, the same property owners and community groups about the public hearing and online consultation. Notifications of the public hearing are placed in local newspapers (both legal and display advertisements with maps showing rezoning with location).
Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines and policies, seek advice from other departments, and evaluate traditional and online responses from advisory bodies and neighbours. The application is forwarded to the development with a recommendation to approve (usually with conditions) or refuse the application.
Public hearing (Staff presents the application).
City staff review report of online consultation. The report details the number of supporters and opponents, a breakdown of local and non-local participants, and a summary of arguments presented during the online discussions.
Final decision by City staff.
City Council decision.
Figure 8 Minor Development Permit Strategy
Figure 9 Rezoning Application Strategy
30
31
5.0 Recommendations and Conclusions

There 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 Citys 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 Data
Add public consultation category to the Citys Open data catalogue http://data.vancouver.ca/ and standardize the schema city-wide.
2. Inform/Notify
Add an online notification system that ties digital identity to physical address. This will help address the problem with renters not receiving mailers.
3. Consult/Feedback
Discussion 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/Analytics
Consultation 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.
32
33
In conclusion
Online Consultation Check list:

In conclusion
As long as the Citys 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 decisionmaking 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 Vancouvers planning and development practices. Only in this way can Vancouver expect to have sustainable relationship with its citizens.
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
Acknowledgements
Many 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 Citys 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 Citys 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.
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.
34
35
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Catalogue of selected online tools
Name 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 Staff

Vicki Potter Director, Development Services Community Services vicki.potter@vancouver.ca Doug Robinson Assistant Director, Development Services Community Services doug.robinson@vancouver.ca Matt Shillito Assistant Director, Community Planning Community Services matt.shillito@vancouver.ca Catherine Buckham Senior Planner catherine.buckham@vancouver.ca Laurie Best Director, Web Redevelopment Project laurie.best@vancouver.ca Tracy Vaughan Public Engagement Manager tracy.vaughan@vancouver.ca
36
37
Appendices
Appendix 3 - IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation
References
1. 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.
38
39
References

Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Prepared by: Colleen Hardwick 1005 Cypress Street Vancouver, BC V6J 3K6

Composition and Working Arrangements

1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning

2.0 Objections Against Public Participation in Planning

3.0 Barriers and Opportunities

4.0 Current State of the Art

5.0 Recommendations and Conclusions In conclusion

Figure 4 Existing Minor Development Permit Practices

Abbreviations and Acronyms:

PSS PPGIS UGC

Purpose and Objectives