Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Prepared by:

Colleen Hardwick

1005 Cypress Street

Vancouver, BC V6J 3K6

Composition and Working ArrangementsThis paper was authored by Colleen Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban

geographer. It was produced under the direction of Dr. Penny Gurstein, head

of the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British

Columbia. Dr. Andrew Csinger of Interspect Systems consulted on identity and

privacy-related technologies.

This research project received support of the MITACS Accelerate program as

part of Ms. Hardwick’s academic research work within the Interdisciplinary

Studies Graduate Program.

The research team:

•sought input from online public consultation practitioners and software engineers specializing in engagement technology;

• liaised with the Urban Development Institute and received input from its members;

•consulted with City of Vancouver staff from Corporate Communications, the Community Services Group, Community Planning, Development Services, and the Planning Department.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1Preamble 1

Purpose and Objectives 2

Priorities 3

Structure of this Report 3

Challenges in public consultation 4

1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 61.1 Guiding Principles 6

1.2 Historical Context 7

1.3 Existing Practices 7

1.4 Shortcomings 15

2.0 Objections Against Public Participation in Planning 162.1 Lack of Expertise 16

2.2 Inequity of Access 16

2.3 Elected Officials and Representative Democracy 16

2.4 Time Wasting 16

3.0 Barriers and Opportunities 173.1 Language and Cultural Barriers 17

3.2 Institutional – Governance Changes 17

3.3 Owners Versus Renters 18

3.4 Existing Biases 18

3.5 Uncertain Legal Landscape for Public Engagement 19

4.0 Current State of the Art 214.1 Tactics and Tools 22

4.2 Application of Online Consultation to Planning and Development 24

5.0 Recommendations and Conclusions 32

In conclusion 34

Acknowledgements 34

Appendices 36Appendix 1 - Catalogue of selected online tools 36

Appendix 2 – Interviews with City Staff 37

Appendix 3 - IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation 38

References 39

Abbreviations and Acronyms:

ICTS Information Communications Technologies

GIS Geographical Information Systems

PSS Planning Support Systems

PPGIS Public Participation Geographic Information Systems

UGC User Generated Content

List of Figures

Figure 1 — Existing Practices re: IAP2 8

Figure 2 — Existing Community Planning Public Practices 9

Figure 3 — Existing Practices Major Development Permit 11

Figure 4 — Existing Minor Development Permit Practices 12

Figure 5 — Existing Rezoning Public Practices 14

Figure 6 — Community Planning Strategy 26

Figure 7 — Major Development Permit Strategy 29

Figure 8 — Minor Development Permit Strategy 30

Figure 9 — Rezoning Application Strategy 31

Introduction

PreambleThe City of Vancouver is currently reviewing, updating and improving its public

consultation and engagement processes and tools. This includes the manner

in which the City conducts public consultation related to major land use and

transportation initiatives, the City's budget and capital plan, major policy

development, site specific rezonings, and development permitting processes.

This paper focuses its research on the public consultation and engagement work

conducted by the City's Community Services Group (CSG) and particularly the

Development Services, and Planning departments.

The City’s building and development permitting processes all provide for public

involvement. However, this paper will focus on the processes which, because

of location, scale or context of the proposal, will have significant impact on the

surrounding neighbourhood and/or are likely to be controversial and therefore

attract greater public involvement.

There is considerable overlap between the City’s building and development

processes and the way it manages Community Planning activities. As a result,

this paper will also address public consultation best practices in respect of

City-wide and local area planning initiatives. It focuses on Vancouver’s newest

Community Plans currently in development for the neighbourhoods of

Grandview-Woodland, the Downtown Eastside, Marpole, and the West End.

The City of Vancouver constantly seeks to update its approach to Civic

Engagement and Participation. Over the years, and particularly since the advent

of Web 2.0, traditional consultation methodologies have become less relevant

and effective, and require updating to fully contemplate societal change and

information and communications technologies (ICTs).

The objective of this paper is to specifically recommend updated

best practices for public consultation in respect of the

Community Services Group in the areas of planning and

development.

Introduction1

Purpose and ObjectivesA cornerstone of democracy is the idea that citizen participation is essential to

good government. Nowhere is this truer than at the municipal level, where City

government decisions so directly affect people’s daily lives.

When the City invites the public to participate in any decision-making process,

there is an inherent expectation, and an implicit commitment, that the public’s

contribution will influence the outcome. However, despite an emphasis on open

and transparent processes, there remain obstacles and barriers to widespread

public participation. People don’t necessarily trust the process anymore. To fix

what ails public consultation, people need to believe that they actually can

influence decision-making.

On the other hand, public officials need hard evidence to inform their decisions

and policies. They need feedback from the broadest possible population within

affected geographic areas. They need to reach people where they live and

communicate their priorities accurately and transparently. Internet technology, like

Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) makes this possible.

The City of Vancouver is faced with tough decisions if it is to continue to build a

vibrant, sustainable city. Fully involving its citizenry is core to its future success.

It needs to rethink consultation for the 21st century. The difficulty in reaching

and engaging with citizens is not unique to Vancouver but rather stems from an

overarching sense of alienation and disenfranchisement that is pervasive globally.

The good news is that there are new Information Communications Technologies

(ICTs) which enable interaction in ways never before possible that can contribute

to the advancement of public consultation in the City.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the range of these approaches and

technologies as applied to certain activities, specifically the community planning

and land use approval processes.

This paper was created to advise the City of Vancouver’s Corporate Communications

department and Community Services Group on Best Practices in Online Public

Consultation. Its goals and objectives include the following:

•Examine existing consultation practices in Planning and Development;

• Identify opportunities to integrate online applications into existing practices;

•Offer suggestions on tactics and tools for different scenarios;

•Explore new Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS);

•Review opportunities for systemizing governance consultation; and

•Consider additional issues that may assist in developing recommendations on how best to increase the quality of public participation in Vancouver.

PrioritiesEffective public consultation means different things to different people. This

paper focuses its efforts squarely on addressing the need to provide online

public consultation tools that support evidence-based decision-making and

policy development. It should be understood, however, that because different

people respond to different incentives and processes, we advocate using both

online and face-to-face engagement techniques and integrating them both into

any consultative process.

Until now, public comments received during online consultation processes

have been anonymous. Any data analysis has been anecdotal at best. If public

participation is to fully inform decision-makers, obtaining verifiable data

is essential. The kinds of location-based land-use planning issues that are

governed at the civic level lend themselves ideally to deliberative democracy

which can be enabled through advancing the use of ICTs and, in particular,

identity-based PPGIS.

The City has established as a priority “the need to continuously improve and

indeed rethink approaches and techniques for public engagement in community

planning, providing opportunities for broad, diverse and meaningful participation

in plan-making so that plans reflect the widest possible range of perspectives.”

It is therefore a priority of this paper to expand upon the range and depth of

innovative applications available to address this mandate.

This priority is not without its challenges. So-called ‘third generation

engagement’ is by its nature disruptive to existing power structures, as the

agenda-setting power is in the hands of the participants. This requires engaging

people where they are and giving them the tools to become engaged on their

terms. How this plays out in respect to the land-use planning and development

decision-making and policy development process remains to be seen.

It should be noted that Internet use varies by age, income, race and education.

However, the so-called ‘digital divide’ is disappearing amongst historically

underrepresented groups. In Vancouver, greater than 90% of the population is

online in one way or another, chiefly through email and social media.1 Groups

traditionally viewed as disenfranchised, such as the homeless and seniors, are

surprisingly well represented online.

1 Statistics Canada. Table 1 Individuals using the Internet from any location, based on an extrapolation of 2010 data.

Introduction2 3Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Structure of this ReportThis report begins with a broad examination of public participation in urban and

community planning with a review of the history of public consultation practices

in the City of Vancouver dating back to the late 1960s.

It further explores the existing status quo of practices in the Community

Services Group with respect to both City-driven community planning initiatives

and private sector (property development) applications for rezoning and

development permits. The shortcomings of existing practices are underscored

but balanced in the second section with a review of objections against public

participation in the planning arena.

A detailed examination of the rezoning and development permit process follows,

demonstrating barriers, challenges and opportunities related to each form

of consultation. Where appropriate, it sets out recommendations for further

consideration. It also includes additional matters for special consideration by the

City of Vancouver in its immediate and longer term deliberations about online

petitions, plebiscites and, ultimately, voting. These include:

•Privacy and security;

•Obstacles to adoption;

•The importance of geography in digital communications;

•The challenges of reaching renters;

•A review of competing demands from City Hall departments; and

• Innovative ideas to encourage participation.

The fourth section of the paper examines current state-of-the-art tools and

tactics for public engagement and then organizes these activities around

the International Associations for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum

of Participation. It further juxtaposes this approach to considering online

engagement strategies for each of:

1. Community Planning

2. Major Development Permits

3. Minor Development Permits

4. Rezoning Applications

Finally, the fifth section offers conclusions and recommendations on best

practices including an Online Consultation Check list.

Challenges in public consultationIncreasing disillusionment and the divide between elected officials, bureaucrats

and citizens are major impediments to progressive governance. Decision-making

that is deliberative and that recognizes the complexity of public issues and the

need for a framework to engage citizens in these issues is a prerequisite to more

livable, equitable and sustainable communities. Deliberative decision-making

supports effective citizen participation by addressing the structural barriers to

citizen participation and good leadership by focusing on increasing accountability

within the system, and by preparing citizens to participate.

More than ever before citizens have the capacity to engage their government and

to insert themselves into policy making processes. The internet has accelerated

this shift, but it has been evident for some time in traditional face-to-face

settings, first in local government and then provincial and federal. Faced with

these new citizen capacities and expectations, government leaders have realized

the need to be more proactive in their approach to the public, resulting in a wave

of civic engagement effort over the past ten years.

To engage a large and diverse group of citizens, city staff have employed a

targeted network-based recruitment strategy. To ensure that the process is

productive, they have employed techniques such as impartial facilitation, ground

rules set by the group, and discussion guides or agendas that lay out a range of

policy options.

Ten years ago, these engagement initiatives were primarily face-to-face efforts;

now they commonly employ both online and face-to-face formats. The next

incarnation of civic involvement must be characterized by interaction, innovation

and responsiveness. Community planners have used the lessons learned from this

work, the most basic of which is that engagements efforts must be built around

the needs, goals and concerns of the potentially engaged citizens, not just the

engagers, i.e. the City. In managing 21st century consultation civic officials, need

to:

•develop a long-term policy and plan for public engagement (that includes online as well as face-to-face communication) in the issues area in which they are operating; and

• respond to short-term needs, crises, and opportunities in ways that reflect the ideas contained in the long-term plan, that draw on the extra-government allies involved in the planning, and that help to build the long-term resources and assets necessary for the plan’s success.

In keeping with these objectives, the City seeks to inform its update of public

engagement policies with an emphasis on Information Communication

Technology (ICT) best practices.

Introduction4 5Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning

1.1 Guiding PrinciplesTwo preconditions for successful participation of citizens in urban planning are:

(1) they must offer some real opportunity for public influence; and (2) they must

provide space for deliberation to reach some common preferences.

To ensure that direct participation has a real impact on the decision-making

process, that citizens are well informed about the impact of their participation

and see tangible results. Participation that is purely symbolic or used to simply

grant legitimacy to pre-ordained decisions is unlikely to win public support.

Government planners have not readily adopted Internet tools to engage the

public in urban planning processes partly because of the lack of appropriate

technologies. The work of creating plans is not limited to individual

communications with the general public, but involves working with groups of

people to identify problems and build consensus.

In creating their plans, planners must engage multiple distinct stakeholders,

and often reach out to specific communities, organizations and government

agencies. Planners need easy-to-use tools that allow multiple constituencies

to hold a mutual conversation. They need appropriate means to moderate the

conversation as well as present a large amount of visual, cartographic and

textual data. Finally, despite advances in teleconferencing, the subtle aspects

of face-to-face interaction cannot be easily reproduced virtually. Technologies

emphasizing individual communication have limited utility to planners trying to

build consensus between people and groups.

The creation of plans is fundamentally different from many other government

actions. It often involves a large volume of information, takes place over a

relatively long period of time and entails abstract and value-laden policy choices

such as defining the future vision for a city. As well, planning processes involve

public input and engagement with multiple constituencies.

Transparency of process is a key element on the City’s side, but so too is

authenticity of citizen identity. To be genuinely representative it is necessary

that people be verified as being who they say they are and living where they

say they do. Anonymity runs counter to the emphasis on open data and

government. For this reason online consultation must, by definition, extend

participants beyond the existing conditions of anonymity in order to weigh in.

1.2 Historical ContextBeginning in the 1960s, the planning profession increasingly turned to the problem

of defining participation and describing what it would mean in practical terms.2

•The first wave from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s, involved the use of a variety of communication and participatory techniques including information brochures, media releases, citizen surveys, public hearings, workshops, task forces and advisory committees to involve citizens in social and environmental concerns. These techniques were soon met with cynicism and perceived to be time-consuming and costly, and unsuccessful in resolving issues. Vancouver’s history of community planning dates back to the Local Area Plans begun in 1974.

•The second wave, in the second half of the 1980s, focused on sustainable development and the use of negotiation, facilitation, and mediation techniques involving multiple-stakeholder, conflict-resolution, and consensus building processes. Vancouver’s 1995 City Plan and Community Visions process fell into this phase. By the mid-1990s, the hugely ambitious innovations were once again being questioned. They were perceived to be too lengthy and costly and of limited value in terms of reaching and implementing agreements that met the interests of the diversity of stakeholders.

•As part of its Better City Government initiative, the City undertook a comprehensive public involvement review in the late 1990s. When the review began in 1999, there were over 100 public processes underway. Over the years, Internet and email have allowed easier public access to civic information and provided new ways for the public to voice their views.

•At the beginning of the twenty-first century a third wave participatory processes emphasize the fundamental strategic importance of the revitalization of democratic governance in fostering improved understanding of sustainability problems and choices, and in effecting change. Without fundamental changes in governance systems, citizen participation will continue to be limited.

In Vancouver, this has been recognized with “the need to continuously

improve and rethink approaches and techniques for public engagement in

community planning, providing opportunities for broad, diverse and meaningful

participation in plan-making so that plans reflect the widest possible range of

perspectives.”3

The City has embarked on several online consultation initiatives in the last

several years including the “Talk Green to Us” campaign, and established www.

talkvancouver.com where it has conducted consultations including Shannon

Mews, Housing, Transportation and Budget. These initiatives have attracted

good attention, however, the reliable data generated has been limited in value

from a decision-making and policy development perspective.

2 Gurstein, Penny. Creating Digital Public Space: Implications for Deliberative Engagement. p. 94

3 City of Vancouver Administrative Report: Vancouver’s Next Community Plans. p. 2

1.0 Public Participation in Urban Planning 6 7Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

City staff develop proposal for a planning process.

City Council or Park Board approvesterms of reference.

Delegations can be heard.

City Actions Public Role

City staff initiate research and data analysis.

City staff work with the community to developvisions and broad concepts identify issues forconsideration, and develop recommendations

for the choices between options.

City Council or Park Board briefing.

Council or Park Board Public Meeting of Hearing.

Council or Park Board Decision.

Meetings held with key community leadersand organizations.

Public open house, meeting, newspaperadvertisements and /or newsletter to

inform people about the proposed planning process.


Focus groups or kitchen table meetingswithin the community.

Formation of a stake holder working group.

Information distributed to the entire community.

Further meetings held with key community leadersand organizations and working groups.

Community forums, design charettes, surveys,open houses, and priority setting activities.

Community wide mail-in or telephone surveys,public meetings, newsletters to advise communityof proposed choices, policies, etc. and notification

of Council meetings.

Community briefings.

Delegations at the public meeting or hearing.

Information sent to community aboutdecision and next step.


Community Planning

Lead Department(s): Planning, Engineering Services, Housing Centre, or Park Board with involvement of other Departments.

Figure 2 — Existing Community Planning Public Practices

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate

Mailers Focus GroupsDeliberative

PollingCitizen Advisory

Committees

Emails Surveys Workshops Consensus-building

Web sites Public Comment Participatory DecisionMaking

Open Houses Public Meetings

Media

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate

Figure 1 — Existing Practices re: IAP2

1.3 Existing PracticesWhile this paper focuses on online engagement, it is important to note that

working productively with the public also requires face-to-face engagement.

The two forms of communication have unique strengths and limitations; nothing

can beat the convenience and choice of online tools, and nothing can beat the

emotional impact of a face-to-face conversation. This is nowhere more true than

in the case of community planning and public consultation on land use.

Community Planning

The City has focused increasingly on smaller-scale community planning

processes for specific communities or particular community issues. In

community planning, the following describes the public role and existing

practices:

•Meetings held with key community leaders and organizations;

•Public open houses, meetings, newspaper advertisements and/or newsletters to inform people about the proposed planning process; and

•Focus groups with neighbourhood stakeholders.

In the parlance of the IAP2 existing practices fall into the following spectrum categories:

Of these activities, the biggest challenges are with (1) notification and (2)

ease of receiving verifiable feedback. The problems inherent in the notification

practices are detailed elsewhere in this paper. Notification is the first step in the

INFORM process, which also comprise information dissemination and education

about the details of the proposed development or land use change. Generally

information is easily available on the City’s website, once citizens are aware in

the first place. Creating awareness is a road block in the existing system.


Predesign conference with applicant.


Application submitted for a development permit.

Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines andpolicies, seek advice from other departments, and

evaluate responses from advisory bodies andneighbours. The application is forwarded to theDirector of Planning with a recommendation to

approve (usually with conditions) orrefuse the applications.

Development Permit Staff Committee and staff from relevant departments review all issues and input and develop a recommendation which is

forwarded in a report to the Development Permit Board and Advisory Panel.

Development Permit Board (City Staff).

Development Permit Board Advisory Panel(Council Appointees).

Final decision made by Development Permit Board.

Planning staff alert applicant to neighbourhoodissues and advise applicant to get input from the

neighbourhood and interested groups.

Neighbourhood property owners and /or local neighbourhoodadvisory committees are advised

of the proposal, invited to view the plans,and submit their written comments usually

within two weeks.

Applicant is advised to erect a sign on the sitedescribing the proposal and advising interested

parties to contact the City.

All major applications are referred to theUrban Design Panel for comment.

Only staff and the applicant attend.

If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown,or Shaughnessy,it is referred to the appropriate

Historic Area Planning Committee for comment.Only staff and the applicant attend.

If the application involves a heritage issue, it is referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee

for comment. The public may attend.

Significant applications are referred to local Citizens’ Planning Committees in those

communities where local planning programs are underway, or just completed. The public may attend.

All parties expressing opposition are advised of the Development Permit Board meeting. Members

of the public can appear as delegations.

Occasionally the Development Permit Board mayask City Council for comment before naming

a decision. The public can provide further inputas a delegation to Council.

Anyone who objected to the proposal is notified ofthe final decision and advised of their right to

appeal to the Board of Variance. The applicant can also appeal.


Figure 3 — Existing Practices Major Development Permit

In the CONSULT category, some strategies work better than others. Public

meetings are as a rule are an unsuccessful strategy. The social pathologies

revolving around public meetings are legion. Elected officials and staff are all too

aware of the pitfalls of meetings and hearings that go on interminably and do

little to assist in balanced decision-making. The only real evidence is based on

the minority who attend, typically those with their own agenda or a single-issue

concern, the more ideologically focussed, NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard) and

public meeting enthusiasts. Further, misinformation is propagated (see INFORM).

This reality underscores the need for alternative means to gather authentic,

verifiable feedback.

In contrast, stakeholder focus groups are very effective mechanisms for

consulting with neighbourhood groups, but only where there is agreed-upon

representation. Because City staff may have long-standing relationships with

leaders in the community including, but not limited to, residents’ associations,

ratepayer and business improvement groups, it has been possible to receive

constructive feedback at a hyper local level. Still, these groups attract people

with the time and inclination to participate, and a broader base of locally-

relevant feedback is desirable.

As with stakeholder focus groups, workshops can be very effective in the

INVOLVE category of public participation. Community planners are keen to

obtain site specific insights that can develop from workshop sessions. At each

stage of the community visioning process, residents can become increasingly

engaged, time and access permitting.

A further extension is the COLLABORATE category. The City of Vancouver does

not have specific Neighbourhood Advisory Committees but rather an ad hoc

network of associations. While consensus-building is often a core objective,

there is no real participatory decision-making. At the end of the day, the

decisions reside with elected officials and staff.

Building and Development

Physically, development projects and buildings are what make a city look

like a city. The City’s building and development processes all allow for public

involvement as well as relying on several appointed boards. The public

consultation process can become quite contentious given competing demands

of local and city-wide priorities. Therefore, it is important that the City know

the location of the citizens who are providing input on individual permit

applications.

Major Development Permits

A major development permit application is one that, because of location,

scale and/or context of the proposal has a significant impact on the

surrounding area and/or is likely to be controversial. It may also be a

proposal that challenges existing policies and guidelines. Major development

applications are referred to the Development Permit Board.




Planning staff review by-laws, guidelines andpolicies, seek advice from other departments,

and evaluate responses to notifications. Theapplication is forwarded to the Director of Planning

for approval (often with conditions that respondto the public input) or refusal.

Where a policy matter or a very contentious application is involved, the Director of Planning may refer an application to

Council for advice.

Final decision made by City staff.

Neighbouring property owners and/or localneighbourhood advisory groups who are

affected by the proposed changes are advised of the application, and invited to view the plans, and submit their written comments, usually within two weeks. (If the Director of Planning is satisfied that the changes will

not affect neighbours (i.e., they are minor), then notification is not undertaken.

If a site sign is required, applicant is advised to erect the sign.

If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown, or Shaughnessy, it is referred to the appropriate

Historic Area Planning Committee for comment.

All parties expressing interest are advised of the Council meeting.

Anyone who objected to the proposal is notified of the final decision, and advised of their right of

appeal to the Board of Variance. If refused, or if any of the conditions of approval aredisputed, the applicant may also file an

appeal to the Board of Variance.


Figure 4 — Existing Minor Development Permit Practices

The City notifies residents typically within a two block radius via direct mailer or post

card to property owners. The proponent erects a sign on the site. An advertisement is

placed in the local newspaper, and the media may be alerted.

Significant applications are referred to local citizens’ planning committees where they

exist, and the public may attend. Members of the public may appear as delegations

before the Development Permit Board. As part of the Staff Report, the number and

types of public response are listed to inform the decision. There significant opportunity

for enhanced pubic consultation through online activities that would enhance the quality

of data for decision-making.

Minor Development Permits

Under the City’s Zoning and Development By-law, development applications are required

for new construction, alterations or a change of use on the property. Minor development

applications are approved by planning department staff.

The notification process for minor permits is limited to advising neighbouring

property owners and/or local neighbourhood advisory groups who are affect

by the proposed changes. They are invited to view the plans and submit their

written comments, usually within two weeks. The Director of Planning may

determine not to notify neighbours if the requested changes are minor.

As a rule, minor development permits will have limited public consultation but

nevertheless should embody a transparent and open decision-making process.

Rezoning Applications

Zoning regulates the use and form of development permitted on a site.

Applications for rezoning can be made to change from one set of regulations

(called a District Schedule) to another or to amend the regulations in the

zone. Applications can be made by the public or the Director of Planning. All

public hearings connected with these applications are advertised by the City.

The existing public role in the rezoning process is similar to that on major

development permits. There are subtle differences, such as erecting a yellow

notification sign on the site. City staff informs, in writing, nearby property

owners (within about a two block radius) and community groups about the

application and invite comments.

If the application is found to be contentious, a public information meeting or

open house is held with nearby property owners. However current notification

systems can be ineffective. Further, the ability for many citizens to attend

events at prescribed times limits the breadth of reach and information

dissemination/input.

Rezonings tend to notify a larger area than do development permit

applications. In determining the boundaries, staff first consider what

constitutes a neighbourhood when applying the two block radius rule, which

is not drawn as a circle but best approximation of impact area. Staff also

consult with longstanding interested individuals, local planning committees,

NGOs, and other organizations, including ratepayer groups, and BIAs.

Notification is not legislated but nevertheless required.

Rezoning applications can be contentious as they signal potential major change

in a neighbourhood. Although it is true that change is a constant, it is also true

that people fear change, and certainly don’t want it in their own backyards.

Sometimes the City’s objectives and obligations to mandates developed

outside its control must supercede that of an individual area. The longer-

term best interests of the City or region can outweigh those of entrenched

communities. It is important for the City to be informed as to the location of

respondents in these circumstances.


Rezoning application submitted, usually by an architect on behalf of the developer.


City staff analyze the application, and the public input, and prepare a report to council.

Public Hearing(staff presents the application).

Application distributed to reviewing departments and Council Advisory Committees for comment.

The applicant is required to erect a yellownotification sign on the site including the applicant’sname and telephone number for further information.

City staff inform in writing nearby property owners (approximately a two block radius),

and community groups, about the application, and invite comments.

Any member of the public may speak at the Public Hearing with the applicant speaking first.


The applicant is required to alter the site signto indicate time and place of the Public Hearing.

City staff inform, in writing the same propertyowners and community groups about the

Public Hearing, inviting their participation.

Notifications of the Public Hearing are placed in local newspapers (both legal and display advertisement with map showing rezoning

with location.

The application isrefused, typically after

referral to Council’sCommittee of Planning

and Environment.

The application is referred to a formal

Public Hearing.

OR

City Council Decision.

Applicationis refused.

Applicationis granted

with changes.

Applicationis granted

as is.

Rezoning bylaw.

Rezoning

Lead Department(s): Development Services.

Figure 5 — Existing Rezoning Public Practices

1.4 ShortcomingsThe intellectual tradition that emphasizes collaborative planning has become

so established within the planning profession that inclusion of residents in

information gathering, policy study, and policy formation hardly requires

argument and there is near total consensus that local knowledge enriches

decision-making and benefits both residents and planning agencies by

mitigating adversarial politics.4

Despite this intellectual undercurrent, legislated methods of public engagement

have remained unresponsive to the public and unsatisfactory to planners,

participants and elected officials. Given this efficacy, it is unsurprising that

civic engagement in public meetings and membership in committees has been

waning for decades.

Traditional engagement methods do not achieve genuine participation in

planning or other decisions; they do not satisfy members of the public that

they are being heard; they seldom can be said to improve the decisions that

agencies and staff make; and they do not incorporate a broad spectrum of the

public. Conventional approaches create animosities and foster the belief that

participation is a disingenuous ritual.

The public hearing as a primary tool for participation is easily manipulated

by organized and well-resourced interest groups. Participating in time-

consuming meetings and hearings has become increasingly difficult for many

individuals who have less free time and less predictable schedules than previous

generations. For example people who are at an economic disadvantage,

who perform shift work, or who have young families are hampered from

participating.

All of these larger trends combine to complicate public involvement in

contemporary planning, and challenge the relevance of conventional

approaches to participation that revolve around open houses and public

hearings. These factors suggest a need for new frameworks to enable direct

democracy in planning decision-making.

4 Epp, Michael. Assessing incidence of and Experiences with New Information Communications Technologies in Planning Practice in Canada and the United States


2.0 Objections Against Public Participation in PlanningThere are several arguments questioning the quality improvement and

fairness propositions.

2.1 Lack of ExpertiseMany professional urban planners claim that they have the expertise to develop

plans in the public interest. The public may be consulted, but because they

lack the expertise, they should have no influence on the final decision. Political

obligations to give the public more influence are perceived as undermining their

expertise and professional status.5

2.2 Inequity of AccessA second argument questions that participation advances fairness and justice

because certain groups of people who have more time and engage more have

their voices heard, while others do not have the time and their concerns are not

entered into the decision process. Therefore decision-makers cannot truly find

out what the public’s preferences are, just the preferences of certain groups.

2.3 Elected Officials and Representative DemocracyA third argument comes from elected representatives who appreciate partial

supplementing of representative democracy but fear that this extension may not

be kept under control and in the end lead to ultimately damaging representative

democracy as evidenced in the situation with taxation propositions in California.

2.4 Time WastingSome argue that public engagement leads to an explosion of conversations that

go nowhere, while distracting governments from making decisions and getting

on with governing. The charge is that the reason for turning to engagement is

that governments are increasingly unwilling and/or unable to make decisions.

5 Kubicek, Herbert. “Putting e-democracy into context.” p. 4

3.0 Barriers and OpportunitiesThe use of the Internet to engage citizens in urban planning has been constrained

by the limited availability of suitable technical tools, concerns about digital

inequality, and a lack of a clear understanding about how technology can meet

the needs of citizens and professionals. New internet technologies and expanding

internet access addresses these concerns, and illuminates why urban planning

requires a distinct technological approach from other e-government initiatives.6

3.1 Language and Cultural BarriersVancouver has evolved into a multicultural city. There is a very large ethnic

Chinese population and high representation of other Asian groups. In each

case, particularly with new residents, language can be a barrier to participation.

Online participation is affected as most communication materials are created

in English only and Chinese, Punjabi or Persian new citizens may not have the

experience or the inclination to utilize ICT tools.

However, the challenge is not just with language. Cultural values regarding

public involvement also stem from how representative democracy is perceived.

Generally speaking, the belief is that once you’ve elected representatives, they

should be left to govern without interference from the public unless something

is going seriously off the rails. This flies in the face of the western notion of

participatory democracy. Thus where these cohorts are present, it is necessary

to undertake special measures with the support of transition groups.

Wherever there are organizations within ethnic communities, such as

S.U.C.C.E.S.S., there is an opportunity to provide exposure to new methods of

public consultation. With new immigrants there is an emphasis on education

that might be extended here. (what does that mean?)

The same is true to a certain extent with the senior cohort. Although internet

adoption is growing rapidly among seniors, they are more acculturated to

traditional methods of public consultation and are less likely to engage online

without individual prompting. This is not necessarily a problem as their voices

will be captured in public meetings and in other face-to-face interactions.

3.2 Institutional – Governance ChangesThe Vancouver Charter reads that rezoning applications must be “advertised in

the newspaper legal section for two consecutive days”. Newspapers per se no

longer have the relevance they once did, and many more people nowadays

obtain their news online. This is one example of how governance changes must

be implemented in alignment with the changing realities of public information.

6 Goodspeed, Robert. Citizen Participation and the Internet in Urban Planning. p. 2

3.0 Barriers and Opportunities16 17Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

3.3 Owners Versus RentersOver fifty percent of Vancouver’s population are renters. Reaching renters

presents some very real challenges for the City. They are highly mobile and do

not register their addresses with the City. Unaddressed direct mail typically ends

up in the mailroom recycling bin in apartment buildings and seldom makes it

through to the intended recipients.

In contract, informing owners is a relatively easy matter of sending personalized

mailers to individuals on the Property Assessment rolls. Because they pay

property taxes, owners can be reached via mail. Online notification would be a

desirable option, as the majority of Vancouverites are online (greater than 90%)

and renters tend to skew younger demographically, which corresponds

to heightened internet use.

Decreased postal costs and use of paper aligns with the City’s Greenest City

goals and fiscal prudence measures.

A wish list item is to level the playing field in respect of delivering notification

evenly to owners and renters. The solution may well be online with further

authentication of digital identity to place of residence and, potentially,

workplace as well.

3.4 Existing BiasesCertain groups of people who have more time and engage more often have their

voices heard, while others do not have the time and their concerns or ideas are

not entered into the process. Therefore decision-makers cannot truly find out

what the public’s preferences are, but only the preferences of certain groups.

Public Meetings

Public meetings have been the status quo of consultation over decades.

However, they attract individuals who have the time and inclination to

participate in this manner. Further, public meetings tend to attract the more

ideological or NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard) who attempt to dominate the

proceedings. Many people are intimidated and alienated by public meetings that

can feature angry clashes between factions, name calling and other undesirable

pathologies.

Politicians and civil servants alike struggle with making balanced decisions

based solely on the experience of public meetings, as they recognize that they

are receiving a skewed sample. A very small percentage of the population is

influencing outcomes disproportionately. In many cases, they are affecting

policy based on the input of a hundred individuals representing far less than 1%

of the population.

As a rule, younger people, and young women in particular, are less likely to

participate as a cohort in public meetings. They do not possess the same

cultural history of traditional participation. Parents of young children often will

not engage because of schedule demands. Often public meetings occur in the

evenings, when lessons and other family activities are priorities. Single parents

are further disenfranchised, as obtaining babysitters is a further complication

and expense.

Online consultation provides a positive solution for those with accessibility

issues. People can inform themselves and provide feedback online at their

convenience in the privacy of their own homes.

Landline Telephones

Public opinion polls have relied on telephone polling for decades. With

the advent of ubiquitous mobile phones, the use of land lines is in decline.

Furthermore, those who still have land lines are unlikely to answer them. People

are tired of being “sold or polled” on the telephone. Those who still have land

lines and answer them, tend to be older, and certainly not representative of the

general population. While it may be possible to obtain a statistically relevant

sample size, of say 1%, the internal composition of the sample may be skewed.

3.5 Uncertain Legal Landscape for Public EngagementMuch of the legal framework for citizen participation predates the rise of social

media and other online technologies. In fact, most of the laws governing public

engagement at the local, state and federal levels are several decades old, and

do not reflect recent innovations. This has created some confusion about what

legal public engagement is supposed to look like.7

On some kind of policies, such as rezoning decisions, the public manages

continue to follow the traditional practice of public hearings, written notices and

comment periods. They also rely on advisory committees made up of non-

governmental stake-holders. Generally speaking, these formats aren’t

considered very effective for eliciting or structuring public engagement. Some

officials have experimented with new ways of improving public hearings. Others

have stuck with the traditional formats, partly because they believe the laws on

participation do not allow such changes.

There are now several major questions confronting decision-makers as they

being to increase their use of new tactics and tools to engage citizens. They

are uncertain how the laws on public meetings and public information should

be applied to online environments. They are uncertain how geo-location

technologies will be treated in light of an individual’s right to privacy.

7 Leightinger, Matt. p. 6

3.0 Barriers and Opportunities18 19Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

In most of these areas, there are simply no easy answers. This is not only because

the laws vary, and are interpreted differently by different legal experts, but

because in many places, the laws have yet to be written. Writing about geo-

location technologies, legal expert Kevin Pomfret states that these online tools

“will never reach (their) full potential until consistent and transparent laws and

policies surrounding location privacy are developed”. 8

After more than fifteen years of online consultations, there is a persistent reason

to suspect that their democratic potential is nowhere near to being realized.

Despite the widespread availability of online forums for political expression,

few are tied in any ascertainable, accountable way to actual government policy

making. That is, a citizen participating in most online forums has no assurance

that his or her effort will have any effect on the government’s decision making

process or on the actual policy that emanates from that process. 9

8 Pomfret, Kevin. Location and Privacy – what is the new reasonable?

9 Coleman, Stephen and Peter M. Shane. Connecting Democracy. p. 3

4.0 Current State of the ArtDeciding how best to use online tools to engage the public may be the

ultimate moving target for City Hall staff. This is not just because of the rapid

development of new tools or “apps” for engagement. The main challenges are in

understanding:

1. the increasing complexity of how people organize themselves online, and;

2. Citizens’ evolving expectations of government.

These challenges reflect an environment of increasing social media activity

where citizen users are organizing themselves into communities defined

by shared interests, relationships or geography. In the case of land use and

community planning-related consultation, the importance of a “spatial graph”,

organized around geographical boundaries of local areas within the City are of

particular relevance. Tying the digital world with the real world and “making it

real” is an overarching challenge.

Within the context of a long-range strategic civic engagement plan, there are

different short-term and long-term online tactical tools that will make sense

in different scenarios. This section suggests the tactics and online tools that

make the most sense for those. The IAP2 Spectrum here provides organizing

principles for this exploration.10

A general rule of thumb – and one that applies to engagement at any level of

government – is that tasks that require only a one-way flow of information are

easier to organize and scale than activities based on two-way interaction. Surveys,

for example, can reach large numbers of people more easily than projects that

engage citizens in deliberation or action planning.

There are two caveats, however: first, the number of participants in any

engagement effort is heavily dependent on the effectiveness of the recruitment

strategy. Second, the more meaningful and productive forms of engagement

that have emerged in the last twenty years rely heavily on well-structured

interaction between citizens and government and among citizens themselves.

Many online consultation experiments have been conducted and evaluated

recently, resulting in diverse insights on a variety of situations. However, these

studies usually do not enhance the understanding of what may work, when

and why. To answer these questions, research must move from descriptions of

isolated projects toward comparative evaluation. Local government is an online

consultation laboratory.

Those who work in the field of public engagement and online consultations

describe their efforts and motivations in similar terms: they are seeking to

enhance participation, create deliberative democracy and make government

10 See Appendix 3

4.0 Current State of the Art20 21Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

more accountable. A key challenge is to find a new balance between

participatory and representative forms of democracy.

Appendix 1 contains a short inexhaustive list of online public engagement

platforms and toolkits. The majority of them are useful for informing, consulting

and involving the general public. None of them — except Vancouver-based

PlaceSpeak — authenticate citizens to their residential addresses to enable

location-based decision-making. A few of them aggregate ongoing communities

of engagement. With the imminent delivery of the new City of Vancouver

website, there will be many more opportunities for engendering an authentic

relationship between the City and its citizenry online.

4.1 Tactics and Tools

Inform — aggregate opinions expressed on social media networks11

What is the tactic: Aggregation tools allow the user to listen in on existing online

discussions of public issues rather than try to bring citizens to a new online

space.

Use this tactic when: sampling the state of online conversation about a

particular issue or decision, either by testing how often certain terms are used,

by finding more in-depth posts and statements express online, or both.

Limitations: the technology of aggregating opinions expressed online is still

being developed. Even when it is more fully operational, aggregation seems

unlikely to provide a representative sample of public opinion, not just because

of “digital divides” but because the people participating in most online

discussions are a self-selected group that is not necessarily representative of the

larger population.

Consult — survey citizens12

What is the tactic: online survey websites that make it easy to design and

disseminate surveys.

Use this tactic when: a quick reading of where people stand on a particular issue

or decision is needed.

Using this tactic online allows you to: reach more people with less time, effort,

and expense than required by traditional polling. The survey can also help

connect users to other opportunities for engagement. After answering the

questions, the respondent can be presented with links to activities including the

other types described in this paper.

11 Leighninger, Matt. Using online tools to engage – and be engaged by – the public. p. 27

12 Ibid. p. 25

Limitations: an online survey is not the same as a scientific opinion poll, unless

the user builds in other aspects of traditional polling, such as random selection

of participants. And as with traditional polls, question wording influences how

people respond. In designing the survey, questions can be added that collect

demographic data to provide a better idea who is responding, and how well they

represent the broader community.

But regardless of the demographics, this type of survey will tend to oversample

informed, active citizens and under-sample those who are currently less

engaged in public life. Further, geographic location is important when it comes

to land-use oriented questions, and needs to be built into any survey process

tied to decision-making around property development.

Involve — facilitate large-scale deliberation online13

What is the tactic: tools that create a more direct exchange between citizens,

engaging them in discussion and dialogue on policy options.

Use this tactic when: the objective is for citizens to learn more about the issues,

communicate with one another across divisions, wrestle with policy options, and

find common ground on a particular decision, issue or plan. The objective is to

galvanize citizen-driven action efforts in addition to gathering recommendations

to government.

Using this tactic online allows people to: participate in a way that is generally

more convenient and versatile that face-to-face deliberation. People who

are geographically very far apart can be brought together; citizens who are

more comfortable in online environments can be included in the process;

and “asynchronous” deliberation can take place (in other words, people can

participate on their own time rather than having to be in a certain place at a

certain hour).

Limitations: lacks the emotional power and empathy level of face-to-face

deliberation.

Collaborate — create shared work space for citizens14

What is the tactic: closed online “work spaces” can make it easier for a group of

people to communicate, plan, write and make decisions.

Use this tactic when: small groups of citizens, or some combination of citizens

and City staff, are working together on an idea or plan.

Using this tactic online allows people to: stay connected with one another and

continue working together without having to be in the same place at the same

time. It can either replace or complement face-to-face meetings. It can also

encourage use of related online tools for editing, polling and research.

13 Leighteninger, Matt. Ibid. p. 21

14 Ibid. p. 19


Limitations: if the online work space is not connected strongly enough to the

rest of the participants’ daily activities (for example, if the editing process

does not automatically generate updates that go straight to the participants’

email boxes, and/or it does not include face-to-face group meetings), then

participation will wane, sometimes dramatically.

Empower — help citizens to visualize geographic data15

What is the tactic: interactive maps can incorporate economic, environmental,

demographic, traffic and other data, along with architectural and land use

design tools, to depict different planning options.

Use this tactic when: citizens need to see how their neighbourhoods and

communities will look in order to better understand the possibilities and

ramifications of planning decisions.

Using this tactic online allows people to: reshape their visions on the fly.

Limitations: needs to be surrounded and supported by some of the other tactics

described in this paper in order to have value.

4.2 Application of Online Consultation to Planning and Development

Community Planning

The internet is a powerful tool for planners to expand the base of participants in

planning processes and enhance traditional engagement approaches. There are

several opportunities to insert online consultation into the existing process(es).

Using the IAP2 spectrum of participation, community planning activities

currently fall into the first three categories, Inform, Consult and Involve. There

are further programmatic opportunities for extending further to Empower, but

this will require more than technology to advance, as it anticipates a greater

level of direct democracy than currently exists in the City’s governance system.

INFORM – Community planning occurs at a hyper local level and requires a

spatial approach. Notifying citizens within specific geographical communities

can be challenging. As noted elsewhere in this paper, mailers are not a

successful tactic with renters, as they end up in the mailroom recycling more

often than not. Furthermore, anecdotally, staff suggested that of 10-15,000

notices sent out through Canada Post, perhaps 500 people might respond.

Posting notices in visible areas can help somewhat, such as in community

centers and cafés. Working through community groups is important but should

be understood that it does not necessarily capture or represent the entire

neighbourhood.

15 Ibid p. 33

Online notification currently occurs through email wherever lists are compiled.

Email lists are incomplete, transient, and require constant management. A new

approach is opt-in notification through solutions such as Placespeak.com. Where

citizens register and are verified to their residential (and potentially work)

address, they may opt-in to notification.

The new City website will contain specific community pages which should

always include up-to-date information on any community planning activities.

Destination websites have their limitations as a standalone draw, thus a multi-

pronged approach that includes cross-links with social media and other relevant

sites are constructive strategies for reaching citizens.

Open houses are very useful mechanisms for engendering community

awareness. However, as stated elsewhere, not everyone has the time and ability

to attend in person. Thus online open houses which contain the same visual

collateral are a helpful adjunct. Staff can be on hand in real time to answer

questions online through chat or email as required. No citizen should be

excluded because they were unable to attend.

CONSULT – Internet technologies lend themselves well to consultation activities.

Public meetings, as with open houses, can be conducted in real time online as

well as in person. It is possible to stream live video and audio from the open

house venues via a variety of services, or alternatively real time chat can be

enabled.

Online surveys have become very common and there are multiple user-friendly

applications in the market. The trick in the case of community planning is to be

sure that respondents are located in relevant areas. Conducting a survey about

hyper-local attitudes and needs without the assurance that you’re hearing from

the right places is not particularly useful.

Again, PlaceSpeak, which has been beta-tested with the City, provides a

platform that connects people to place and enables local spatial analysis.

Public comment online is usually conducted through Discussion Forums.

Historically, online forums have been anonymous. Anonymity unfortunately

allows inappropriate behavior and as a result city efforts have been fraught

with “Troll attacks”.16 This has necessitated full time moderation to ensure that

the integrity of discussion is maintained. However, new technology that verifies

identity whilst protecting private information is helping to ameliorate these

concerns.

It should be noted that many more citizens will view public commentary than

will actually contribute, thus opportunities to “like or dislike” or “agree or

disagree” with comments is an important additional feature that helps determine

16 In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


City staff develop proposal for a planning process.

City Council or Park Board approvesterms of reference.

Delegations can be heard.

Online consultation created.


City staff initiate research and data analysis.

City staff work with the community to developvisions and broad concepts identify issues forconsideration, and develop recommendations

for the choices between options.

City Council or Park Board briefing.

Council public meeting; online consultationreport given to Council for review.

Council Decision.


Public open house, meeting, newspaperadvertisements, online consultation page, and/or

newsletter to inform people about the proposed planning process.


Focus groups or kitchen table meetingswithin the community.

Formation of a stake holder working group.

Information distributed to the entire community.

Community forums and conferences.

Online discussions with users verifiedby address.

Further meetings held with key community leadersand organizations and working groups.

Community forums, design charettes, surveys,open houses, and priority setting activities.

Online and telephone surveys, public meetings, email newsletters to advise community of

proposed choices, policies, etc., and notification of Council meetings.


Community Planning

Lead Department(s): Planning, Engineering Services, Housing Centre, and Park Board.

Figure 6 — Community Planning Strategy

the larger attitudes of the community. The rule of thumb is that ninety percent

of online viewers are “lurkers” and only ten percent will actually contribute ideas

to the process.

INVOLVE – As a rule, workshops work best in person, however there are some

online technologies that provide for interactive participation such as Crowdbrite.

Deliberative polling can quite easily be conducted online, again provided

participants have been location verified.

COLLABORATE – Citizen advisory committees will continue to meet in person

as there are some activities that are best conducted in person. That said, there

are numerous consensus-building tools available to assist in the development of

alternatives. Pre-visualization platforms, such as Vancouver’s own Metroquest,

offer creative opportunities for deliberation about preferred solutions.

Community notice boards are another way to involve citizens as they permit

the uploading of photos and other UGC (user-generated content). Further

opportunities of interactive engagement include the ability to use GIS tools to

map location-specific items, such as public amenities, relative to individual sites.

Vital to whatever tactics are undertaken is the need to start early and

maintain ongoing communication with community residents. In order to keep

people engaged, it is necessary to keep them notified of updates and new

developments. Thus developing online communities that mirror geographical

areas, and engage on a regular basis will lead to successful outcomes.

Vancouver’s next community plans recognize neighourhood-level challenges

that must be addressed at a hyper local level. Council’s clear direction regarding

the need to enhance and diversify public engagement in community planning,

and the desire to deliver plans more quickly and create processes which are

nimble and responsive to pressing issues, can be enhanced, for example, through

the increased integration with and deployment of PPGIS (Public Participation

Geographic Information Systems) technology. The political will is definitely

there. Introducing new tools and technologies to support broader participation

is now part of the prevailing wisdom.

New Approaches to Outreach and Engagement

A key component of the renewed approach to community plans is providing

enhanced and creative ways to connect with residents and other stakeholders

and ensure broader, more representative participation using innovative tools and

techniques. This new approach is characterized by the foregoing:

Broader and More Representative Outreach

•Ensure that residents (both owners and renters), local businesses, non-profit organizations and agencies, community service groups, landowners and developers all have the opportunity to be involved and engaged in discussion about the future of the community.


Pre-design conference with applicant.




and evaluate traditional and online responses fromadvisory bodies and neighbours. The application

is forwarded to the development with arecommendation to approve (usually with

conditions) or refuse the application.

Planning staff alerts applicant to neighbourhoodissues and advise applicant to get input from

the neighbourhood and interested groupsvia multiple methods

and online, location-verified, consultation.

Neighbourhood property owners and/or localneighbourhood advisory committees are advised

of the proposal, invited to view the plans andsubmit their written comments usually within

two weeks, this is done via traditional methodsand Online discussions with users

verified by address.

Applicant is advised to erect a sign on the sitedescribing the proposal, specifying the URL ofthe online consultation, and advising interested

parties to contact the City.

All major applications are referred to theUrban Design Panel for comment. Only staff and

the applicant attend.

If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown, or Shaughnessy, it is referred to the Historic

Area Planning Committee for comment.Only staff and the applicant attend.

If the application involves a heritage issue, itis referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee

for comment. The public may attend.

Significant applicants are referred to localCitzens’ Planning Committee in those

communities where local planning programs areunderway, or just completed.

The public may attend.


...

Figure 7 — Major Development Permit Strategy

•Promote, facilitate and celebrate the involvement of each section of the Local Area’s diverse population. Ensure the voice of community members that represent the diversity in the community is heard throughout the planning process.

•Report back on public input quickly and show measurements of representation (e.g. through the tracking of demographics).

In each Local Area, greater emphasis will be directed towards involving sections

of the community members which are typically under-represented in planning

processes. In the case of Grandview-Woodland, the emphasis could be directed

towards better involving renters (approximately 65%), Aboriginals (9%), and

low-income individuals and families as well as youth and seniors. In Marpole

where 41% of the population speaks Mandarin or Cantonese, key materials will

be translated into Chinese. And in the West End reaching out to renters (81%),

low-income households (33%), the 20-39 year olds (50%), and seniors (17%) and

youth (5%) will be a priority.

The CLEAR model is useful to determine when participation is most effective by

ensuring citizens:

•C an do – have the resources and knowledge to participate.

•L ike to – have a sense of attachment that reinforces participation.

•E nabled to – are provided with the opportunity for participation.

•A sked to – are mobilised through public agencies and civic channels.

•R esponded to – see evidence that their views have been considered.

Innovative Techniques and Diverse Opportunities for Informed Engagement

•Encourage community participation by providing a broad range of tools, techniques and information to facilitate the exchange of ideas and diverse perspectives. Collaboration will help build stronger partnerships between different stakeholders and provide staff with a greater understanding of the community and its assets and issues.

•Utilize innovative new techniques such as visualizations and multimedia simulations to engage people in a dialogue about the future of their community.

Specific outreach and engagement initiatives will vary by neighbourhood and

could include: the use of video, visualization, scenario modeling, walking tours,

workshops, interactive community events and social media.

Major Development Permits

Many of the methods described in the Community Planning section are also

germane to participating in building and development processes.

Notification post cards and flyers are delivered by Canada Post at considerable

cost to the City. Delivery is spotty in apartment/condo areas and most often

end up in mailrooms, garbage and recycling. There is a distinct discrepancy

between owners and renters. Property assessment information makes it possible

to connect with owners, but it is difficult to reach renters. As a result, City Staff

have done personal mail drops in high renter areas, e.g. West End, but this too

has its shortcomings as staff can be harassed.




Final decision by City staff.


and evaluate traditional and online responses fromadvisory bodies and neighbours. The application

is forwarded to the development with arecommendation to approve (usually with

conditions) or refuse the application.

An online consultation site is set up, thesite will provide detailed information on the

application such as maps and importantdates, as well as a discussion forum.

Neighbourhood property owners and/or localneighbourhood advisory groups who are

affected by the proposed changes are advisedof the application and invited to view the plansand submit their written comments either viatraditional methods or the online consultation

site within two weeks. If the Director of Planningis satisfied that the changes will not affectneighbours (i.e., they are minor), then the

notification is not undertaken.

If a site sign is required, the applicant is advisedto erect it. If an online consultation page wasset up, the URL will be included on the sign.

If the application is in Gastown, Chinatown orShaughnessy, it is referred to the appropriate

Historic Area Planning Committee for comment.


Where a policy matteror a very contentious

application is involved,the Director of Planning

may refere an applicationto the Council for advice.

Figure 8 — Minor Development Permit Strategy

The application is referred to a formal publichearing and online consultation page.


City Council decision.

City staff review report of online consultation.The report details the number of supportersand opponents, a breakdown of local and non-local participants, and a summary of

arguments presented during the online discussions.

An online consultation page is created andincludes discussion forums, maps showing

rezoning, and detailed informationon the proposal.

The applicant is required to alter the site sign toindicate time and place of the public hearing.

City staff inform, in writing, the same propertyowners and community groups about thepublic hearing and online consultation.

Notifications of the public hearing are placed inlocal newspapers (both legal and display

advertisements with maps showingrezoning with location).


Public hearing(Staff presents the application).

Figure 9 — Rezoning Application Strategy

90% of responses to post cards and notices are now digital despite the fact that

the City still responds with hard copy mail. A Digital Notification system would

therefore be a good thing. It would be possible to do a better job digitally than

mail particularly with the renter problem of access to apartment buildings and

condos. Fostering a system of opt-in registration to enable both notification

and verifiable interaction on consultation topics would be desirable for a whole

range of reasons. Further, update notifications could be auto-generated as the

Development Permit application proceeds through its various stages through to

the final decision.

Minor Development Permits

In the case of Minor Development Permits, public commentary is limited to

local advisory bodies and immediate neighbours. Typically, the area notified is

approximately a two-block radius. Flyers and postcards addressed to home owners

are currently used for the notification piece. Email notification is also conducted

where lists have been compiled of local area residents. There is also the opportunity

to notify residents within specific spatial boundaries utilizing the PlaceSpeak

platform. Signage should include a website URL, a contact email address and

preferably a QR code for mobile device access of site specific information.

The City’s website will display details around the application and there should be

opportunities for comment in a variety of forms. Care should be taken to ensure

that comments are from relevant areas. Minor development permits are hyper

local and should restrict input spatially.

Rezoning Applications

As established above, rezoning applications tend to be publically contentious

and thus transparency and accuracy of public interaction are key.

Every Major Development Permit application and Rezoning application should

be encouraged to undertake online public consultation as a matter of practice.

This should commence at the same time as the application is submitted and

continue throughout the approval process. City staff should have access to the

proponents’ web data in order to evaluate the consultation on an ongoing basis.


5.0 Recommendations and ConclusionsThere is an increasing drive to online public consultation as older methods lose

their relative relevance. The once prevalent “digital divide” argument has faded

as the internet has become the dominant form of communication. Greater

than ninety percent of Vancouverites are now online, including previously

unconnected groups like the homeless and seniors.

Overwhelmingly, youth today are “digital natives” — they have never known a life

without the Internet and cell phones. The pervasiveness of participatory digital

media in their lives has had substantial impact on how digital natives interface

with the world. Thus future methodology around consultation must reflect this

reality.

The future of online public consultation as it relates specifically to land use

change decision-making and policy development involves its own set of

requirements. To make it “real” the process must include two key additions:

(1) location; and (2) identity verification. For online consultation to provide

anything more than anecdotes, the entire process must become increasingly

authenticated. The City should continue to engender awareness by its use

of social media and dissemination of information through the City’s website.

However, in order to further advance its planning and policy activities through

evidence-based decision-making, the City needs to provide leadership in

requiring hard data. The good news is that the City is a leader in the open data

movement, and increasingly is fueling a more transparent and accountable

public process.

Specific consultation guidelines for city staff and developer proponents alike

need to be established. Minimally each consultation must include a meaningful

online component. Setting up a blog or a Facebook page is insufficient. Basic

recommended requirements are covered in the Online Consultation checklist

(above), and fall into four categories:

1. Open DataAdd public “consultation” category to the City’s Open data

catalogue http://data.vancouver.ca/ and standardize the

schema city-wide.

2. Inform/NotifyAdd an online notification system that ties digital identity

to physical address. This will help address the problem with

renters not receiving mailers.

3. Consult/FeedbackDiscussion forums should be encouraged early and often.

Polls and Surveys should be tied to place to avoid distortion

of responses.

Virtual open house/public meeting should be available for

accessibility purposes to broaden the reach beyond those

with the time to attend.

4. Report/AnalyticsConsultation reports must be attached to Rezoning and

Development Permit Applications showing the number and

distribution or respondents and both quantitative and

qualitative data distilled from the online consultation.

In conclusion32 33Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Online Consultation Check list:Open Data Schema:

Name of consultation

Abstract of not more than 140 characters, containing relevant key words for tagging

URL for City of Vancouver website listing

Location address of site

City contact information including email and telephone number

Calendar including dates of public meetings, information sessions, etc.

Note: this data is sufficient to create an open data list entry

Information features:

Notification though various online channels

Mapping of notification area (which will minimally be the standard two block radius)

Mapping of other city areas (optional) from where to gather additional feedback

Dissemination of application specific information including:

• Documents

• Photos and other images such as elevations, and shadow studies

• Videos

• Links to other related information sites

• Proponent contact information including email and telephone number

Consultation features:

Discussion forums including the ability to vote up and down comments

Polls with dynamic results (i.e. results displayed after response given)

Surveys containing more detailed questions providing for open answers

Social Media plug-ins primarily to Facebook and Twitter

Virtual notice board for collecting and compiling USC

Notification ability to continually update citizens on new content, event dates

Invite neighbours and community members to participate and share

Report features:

Demonstrate the number and distribution of respondents

Description of quantitative data derived from polls and surveys

Description of qualitative data derived from algorithmic prioritization of comments

Site analytics including time on site, bounce rate, number of page views, etc.

In conclusionAs long as the City’s online public consultation is not tied in any ascertainable,

accountable way to actual governmental policy making, a citizen participating in most

online forums has no assurance that their effort will have any effect on the decision-

making process. Until such time as online public consultation can been shown to

affect the lives of those who participate, it is not obvious how significant new numbers

of citizens would be attracted to the public consultation process. Success therefore

will be tied to authenticating the process.

Measuring success is integral to the public consultation process. Effective evaluation

is not something that can be tagged onto the end of an engagement process. It needs

to be considered from the start, begin as early as possible and continue throughout

the process.

Hopefully this paper has identified issues that warrant further discussion and

investigation by City staff, architects, developers, and community leaders alike.

These include dispelling the many myths and misconceptions such as the prevalence

of “digital divide.” It is further intended that this paper will contribute to a better

and more constructive dialogue with neighbourhoods who will ultimately support

necessary changes to Vancouver’s planning and development practices. Only in this

way can Vancouver expect to have sustainable relationship with its citizens.

AcknowledgementsMany people assisted the author in undertaking research and preparing this

paper. They include:

•Mairi Welman, Director of Corporate Communications for supporting this research and in the interest of bringing the City’s public consultation practices into the 21st century

•David McLellan, Deputy City Manager for encouraging the underlying exploration that led to this study

•Brenda Prosken, for arranging the meetings with other senior staff.

•Vicki Potter, for sharing the details of the Vancouver Services review.

•Doug Robinson, for going the extra mile by providing template documents for existing practices.

•Catherine Buckham, for her insights into the community planning process.

•Matt Shilito for sharing his knowledge of the planning process and public consultation.

•Laurie Best for her work spearheading the City’s new web development initiative.

•Tracy Vaughan for ongoing insight into public engagement priorities.

•Yuri Artibise and Lee Gildemeester of PlaceSpeak for their research assistance.

•Finally, City Manager, Penny Ballem for having the imagination, and making it possible to pursue this project by encouraging city departments to engage in the discussion around next generation public consultation best practices.

Appendices34 35Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Catalogue of selected online toolsName Website

All Our Ideas allourideas.org

Ascentum ascentum.com

Brainstorm Anywhere launch.brainstormanywhere.net

Citizen Space citizenspace.com/info

CitizenScape citizenscape.net/core

CitySourced citysourced.com

CivicEvolution civicevolution.org

Community Forums CommunityForums.org

Corum corum.ca

Crowd Fanatic crowdfanatic.com

CrowdMap crowdmap.com

Debategraph debategraph.org

Debatepedia wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia!

Delib delib.com

DemocracyLab democracylab.org

DEMOS demos-project.org

eConsult communitypeople.net

EngagementHQ corporate.bangthetable.com

Engaging Plans engagingplans.com

Facilitate.com facilitate.com

FixMyStreet fixmystreet.ca

Get Satisfaction getsatisfaction.com

Group Systems groupsystems.com

Icanmakeitbetter icanmakeitbetter.com

Metroquest metroquest.com

IdeaVibes ideavibes.com

Mediem idealogueinc.com

Mind Mixer mindmixer.com

Next Door nextdoor.com

OnlineTownhalls OnlineTownhalls.com

Open Town Hall peakdemocracy.com

Option Technologies optiontechnologies.com

PlaceSpeak placespeak.com

Regulations.gov Regulations.gov

SeeClickFix seeclickfix.com

User Voice uservoice.com

Votorola zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht

Zilino zilino.com

Appendix 2 – Interviews with City StaffVicki Potter

Director, Development Services

Community Services

[email protected]

Doug Robinson

Assistant Director, Development Services

Community Services

[email protected]

Matt Shillito

Assistant Director, Community Planning

Community Services

[email protected]

Catherine Buckham

Senior Planner

[email protected]

Laurie Best

Director, Web Redevelopment Project

[email protected]

Tracy Vaughan

Public Engagement Manager

[email protected]

Appendices36 37Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Appendix 3 - IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation References1. Assessing Incidence of and Experiences with New Information Communications

Technologies in Planning Practice in Canada and the United States by Michael D. Epp, Pratt Institute, School of Architecture, February 2012.

2. Citizen Participation and the Internet in Urban Planning by Robert C. Goodspeed, University of Maryland, Urban Studies and Planning Program, May 9, 2008.

3. Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication, edited by Stephen Coleman and Peter M. Shane, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012.

4. Electronic Democracy and Deliberative Consultation on Urban Projects: “Putting E-Democracy into Context”, prepared by Prof. Dr. Herbert Kubicek, University of Bremen, Germany, October 2007.

5. Creating Digital Public Space: Implications for Deliberative Engagement, by Penny Gurstein in Learning Civil Societies: Shifting Contexts for Democratic Planning and Governance, University of Toronto Press, 2007.

6. Planning, technology, and legitimacy: structured public involvement in integrated transportation and land-use planning in the United States, by Keiron Bailey, Benjamin Blandford, Ted Grossardt and John Ripy in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2011, volume 38, pages 447-467.

7. Using online tools to engage and be engaged by the public by Matt Leighninger, Deliberative Democracy Consortium for the IBM Center for the Business of Government.

8. Using Geographic Information Systems to Increase Citizen Engagement, Sukumar Ganapatti, IBM Centre for the Business of Government, Washington DC, 2010.

9. Citizenship and governance in a wild, wired world, National Civic Review, Spring 2011, Matt Leighninger.

10. Location and Privacy – what is the new reasonable? Spatial Law and Policy, Kevin Pomfret, 2010.

11. Wikiplanning: engaging the public in new ways online, Planning and Technology today, Ryan, Deborah, 2010.

12. The internet and civic engagement, Aaron Smith. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC, 2009.

13. Virtual Communities: Bowling Along, Online Together, Song, Felicia Wu, 2009

14. The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and the Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society, Arno Scharl and Klaus Tochtermann (Eds.) Austria 2007.

15. Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement, Don Lenihan, Public Policy Forum, 2012.

References38 39Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Best Practices in Online Public Consultation

Documents

Transcript of Best Practices in Online Public Consultation