Effective Public Involvement Using Limited Resources (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6INTRODUCTION This section summarizes findings from a literature review of public involvement that was conducted predominately through a TRIS search. This resulted in the identification of 57 TRIS publications, 16 websites, 4 MPO websites, 4 DOT websites, 6 poverty and cultural publications, and 2 poverty and cultural websites that were thought to be relevant to this project. A complete listing of publications and websites can be found in the Annotated References. Although there is no comprehen- sive synthesis of national practices of public involvement for transportation programs, a number of published studies con- sistently describe a number of factors contributing to effective approaches for engaging the public in the decision-making process. Historically, public involvement efforts have focused on full disclosure of agency decisions and providing opportu- nities for the public to comment on those decisions. The his- torical approaches have given way over time to more collabo- rative approaches to decision making and the introduction of alternative dispute resolution concepts. FINDINGS A search of the literature identified the following five primary purposes for conducting public involvement: 1. Discovering the preferences of the public to help make informed decisions, 2. Improving decisions by incorporating input from the public, 3. Advancing fairness and justice in agency decisions by ensuring that the concerns of traditionally underserved groups are addressed, 4. Ensuring the legitimacy of agency decisions, and 5. Complying with laws and regulations that require pub- lic involvement. In Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, the 2008 study edited by Dietz and Stern for the National Academy of Sciences, the essence of research cited in the bibliography is captured when they identify the goal of participation as “. . . to improve the quality, legitimacy, and capacity of . . . decisions.” Their description of those character- istics is as follows: • Quality refers to assessments or decisions that – Identify the values, interests, and concerns of all who are interested in or might be affected by the . . . decision; – Identify the range of actions that might be taken; – Identify and systematically consider the effects that might follow and uncertainties about them; – Use the best available knowledge and methods rele- vant to the above tasks, particularly identify and sys- tematically consider the effects that might follow and uncertainties about them; and – Incorporate new information, methods, and concerns that arise over time. • Legitimacy refers to a process that is seen by the interested and affected parties as fair and competent and that fol- lows the governing laws and regulations. • Capacity refers to participants, including agency offi- cials and scientists [or other professionals], becoming better informed and more skilled at effective participa- tion; becoming better able to engage the best [technical] knowledge and information about diverse values, inter- ests, and concerns; and developing a more widely shared understanding of the issues and decision challenges and a reservoir of communication and mediation skills and mutual trust. The primary conclusion from their research is that: When well done, public participation improves the quality and legitimacy of a decision and builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the policy process. It can lead to better results in terms of environmental quality and other social objectives. It also can enhance trust and understanding among parties. Achieving these results depends on using practices that address difficulties that specific aspects of the context can present. The FHWA and FTA provide the following guidelines for designing a public involvement program in their 2002 publication Public Involvement Techniques for Transporta- tion Decision-Making: • Act in accord with basic democratic principles by pro- viding opportunities to debate issues, frame alternative solutions, and affect final decisions. Agencies accom- plish this by sharing the details about their plans, attempt- ing to reflect the goals of the community, and engaging the entire community. • Begin public involvement as early as possible and con- duct it continuously throughout the decision-making process. • Use a variety of techniques to engage the public tailored to the unique needs of the various groups in the project CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

7area, particularly those that have traditionally been underserved or disenfranchised. • Take the initiative to seek out and actively engage these groups in creative ways where they are located. FHWA and FTA guidance also provided the following five steps to “systematically setting up and implementing a public involvement program for a specific plan, program, or project:” 1. Set goals and objectives for the public involvement program, 2. Identify the people to be reached, 3. Develop a general approach or set of general strate- gies, 4. Flesh out the approach with specific techniques, and 5. Ensure that proposed strategies and techniques aid decision making to close the loop. Researchers consistently identify a number of factors that contribute to the effectiveness of public involvement efforts: • The culture of the organization matters. Credibility and trust are established over time when the public per- ceives that the agency is not just “going through the motions or doing the minimum required by the laws and regulations that govern them,” but are demonstrating a genuine commitment to collaborative decision making. • The staff conducting public involvement matters. Proper skills and training are critical to successfully engaging the public. • It is important to understand your public. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to public involvement. Census data can help identify the socioeconomic characteristics of each community; however, it is important to talk to people to really understand their issues and concerns. • The methods used to engage people could be tailored to the unique characteristics of each group. • People need to be taught how to provide the most use- ful feedback to the agency; it is not enough to disclose technical data about the decision to be made. Outline the decision-making process and describe the input needed from the public at each phase of the process. • Public involvement is an ongoing process and involves building long-term working relationships. People need to knowthat they have meaningful opportunities to influence decisions before they are made by the decision maker. • Reaching agreement on relevant information needed to make decisions is not easy. Data come with bias and assumed values and it is important that it be presented in clear, nontechnical terms. The goal is mutually shared information flows between the public and the agency. • Dialogue has transformational power. “When an inclu- sive set of citizens can engage in authentic dialogue where all are equally empowered and informed and where they listen and are heard respectfully, and when they are working on a task of interest to all, following their own agendas, everyone is changed. They learn new ideas and they often come to recognize that others’ views are legitimate. They can work through issues and create shared meanings as well as the possibility of joint action. They can learn new heuristics” (Innes and Booher 2005). • Decision making works best when built on a series of agreements that ultimately lead to a comprehensive consensus on the final program or project decision. In 1996, the FHWA published Community Impact Assess- ment, A Quick Reference for Transportation, or as it is better known “the little purple book.” It was “written as a quick primer for transportation professionals and analysts who assess the impacts of proposed transportation actions on communities” by doing the following: • Outlining the community impact assessment process, • Highlighting critical areas to be examined, • Identifying basic tools and information sources, and • Stimulating the thought process related to individuals projects. It was prepared because the consequences of transporta- tion investments on communities had often been ignored or introduced near the end of a planning process. At best, this reduced them to reactive consideration. The goals of this booklet were to do the following: • Increase awareness of the effects of transportation actions on the human environment, • Emphasize that community impacts deserve serious attention in project planning and development com- mensurate with that given the natural environment, and • Provide some tips for facilitating public involvement in the decision-making process. It provides “nuts and bolts” guidance and instruction in accomplishing the following objectives: • Defining the project, • Developing a community profile, • Collecting data, • Analyzing community impacts, • Selecting analysis tools, • Identifying solutions, • Using public involvement, and • Documenting findings. Once the project has been defined, the community profile developed, and the data collected, then the proper analysis tool or techniques can be selected to engage that specifically identified community. For those publics that are low-literate or have limited English proficiency, the FHWA’s 2006 pub- lication How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English- Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking provides guidance on what special approaches are needed to outreachtolow-literacyandengagelimited-English-proficiency populations.

8In addition to publications found through a search of the TRIS database, there were several non-transportation publica- tions that directly addressed gaining an understanding of living in poverty. This distinction is important because most consultants and the public involvement professionals employed by transportation agencies have never lived in poverty and may not be the same race or ethnicity of the public that they seek to engage. As a result, they may have little or no under- standing of life from the public’s perspective, as they lack any frame of reference. This disconnect often causes public involvement plans and activities to be designed and con- structed that do not address the public’s life and work sched- ule, cultural background, religious beliefs, or other social or economic norms. A Framework for Understanding Poverty (Payne 2005), Bridges Out of Poverty: Strategies for Profes- sionals and Communities (Payne et al. 2001), and Hidden Rules of Class (Payne and Krabill 2002) were found to provide insight into the effect poverty can have on public involvement strategies. In addition, several business and travel books on cultural taboos are provided including Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands (Morrison and Conaway 2006), Gestures, the Do’s and Taboo’s of Body Language Around the World (Axtell 1998), and Do’s and Taboo’s Around the World (Axtell 1993). Also, websites from the University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center in Seattle (http://ethnomed.org/) and the United Kingdom Department of Transport on social exclusion (http:// www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/inclusion/) are included. SUMMARY The literature review provided insight into the state of the prac- tice of public involvement, continuing challenges for public involvement in transportation, and potential performance mea- sures. The following is a summary of the key conclusions: • Define the project. Discover the public preferences to assist in making informed decisions. Outline commu- nity impact assessment process. • Identify the people to be reached. Develop a commu- nity profile and begin public involvement as early as possible. Actively seek out and engage all groups in creative ways where they are located. Address the con- cerns of the traditionally underserved to advance fair- ness and justice in agency decisions. • Identify basic tools and information sources, and ensure that staff conducting public involvement has the proper skills and training. Outline the decision-making process and describe the output needed from the public at each stage of the process. • Collect data and analyze community impacts. For those groups that are low literate and have limited English proficiency, provide special guidance. Ensure that the concerns of the traditionally underserved are addressed. • Maintain a systematic public involvement evaluation and feedback process for planning and project outreach activ- ities. Ensure continuity in addressing public concerns. • Incorporate input from the public to improve decision making. Decision making works best when built on a series of agreements. • Document and publicize the findings. • The goal of public participation, when well done, can improve the quality, legitimacy, and capacity of all involved in the policy process.