independent evaluation report - weeblybradleystewart.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/5/4/49540257/env... ·...

11/3/2014

Independent Evaluation

Report Public Involvement &

Community Development

4047 ENV

Written by Brad Stewart s2820784 GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY PREPARED FOR SONIA KIRBY

Save Our Spit Alliance…

Community Information Night “A Gold Coast Cruise Ship Terminal: Reality vs Spin”

Brad Stewart S2820784

WRITTEN BY BRAD STEWART S2820784 1

Contents Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 The Planning Problem – Background Issues ............................................................................... 2

2.1 Environmental Context ........................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Economic Context ................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Social Context.......................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Participation in Planning – Best Practice .......................................................................................... 5

4.0 Event description and Observations ................................................................................................. 6

4.1 Event Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Observations ................................................................................................................................. 7

5.0 Framework and Criteria .................................................................................................................... 8

6.0 Event Evaluation and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 10

6.1 (Criterion 1) Representative ....................................................................................................... 10

6.2 (Criterion 2) Inclusiveness ........................................................................................................... 10

6.3 (criterion 3) Transparency ........................................................................................................... 11

6.4 (Criterion 4) Multi-dimensional Participants .............................................................................. 11

6.5 (Criterion 5) Resources ............................................................................................................... 11

6.6 (Criterion 6) Power Dissemination .............................................................................................. 11

7.0 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 12

8.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 12

9.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Tables Table 1: Event overview .......................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Framework of criteria ................................................................................................................ 9

Table of Figures Figure 1: ASF’s proposed Consortium project ........................................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Zoning of the Broadbeach Marine project ............................................................................... 3

Figure 3: Arnsteins ladder of participation ............................................................................................. 5

Figure 4: Event brochure ......................................................................................................................... 6



1.0 Introduction This report will present the findings that have been derived from attending, critically analysing and

evaluating a community information session that was held by Save Our Spit Alliance (SOSA), a non-

governmental and not-for profit organisation that sets out to provide a voice for the community with

the hope to preserve the Gold Coast spit and Broadwater for future generations (SOSA 2013b). The

event is one of many that have been prepared since SOSA was created in 2004 to reflect the

communities and stakeholder values and concerns regarding the newly proposed Broadwater Marine

Project (BMP) to be developed on and around the Spit and Southport Broadwater (figure1 & 2).

The objective of this report is to develop a framework of criteria that has been used to critically analyse

and evaluate the community information session attended. This framework of criteria has been based

on the literature surrounding key themes and best practices for public participation in planning and

reflects on the events overall proficiency to facilitate community participation. The paper sets out by

identifying the key environmental, social and economic planning implications that have led to the

formation of the SOSA organisation and the need for such events to help inform the public of the

issues. A general description of the event and the techniques used has been provided, with the

outcomes and effectiveness of such techniques being scrutinized against the set of criteria to develop

a list of recommendations that can be used to better design community events for the future, and

ultimately increase participation levels in the planning process.

2.0 The Planning Problem – Background Issues The Broadwater is one of the Gold Coast’s most precious assets made up of roughly 75 hectares,

delivering countless environmental, social and economic benefits through attracting large numbers of

tourists and local residents to its shores to enjoy the aesthetically pleasing natural open space. In 2003

the Beattie government released its ‘cruise ship terminal policy’ under the BMP (figure 1), in a joint

venture with the City of the Gold Coast to seek private sector investment to develop the state-owned

land (DSDIP 2014). The BMP is set to encompass an integrated cruise ship terminal and casino with

ASF China Consortium Company being the preferred developer to carry out the project. This has

sparked outrage amongst local residents and business owner; in light of the community consultation

that took place surrounding the BMP, which is said to be the largest of its kind in Australia, SOSA have

played a large role in providing a voice for the community by inverting powers (SOSA 2013a).

Figure 1: ASF’s proposed Consortium project



Recent studies have shown that there is a rapid growth within the cruise ship industry, presenting

significant opportunities for developers in providing additional berthing ports worldwide (Jeth Al

2001). However, this also presents major local planning issues as the design and construction of cruise

ship sea ports requires specific planning approaches to manage such a rapid growth of large scale

projects, which Jeth Al states has not been adequately addressed.

SOSA have held countless community information sessions to create awareness of the negative

environmental, social and economic impacts that the BMP will have on a large proportion of residents,

businesses and visitors alike. Figure 2 below outlines the BMP opportunity zone of the cruise ship

terminal, and the location where it is proposed to be constructed. It is evident the environmental

impacts of such a development will be substantial and are not in accordance with division 1, section

1.0 of the Gold Coast Planning Scheme where nature conservation is addressed as one of fifteen key

strategies for the Gold Coast.

Figure 2: Zoning of the Broadbeach Marine project

2.1 Environmental Context The environmental consequences of such a large scale development such as the BMP will be

detrimental to the Broadwater and its surrounding natural environment. Severe loss of environmental

values in the marine and terrestrial environments will ultimately result in the loss of significant

ecosystems, home to an array of fish, turtles and the protected dugong (SOSA 2013c). Impacts on

plant species within the littoral zone and significant seagrass beds. Additionally, according to the VDM

report (2012) the level of clearing of native vegetation and sand islands (wave break Island) which

support an extensive range of unique biodiversity in the local context will have severe costs for these

systems. It is important to note that a large majority of the listed species to be found in the area are

protected under international agreements and the Commonwealth Environment protection and

Conservation Act 1999. Three of the shorebird species identified in the area being protected under

State and Commonwealth legislation (VDM 2012). Annual dredging that is required of cruise ship

terminal operation and pollution from the vessels will also place overburdening pollution levels in the

water resulting in loss of water quality and visual amenity. Butt (2007) states that cruise ships

represent less than 1% of the global merchant fleet, and yet manage to produce over 25% of waste

generated.



SOSA have clearly expressed their concerns with regards to the impacts of the project in the

environmental context as they state “The area is one of the most important habitats for our broad

spectrum sea-life ecologies in the region”. Reiterating the importance of the area through producing

a number of expert reports and community information sessions. Conversely, the state and local

governments have presented their findings in a political manner that highlights the opportunities of

such a proposal for the Gold Coast and states within an Initial Advice Statement expressing “the overall

vision for the spit represents a balance between public open space and recreational and tourism

facilities”, highlighting that the region will prosper economically and socially from such a large scale

development as the BMP.

2.2 Economic Context One way that the region is believed to prosper from the integrated cruise ship and casino development

is through increased economic activity. Such a development according to Mayor Tom Tate, and the

Department of State Development, Infrastructure, and Planning (DSDIP) will have countless benefits

for the region through promoting economic development, creating business prospects and delivering

long-term job creation (GCCC 2014a; GCCC 2013d). It is estimated that the construction of the project

the Gold Coast (GCCC2014a). With an estimated fifteen to thirty million to be injected into the local

economy within the first two years, and an additional thirty million each year during operation. Such

economic projections have been based on the expenditure of passengers and crew during stopover

periods, and creation of businesses and tourism.

SOSA presented their own economic projections compiled by experts, including Ross klein, a key note

speaker at SOSA’s information night, arguing against the initial estimates set out by state and local

governments and the ASF Consortium stating that the money spent by passengers and crew while in

port is very minimal and does not represent initial estimates (Klein 2005).

2.3 Social Context The Queensland Government as addressed earlier has outlined that the development will strive to

meet the overall vision of the project “To provide a balance between public open space and

recreational and tourism facilities”. However SOSA identifies that a development of such a large scale

mid Broadwater will create a visual abomination and result in the loss of the city’s iconic parkland.

Flow on effects for the local community will include increased traffic congestion and demand for

infrastructure which will ultimately be subsidised by local tax payers. While residents in adjacent

suburbs such as Southport, Labrador and Runaway Bay will experience a complete lifestyle alteration

(SOSA 2013b; DSDIP 2013).

The Gold Coast community relies on the pristine Broadwater and surrounding islands for a range of

uses including boating, swimming, sailing, fishing and surfing, and is the recreational heart of the Gold

Coast. This proposed development will destroy all social privileges the area offers, have devastating

effects on the biodiversity throughout the Broadwater and beyond, and result in serious economic

implications for residents, ultimately changing people’s perception of the Gold Coast forever. The

various groups that have spoken in protest of the development going ahead have not only provided

personal opinions and concerns, but have sourced professional consultants to provide documentation

that supports their view of protecting the natural environment and preserving the area for future

generations. It is evident that the devastating impacts of the BMP outweigh the benefits; arguments



provided by SOSA deem to be sufficiently supported to claim that any large scale development in the

Broadwater would not be in the best interest of local residents and visitors.

3.0 Participation in Planning – Best Practice Citizens are demanding greater levels of participation with regards to environmental, social and

economic neighbourhood issues. Rowe and Frewer (2000) identify participation generally as “The

practice of consulting and involving members of the public in the agenda-setting, decision-making,

and policy-forming activities of organisations or institutions”. Morgan (2004) identifies that the

processes implemented to include the public are far more important than the context in which it is

set. For example public meetings and information sessions as evaluated in this paper are less

successful at reaching a wider audience than more intensive mechanisms such as advisory committees

or mediation sessions. However, both can add to the insight of citizens in regards to the development

of their community (Cameron & Gibson 2005; Morgan 2004).

Therefore, within the context of participation, community events such as the SOSA information

session need to be evaluated to ensure that measures and actions have been put into place to allow

for citizens and the wider community to actively be involved. Given that such events are timely, costly

and at times complicated, it is vital that possible improvements are identified and addressed

accordingly (Arnstein 1969; Ansell & Gash 2008). Sherry Arnstein produced breakthrough work

developing the infamous ladder of participation, which identifies the levels of inclusiveness through

which she identifies eight gradations of citizen participation (figure 3). She states that “Participation

is power”, however the event being evaluated here was an information session, which she identifies

as being in the bottom rungs among ‘non-participation and tokenism’. It is for this reason that

evaluating events is essential to identify whether participation is actually inclusive of the wider

community, or if it has focused on the handing out of information with little community involvement.

Figure 3: Arnsteins ladder of participation

There are a number of challenges that need to be considered when intending to hold a public

engagement sessions to ensure that the objectives of the event are being met and include best

planning practices. Innes and Booher (2005) identify one of these issues as ‘information’, who is

controlling it, and is the information being provided trustworthy? Collaborative, inclusive and



representative practices can reduce this problem through providing grounds of dialogue among

participants, building upon social capital, and ultimately building the capacities of communities as the

assets of individuals and groups are mobilised to result in better informed decisions for community

development (Hum 2010).

4.0 Event description and Observations This report has been presented based on the evaluation of a community information session held by

SOSA, in partnership with GECHO and Save Our Broadwater. The event was one of three held to raise

awareness of the integrated cruise ship terminal and casino project proposed for Southport’s

Broadwater. The three events included;

1. Community information night (event attended)

2. Wake up to Wave break - an informal breakfast addressing the ‘facts, myths and

opportunities’; and

3. Celebration and information day – which was held to take a large group photo of supporters

against the development.

The community information session was held on Thursday night the 11th of September at Albert

Waterways Hall, Broadbeach between the hours of 7.00pm and 8.30pm. Figure 4 is the brochure that

was posted on SOSA’s website and social media pages.

Figure 4: Event brochure

4.1 Event Objectives The overarching goal of SOSA is to “To work with the Gold Coast community sectors for the

development of an integrated and holistic vision and management plan for the conservation and

sustainable use of the Southport Spit, Broadwater, foreshores and islands” (SOSA 2013a). The

information night was set up to help achieve this main goal, with specific objectives listed below.

O.1 Conservation: To provide further information on the importance of protecting the

Broadwater’s natural environment, including all marine and terrestrial species;



O.2 Community: To rally for community support through ascertaining the significant implications

of the development on the natural open spaces that the community rely on; and

O.3 Education: To provide overall education to the community regarding the many values of the

Broadwater and Spit with expert opinion.

4.2 Observations

It is imperative that prior to any event, facilitators must first identify the level of engagement that is

to be achieved, issues to be addressed and the objectives that the event will strive for. The key to

successful community event is identifying which techniques are most suited to the discussion context,

and the setting in which the event is to take place. The community information session held by SOSA

set out to make their event as informal as possible providing a comfortable environment for

participants. Stalls were setup around the room attended by the relevant stakeholders and interest

groups which included; GECHO, SEA SHEPHARD and Gold Coasts’ premiere dive company run by Ian

Banks, who is also a well-known photographer with a variety of photos of sea life in the seaway on

display, and a spokeswomen for the Port of Brisbane, identified earlier as the alternative and preferred

location for the project. It was key to note that all stalls were in aid of the rally against the Cruise Ship

terminal. It is to be assumed that these stakeholders were strategically invited prior to the event to

aid in rallying support. The facilitator for the event was the Save Our Spit Alliance president Steve

Gration, with the event hosting a number of guest speakers (see table 1). An outline of the community

information night’s schedule can be seen in table 1 below, identifying the presenters of the evening

and techniques they have used to enhance participation levels.

Table 1: Event overview

COMMUNITY INFORMATION NIGHT

Time (pm) Activity Outcome

6.30-7 - The doors were opened at 6.30pm for people to enter and engage in discussions with fellow participants, stakeholders, and facilitators alike. - Upon arrival friendly greetings and gestures were displayed from organisers and SOSA volunteers offered free sign-up; - tea & coffee not provided; - Over 100 attendees.

- This catered for a relaxed, friendly setting and allowed participants to be themselves and engage in dialogue with other participants, organisers and speakers;

7– 7.15 - People are invited to be seated; - Steve Gration introduces the event & guest speakers, and provided an overview of the environmental, social and economic context and raises his personal and community concerns of the project.

- Allowed people who had not been involved with the project previously to understand the issues and relate it to their own experiences; -However the information may have been biased.

7.15 – 7.40 - Keynote speaker Ross Klein through the use of PPT and images to present expert opinions about the project; - Presented a great deal of information; - Provides Q & A at the end.

-Providing expert opinions avoided the information being primarily ‘interest-based approach’; -Too much information resulted in disinterested participants and



5.0 Framework and Criteria Evaluation of events can be defined as a rigorous, systematic and objective process that is essential so

that feedback is available for public servants and academics to ensure that adequate inclusive planning

practices are being implemented, and allows the organisers to build upon and improve performances

(Burton et al. 2006). Before evaluation can be carried out it is necessary to identify what criteria will

be used to assess the performance of the event and the standards to be achieved within the set of

criteria. A framework has been established, and within it a set of six criteria have been developed

based on a clear understandings of the literature surrounding public engagement and best practices

for participation in planning. This section has paid particular attention to a paper produced by Michels

and De Graaf’s (2010) to develop a set of criteria, with the use of additional sources and individual

experience to customise the selected criterion to be used against the event attended. The framework

has been subdivided into two key components; Initiation and Implementation criteria. Definitions of

each criterion has been listed below and reflects the literature.

Initiation criteria:

1. Criterion of representative: “For a public event to be representative it needs to represent the

broad public and not pre-selected participants”. Inclusion Refers to “the openness of the forum

was not presented in laymen’s terms.

7.40 – 8.10 - Louis Levy presented detailed information with regards to previous CST proposals stating that the last time there was a CST proposal the EIS conducted by the former government proved it was unviable; - She Labels developers as ‘idiots’ and makes use of voice tones to convey a convincing argument; - Presents previous EIS findings conducted by the former government for the previous CST proposal and compares them to the recent studies completed by the Queensland government; -and she concluded saying that for ASF to get the land and a casino license they need to first have an operational CST.

- Once again there was quite a lot of information being provided which may have caused people to miss vital information. - Visuals were used which kept the majority of participants intrigued; - Overall, she gave a convincing well-presented presentation which echoed the

8.30 – 8.45

-Local mayoral candidate Dr Alexander Douglas provides a presentation with references to the use of open space north of SeaWorld and refers to this as ‘iconic’ land of significant value to the community; - concludes by stating “current facilities at the spit are what bring people to the area, so why change them?” - Penny Toland a labour candidate for Broadwater presents what has been brought forward in parliament, and identifies the level of community support and the impacts it is having on development.

-provides the community with a political viewpoint and how their concerns can be heard within parliament.

8.45– 9. (Concluded)

-The event was concluded with a ‘premiere’ video presented by Luke Sorrenson the vice-president of SOSA, containing emotional content that allowed people to relate to the issues;

-The video was a strong conclusion to the event, leaving people with an important message to either “protect or forget” the Broadwater; its rich biodiversity and social benefits.



to individual citizens and to the representation of the relevant groups or interests” (Michels &

De Graaf, 2010).

2. Criterion of Inclusive Collaboration: “Enhancing community capacity to involve and

collaborate with the marginalised groups; accommodating differences and eliminating

barriers to equality of opportunity” (Salogee 2010);

3. Criterion of resource accessibility: “Public participants should have access to the appropriate

resources to enable them to successfully fulfil their brief” Rowe & Frewer (2000).

Implementation:

4. Criterion of Multi-dimensional model: “This multi-dimensional model is an attempt to

integrate expertise, values and concerns of stakeholder groups, and the preferences of

citizens into a procedural framework” (Renn et al. 1996);

5. Criterion of Transparency: “The process should be transparent so that the Public can see what

is going on and how decisions are being made. It is a general understanding that all

participation practices should be transparent in delivery” (Rowe & Frewer 2000); and

6. Criterion of Power dissemination: “the level of power citizens are granted in determining the

outcome of a development” (Arnsteins 1969).

Table 2 below identifies the authors that have been sourced to develop each criterion within the

framework, and provides the indicators that have been used to evaluate the community information

night;

Table 2: Framework of criteria

FRAMEWORK OF CRITERIA

Initiation Criteria

Authors Indicators

1. Representative

Rowe & Frewer (2000); Harrington et al. (2008); Michels & De Graaf (2010).

- Representative sample of the population from the wider community; - Involves locating communities of social, political and cultural differences; -Perform stakeholder analysis and design the event to encourage active participation; and - Be representative of the likely effected public.

2. Inclusive

Rowe & Frewer (2000); Salojee (2010).

- Seeks to address power imbalances which can lead to exclusion from groups within the community; - Access to the required information leading up to the event (brochures, location, required information); - Ensure that the event can be easily accessible for all citizens, to reduce marginalisation of areas of the community; - Identifying times and locations to suit the majority; - How far people are willing to travel; and - Creates capacity building within the community

3. Transparency

Rowe & Frewer (2000)

- It is a general understanding that the participation process should be transparent in delivery. - Allows the public to stay in touch with proceedings of the event by allowing them access to information about the night and how their concerns are affecting decisions being made.



Implementation Criteria

4. Multi-dimensional model

Renn et al. (1993).

-This criteria identifies that stakeholders, experts, and citizens should each contribute to the planning effort their experiences, expertise, and values. - A wide range of sources will add to participant understandings and acceptance.

5. Resources Accessibility

Rowe & Frewer (2000)

-Such resources include; information, human resources, material resources, and time resources. - The careful use of resources to deliver an event can enhance people’s experiences and lead to further involvement.

6. Power Dissemination

Arnstein (1969)

-Can be related to Arnsteins ladder of participation of three levels of engagement (citizen power, tokenism & non-participation). This ladder presents citizens with opportunities to affect decisions made in their community. - Effective public involvement needs to identify the level of participation that needs to be achieved by the event.

6.0 Event Evaluation and Analysis Planners are confronted with a variety of problems when it comes to involving people in the planning

of their local community (Arnstein 1969). However, it is a process that is critical to understand and

implement as it can lead to more informed and reflective decisions of the community with regards to

local development, as government powers and control are reduced and public participation and local

democracy enhanced (Pacione 1988). The framework of criteria outlined in section 5.0 of this report

will be used to assess the community information night held by SOSA to critically analyse the

techniques used to achieve the objectives and goals of SOSA.

6.1 (Criterion 1) Representative It was clear with well over one hundred participants attending the information night that there was a

broadly representative sample of the community, with representation being addressed by locating

communities of place and providing local knowledge regarding opportunities and constraints with

regards to the triple bottom line. There was however very little information provided to the public

prior to the event, even though advertising was placed on SOSA’s website, social media pages and

around the Albert Waterways hall, those citizens who have very little involvement with SOSA or

associated organisations inclusion may have been limited. I feel that there could have been further

measure taken, as participants on the night all shared similar interests; citizens in favour of the cruise

ship terminal possibly felt as though there presence was not welcome. The event hosted a number of

professionals including lawyers, and environmental expert and a planner; with such a large crowd the

professional industry could have more widely represented.

6.2 (Criterion 2) Inclusiveness The event was held at Albert Waterways Hall adjacent to the Broadbeach library. Access via public

transport proved difficult due to the bus stop being relocated due to local construction, resulting in

over a 300m walk to the hall. Participants with restricted movement attending the event would find it

challenging under the circumstances. The hours of the event were required to be outside of work

hours as SOSA is a not-for profit organisation and facilitators of the evening have work commitments.

On that basis, despite the event going over schedule and being held between 1900hrs and 2100hrs,

the timing was appropriate given the circumstance. Participatory planning needs to include the use of



techniques that allows attendance of multiple publics to reduce racial tensions and remove the

barriers that hinder the lower socio-economic areas of neighbourhoods from inclusion. This will allow

community information’s sessions to build on the capacities within the community and collaborate

with a wide range of groups.

6.3 (criterion 3) Transparency Transparency allows the wider public to see what the event is addressing and how decisions are being

made in order to meet the event objectives, meaning the event is not being conducted behind closed

doors for a select few participants. As a community information session, the level of transparency was

adequate and activities to be included on the night were made accessible. There was no information

provided on how the concerns or issues raised by the community could reflect decisions being made

within their community. This is important as people will be more likely to participate if they feel they

feel their input is being heard.

6.4 (Criterion 4) Multi-dimensional Participants Renn et al. (1993) identifies the importance of including all relevant stakeholders, citizens and experts

to reveal their values and concerns with regards to the environmental, economic and cultural

underpinnings of the event in order to provide a comprehensive session with information being

delivered from multiple sources with differing views. SOSA have sourced expert opinions from Ross

Klein to provide participants with information surrounding the effects that the cruise ship terminal

will have on the above mentioned contexts. The stakeholders participating in the event were present

to highlight the impacts such a development will have on their businesses, and although they had

obvious hidden agendas, they provided the community with evidence of the economic impacts. With

the community obviously being present to display their views which were quite one sided but

expected given the nature of the event. Each level of this dimensional model was appropriate for the

setting of the event as they each contributed their own personal experiences and expertise to the

planning issue.

6.5 (Criterion 5) Resources Adequate resources have been acquired by SOSA for the information session, to provide for affective

engagement. Even though information sessions fall under the non-participation and tokenism rungs

of Arnstein’s ladder of participation, techniques were used to engage with the community and provide

a more emotional sense of ownership for the Broadwater and the natural environment. This was

achieved by facilitators and speakers making use of power point slides, videos showing effects on

wildlife etc. which allowed participants to connect emotionally. Rowe & Frewer (2000)state that

information sessions can result in content overload and allowing sufficient time for feedback and

questions is essential for participants to grasp the content being delivered, which was achieved in the

event held by SOSA.

6.6 (Criterion 6) Power Dissemination There were opportunities provided to the public to have their input into topics being discussed

through Q & A at the end of each speaker. However, this was limited to expressions of anger and

frustration in the primarily political sense and provided little power with regards to decision making.

This level of power sharing is common for informative sessions as they aim at providing information

around a topic and are limited in active participation. Having said that, SOSA is a powerful group when

it comes to effecting decisions outside of these information nights and therefore, levels of power can



be seen as quite high and have a history of impacting upon decisions surrounding the BMP. The level

of power granted to citizens on the night still remains on the bottom rungs of Arnsteins ladder among

tokenism; primarily informing. Power has been granted through the gaining valuable knowledge, as

citizens become better informed.

7.0 Recommendations The strategies that the SOSA implemented on the night in large, can be reflected as being adequate

given the circumstances and the context of the event. The objectives of the event as outlined in section

4.1 have been sufficiently met as information regarding the environmental, social and economic issues

of the BMP were sufficiently covered with industry experts providing data and research of the project

to the community and stakeholders. Ultimately allowing for the concerns of the public to be raised

and discussed. An analysis against the criteria developed within the framework has concluded that

the community information night has been successful in meeting the objectives and the overall goal

of SOSA. Evaluating events is critical for future improvements and to identify areas that can be

reformed to enhance their overall success. Below is a list of recommendations that the SOSA can

reflect upon for future reference and incorporate such techniques to increase the level of

participation.

To have a broad array of representatives; including the government officials proposing the

development to add their views from a developer’s perspective and answer questions. This

will help portray legitimacy of the event and attain an unbiased crowd;

Location of the event needs to consider accessibility and safety; transport options are vital to

encourage participation of marginalised members of the community who may be restricted

in mobility. Crossings of highways from bust stops and finishing times should be reviewed to

provide optimal safety for participants;

The information session needs to be more transparent so that participants can see how the

issues and values they have raised from the event are being addressed in practice surrounding

the BMP. To achieve this SOSA need to indicate to participants how their concerns on the

night will be taken into consideration, possibly through presenting these to council officials or

the developers.

Due to the nature of information sessions, food and beverage could have been offered on

arrival to enhance personal acceptance of the event and provide for a more social experience

prior to commencement.

8.0 Conclusions The techniques used by SOSA at the community information night to engage with the public has seen

a suitable level of public participation being implemented for an informative session. The evaluation

framework of criteria has allowed for critical analysis of the event and identified the areas that could

be improved as; providing a broader representation of professionals, identifying alternative and more

accessible locations to cater for the marginalised areas of the community, and to ensure that the event

is transparent so that participants can see the nature of the event and how they may be able to affect

decisions being made. Planners carry a large responsibility of ensuring that the broader community is

involved in the process and need to be aware of the influence people can have on decisions within

their community. SOSA was successful in meeting their objectives for the community information

session by identifying the required levels of participation and employing sufficient techniques. With



minor adjustments to the organisation and running of the event and techniques used, SOSA will be

able to continue to provide the community with a clear and objective voice to protect the Gold Coast’s

most valuable and iconic location.

Word Count: 4299 (excluding tables & references)



9.0 References Ansell, C & Gash, A 2008, 'Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice', Journal of Public

Administration Research & Theory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543-71.

Arnstein, S, 1969, 'A ladder of citizen participation', Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol.

35, no. 4, pp. 216-24.

Burton, P, Goodlad, R, Croft, J, 2006, 'How Would We Know What Works?: Context and Complexity in

the Evaluation of Community Involvement', Evaluation, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 294-312.

Butt, N. 2007, ‘The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports of call: A study of South

Hampton’, Marine Policy, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 591-98.

Cameron, J. & Gibson, K. 2005, 'Alternative pathways to community and economic development: The

latrobe valley Community partnering project', Geographical Research, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 274-

285.

Department of State Development and Infrastructure Planning (DSDIP) 2014, Media statements, Gold

Coast Council to decide on future of cruise ship terminal, Queensland Government, (online),

available: http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/2/13/gold-coast-council-to-decide-

future-of-cruise-ship-terminal

Frewer, L & Rowe, G. 2000, ‘Public participation methods: A framework of evaluation’, Science

Technology, & Human Values, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1-23.

Frewer, L. & Rowe, G. 2004, ‘Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda’, Science

Technology, & Human Values, vol. 29, pp. 512-56.

GCCC 2013d, Broadwater marine project; Planning intent, (online), available:

http://www.broadwatermarineproject.com.au/documents/bmp-planning-intent-

factsheet.pdf

GCCC 2014a, Terminal promises 36,000 jobs, News and Media, (online) available:

http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/terminal-decision-promises-36-000-jobs-21036.html

Hum, T. 2010, Planning in neighbourhoods with multiple publics: Opportunities and challenges for

community-based non-profit organisations, Journal of Planning Education and Research, xx(x),

pp. 1-17.

Innes, J. and Booher, D. 2004, ‘Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century’, Planning

Theory and Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 419-36.

Jeth Al, F. 2001, ‘Cruise ship port planning factors’, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, pp. 1-126.

Klein, R. 2005, ‘Cruise ship blues: The underside of the cruise industry’, New Society Publishers,

Gabriola, B. C.

Michels, A. & De Graaf, L. 2010, ‘Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and

-democracy’, Local Government Studies, vol. 36, no.4, pp. 477-91.

Pacione, M. 1988, ‘Public participation in neighbourhood change’, Applied Geography, vol. 8, pp. 229-

47.

https://learning.secure.griffith.edu.au/@@F875C1FC4C3AC1745FBE0C4A25C4F61D/courses/1/4047ENV_3125_GC/content/_2287512_1/embedded/CameronGibson2005.pdf

https://learning.secure.griffith.edu.au/@@F875C1FC4C3AC1745FBE0C4A25C4F61D/courses/1/4047ENV_3125_GC/content/_2287512_1/embedded/CameronGibson2005.pdf

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/2/13/gold-coast-council-to-decide-future-of-cruise-ship-terminal

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/2/13/gold-coast-council-to-decide-future-of-cruise-ship-terminal

http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/terminal-decision-promises-36-000-jobs-21036.html



Renn et al. 1993 ‘Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure’, Policy Sciences, vol.

26, pp. 189-214.

Saloojee, Anver. (2003). ‘Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and Democratic Citizenship’. Toronto:

Save Our Spit Alliance (SOSA) 2013a, ‘History of Sosa’, (online), available:

http://www.saveourspit.com/No_Terminal/history/History-SOSA.htm

Save Our Spit Alliance (SOSA) 2013b, protect our waterways, beaches and open spaces say NO to a

cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast, (online), available:

http://www.saveourspit.com/index.html

Save Our Spit Alliance (SOSA) 2013c, ‘Marine habitat and sanctuary under threat’, Media releases,

(online), available: http://www.saveourspit.com/No_Terminal/resources/Resources.jsp

VDM 2012, Ecological investigations to support the Broadwater Masterplan, Gold Coast City Council,

(online), available: http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/bf/ecological-

investigations-part1.pdf

Young, M. 2005, ‘intersecting voices: dilemmas of agenda, political philosophy, and policy’, Justice and

Identity: Antipodean Practices, Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, Chapter 9, pp. 34-52.

http://www.saveourspit.com/No_Terminal/history/History-SOSA.htm

http://www.saveourspit.com/index.html

http://www.saveourspit.com/No_Terminal/resources/Resources.jsp

http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/bf/ecological-investigations-part1.pdf

http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/bf/ecological-investigations-part1.pdf

independent evaluation report - weeblybradleystewart.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/5/4/49540257/env... ·...

Documents