Oxford Civic Society – Final Report The Researcher Strategy Consultancy, June 2019 Valerie Belu Joseluis Ramirez Mendiola Giuseppe Spatafora Mohammad Waleed Bahar Corresponding Author: Valerie Belu, valerie.belu@politics.ox.ac.uk

Contents

1. Executive Summary 3

1a. The Challenges Faced by the Oxford Civic Society 3

1b. The Work Your RSC Team Undertook to Help You Meet These Challenges 3

2. Multi-Criteria Analysis 5

2a. The Elements of MCA 5

2.b. Case Study - The Portland Plan (TPP): Setting Clear Objectives and Measuring Success 8

i. Introduction 8

ii. How Did The Portland Plan Define Objectives? 10

ii. Measuring Success 11

2.c. Case Study - Envision Utah: An Award-Winning Model of Participatory Scenario Building 13

i. Summary 13

Infobox: What is Envision Utah 14

ii. Defining Objectives and Criteria 15

iii. Designing Future Scenarios 15

iv. Using GIS to Create a Baseline Model and Analyze Scenarios 15

Infobox: Using GIS to Model the Consequences of Various Growth Scenarios 16

v. Choosing the Winning Scenario 17

3. Public and Stakeholder Engagement 18

3.a. The Importance of Public Engagement 18

3.b. Developing an Effective Model of Public Engagement 20

i. Guiding Principles of Engagement 20

ii. When to Consult and What to Consult On 23

iii. Who To Involve and How To Raise Awareness 23

iv. Achieving Balanced and Inclusive Engagement 24

v. Avoiding Consultation Overload and Managing Feedback 26

vi. Identifying Appropriate Tools and Techniques 26

viii. Public Meetings 28

ix. Risk Assessment 29

3.c. Case Study - Mediterranean Cities: Using Public Consultations to Generate Ideas 29

Infobox: The USUDS and Best Practice in the Mediterranean 29

3.d. Case Study - The Portland Plan: Lessons Regarding Community Participation 33

i. The VisionPDX public engagement process 33

Infobox: VisionPDX - Engagement Tools Used to Initiate Public Participation for The Portland Plan 34

ii. Engaging residents to take their own action 36

iii. Conclusions and Discussion 37

3.e. Case Study - Envision Utah: Seeking Public Engagement at Various Stages 37

i. Using a Wide Variety of Public Engagement Strategies 37

Infobox: How Envision Utah Interviewed Stakeholders to Design Its Process 38

Infobox: Tactics Used by Envision Utah’s Public Awareness Campaign 39

Infobox: How Envision Utah Used Workshops To Define Future Growth Scenarios 40

ii. Conclusions 41

4. Interacting With Local Government 43

1

4.a. Case Study - Envision Utah: Fostering Collaboration With Local Government 43

4.b. Case Study - Portland: Promoting Integrated Strategies Across City Planning Authorities 45

5. Potential Next Steps 47

Appendices 49

1. A Brief UK History of Public Engagement in Planning and Some Persistent Issues 49

2. Selected UK Sources Setting Out Objectives for Urban Design in the Last Two Decades 52

3. The Trading Zone Concept in Strategic Urban Planning 56

4. The Freiburg Charter: A Successful Process of Public Consultation 58

5. Legal Disclaimer 60

2

1. Executive Summary

1a. The Challenges Faced by the Oxford Civic Society Oxford Civic Society (OCS) is a registered charity dedicated to improving Oxford as a city and area for people to live, work, and relax. The aims of the Society are:

● To influence the development of Oxford as a city where people enjoy living, working and visiting; ● To inform its members – and others – about Oxford; its key qualities and characteristics, as well as its

problems, with constructive, soundly-based proposals for its further improvement; ● To cooperate with Oxford’s residents’ associations and civic societies nationally to develop

community-led solutions to shared problems; and ● To learn from other cities, in both the UK and abroad, whose creative strategies might be helpfully

applied in Oxford. 1

In your brief, you explained that:

● you “currently lack a mechanism/an analytic approach which enables the wider public and indeed experts to strike a benefit/harm balance that would capture all the likely effects of a proposed improvement” and asked us to develop and test one.

● The approach should be transparent, “document[ing] what factors were taken into account [and] what weightings they are being given,” and public engagement is a priority.

Your overarching goal is to “find a way to articulate a conversation about changing Oxford.” You asked us to explore solutions and to make recommendations, on the basis of a “review of methodologies and approaches used elsewhere, including internationally.” Discussions during our first meeting helped us to further understand the challenges you face:

● You want to know how you can best influence the decision-making of planning authorities, using persuasive narratives and/or solid evidence from surveys and statistics.

● You want to change the process of public consultations: ○ By promoting proactive participation in the early stages of planning, rather than the typically

observed reactive responses (i.e. voicing complaints once plans have been set out); ○ By “lowering the bar of participation” for busy stakeholders; ○ By improving engagement of typically unresponsive groups (e.g. the residential sector,

pensioners and students) who do not see the value in engaging; e.g. by finding a way to reframe the potential relevance of the planning process that is tailored to these groups.

● You want to find a way to promote closer collaboration between the City and County Councils. ● Lastly, you want to involve stakeholders in designing a solution.

1b. The Work Your RSC Team Undertook to Help You Meet These Challenges

The Oxfordshires Futures 2050 Report (hereafter OF2050) states that although “modelling... the impacts of alternative scenarios” would be beneficial, it was “beyond the capacity of [the OF2050] report.” 2

Unfortunately, this has also remained out of reach for us: after reviewing two cases that used MCA, we

1 “Oxford Civic Society: Aims and Values.” https://www.oxcivicsoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/OCS-Aims-Values-for-AGM-in-March-2018.pdf 2 Dr. Nicholas Falk (Feb. 2019), “Oxfordshire Futures 2050: Achieving Smarter Growth in Central Oxfordshire. A Comprehensive Look at Development, Planning, Finance, Infrastructure and Delivery Issues in Creating Sustainable Growth in a Smarter City-Region.”

3

concluded that the purchase of Geographic Information Systems (hereafter GIS ) software and a massive 3

data collection and standardization effort would be required, and that this lies outside the scope of what is possible for our team. We have instead sought to make a contribution to your work by expanding on the case studies considered in the OF2050 report (Grenoble, Freiburg and Cambridge). We have researched further afield, including information about award-winning projects in Utah, Portland and five Mediterranean cities. Our research remained closely focused on identifying lessons from these projects that the OCS could apply to the list of challenges identified in the foregoing section, particularly with regards to improving the process of public engagement. The report proceeds as follows:

● In Chapter 2, we explore the elements needed to carry out Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). ○ We systematise the objectives that OCS aims to accomplish in a “Hierarchy of Principles,

Objectives and Planning Guidelines,” which builds up on the three overriding principles of economic competitiveness, environmental balance and social equity.

○ Then we ask how the successful implementation of the listed principles can be measured. ○ We explore how the award-winning cases of Envision Utah and the Portland Plan have

measured success, and draw lessons for the OCS’s own work.

● In Chapter 3, we turn to the goal of improving public and stakeholder engagement. ○ First, we explore how public engagement can benefit local communities, planners and

decision-makers, and provide a ‘best practice’ guide to public engagement, that we hope the OCS might find useful when redesigning its own engagement process.

○ This discussion is followed by more case studies. We consider how various projects carried out by the Mediterranean Network for the Promotion of Sustainable Urban Development Strategies used public engagement to generate and shape proposed projects, bringing the public into the process at the earliest stages.

○ Thereafter, we consider how the Portland Plan and Envision Utah used public engagement alongside MCA at various stages of the planning process. Once again, we emphasised the tactics used and tied them back to the OCS’ objectives and context.

● in Chapter 4, we explore engagement and interaction with local government.

○ We acknowledged the political constraints that OCS may encounter, considering the division of tasks and authority between the Oxford City Council and Oxfordshire County Councils.

○ We then explore how Envision Utah sought to foster collaboration between itself and the various levels of government in Utah by hosting special meetings, seeking input, requesting support for public meetings, and otherwise asking them to become involved.

● In Chapter 5, we conclude by listing the potential next steps for your organization, structured around four themes: researching objectives, expanding your website, building relationships and working towards an MCA model.

3 https://gisgeography.com/what-gis-geographic-information-systems/

4

2. Multi-Criteria Analysis

“Before considering alternative patterns of growth, planners need to review the objectives for assessing options… Research into major infrastructure decisions has shown up the weakness of Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) … and instead called for Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). ... MCA can produce better results that will stand up to criticism provided there is a robust process for agreeing the criteria in advance of making choices. … Three overriding principles or criteria can be summarised as: economic competitiveness, environmental balance and social equity. Without going into the theoretical justification, which is the subject of many books and journal articles, and used by major institutions such as the World Bank, it is possible to derive some relatively straightforward criteria that can be measured, and used as yardsticks for evaluating alternative projects or patterns of growth. They can be refined through market research to understand the priorities of different parts of the community.” (OF2050, p. 16)

2a. The Elements of MCA We began our work by exploring the elements required to make MCA possible. Following the quote from the OF2050 report above, these can be identified as:

● the objectives against which the planned developments are to be assessed, ● the measurable criteria that can be used to evaluate whether planned developments meet the

objectives, and ● the relative weightings assigned to these criteria when making the decision.

As the “Oxfordshire Futures 2050” Report states, “agreeing objectives against which options can be assessed is crucial if expensive and time-wasting arguments are to be minimised” (p. 2). For the model to convince, objectives either have to reflect the existing community consensus, or – if the OCS as an organization wishes to advocate for objectives beyond this consensus – objectives have to be accompanied by clear and convincing justifications for their inclusion (based on expert views and community consultation). However, as the purpose of MCA for the OCS is to enable it to argue its organization’s views more persuasively, we decided to derive objectives from the material sent to us by the OCS. The OF2050 suggests that ideally a model “would take full account of environmental and social as well as economic impacts” (p. 6). In this report, we have thus taken these three headings and used them to construct a framework of objectives. (For lists of objectives set out by various UK sources over the past two decades, see Appendix 2.) This framework is hierarchical:

1. at the highest level lie principles, such as valuing the environment or wanting to ensure social equity, from which one can derive

2. objectives: if we care about the environment, we have to reduce car dependency and increase the attractiveness/availability of public transport, and

3. planning guidelines: if we want to reduce car dependency and increase the attractiveness/availability of public transport, we have to make sure new developments are within walking distance of public transport and local facilities, extend public transport to under-served areas, reduce the availability of parking, make public transport journey times predictable etc.

(Note that there is no clear and established terminology for these concepts; and a lot of variation in the terms used by different sources.) Principles are open to debate (some actors do not accept the importance of the environment, or do not agree that planning should serve the principle of ensuring social equity etc.). Objectives and planning guidelines, on the other hand, are empirically derived from the principles. How to best reduce car

5

dependency or incentivise people to use public transport is a matter of empirical investigation, not opinion: experts in related fields will be best placed to answer these questions using their specialized knowledge and awareness of up-to-date evidence. We have also highlighted potential trade-offs (for example between certain measures reducing car dependency and accessibility) or interactions (benefits from improving sustainable transport also accrue to the social objective of improving public health via mechanisms such as increased exercise from walking and cycling and reduced air pollution from fewer vehicle miles travelled) wherever the sources we received from the OCS did so. In this case, too, subject experts would be of great help in developing a more complete understanding of the underlying relationships. The hierarchy of principles, objectives and planning guidelines can be found below. All of them were already present in the documents sent to use by the OCS or on its website; we have only sought to organize them systematically. This hierarchy remains incomplete, particularly with regard to planning guidelines.

Infobox: A Hierarchy of Principles, Objectives and Planning Guidelines

● Environmental Principle: avoid environmental degradation, create environmental improvement, address climate change.

● Objective - Sustainable Transport: achieving a sustainable travel infrastructure by reducing car dependency and promoting sustainable modes of transport..

● Lessen parking provision. ● Make more space available for pedestrians and cyclists. ● Minimise walking distance to bus stops and need for interchanges, and make

public transport journey times more predictable. ● Enhance local rail services.

● Objective - Sustainable Housing: minimise the extent to which the necessary expansion in affordable housing impacts the environment.

● ‘Future proof’ (especially new) homes with regards to in regard to energy generation and conservation, water conservation, recycling and waste disposal.

● Encourage higher density development, and consider the distance to public transport and local facilities (schools, retail, medical, open spaces, and community facilities).

● Avoid building on flood plains and ancient woodlands. ● Objective - Sustainable Employment:

● Avoid a dispersed pattern of development for employment sites; urban intensification not dispersal (otherwise car dependency is enhanced).

● Take into account that creating new jobs while at full employment entails more people commuting into the city, leading to more car use and congestion (as well as having consequences for the environment, this also affects ‘improving public health’).

● Social principle: ensure social equity and meet social needs. ● Objective - Affordable Housing: ensure people can find affordable places to live.

● Address the housing crisis by building new developments. ● Objective - Safe and Accessible Transport: ensure the travel infrastructure works for

everyone. ● Ensure cycling and walking are safe and convenient. ● Ensure attempts at reducing car reliance (see ‘environmental objectives -

transport’) do not discriminate against these people for whom care use is the only practicable option.

6

● Objective - Improving Public Health: ● Promoting walking and cycling (see ‘safe and accessible transport’, as well as

‘sustainable transport’ for the planning guidelines) will also benefit public health by increasing exercise.

● Reducing car dependency (see ‘sustainable transport,’ ‘sustainable housing’ and ‘sustainable employment’ for the planning guidelines) will also benefit public health by reducing air pollution.

● Shorten commuting time to lower stress. ● Objective - Fostering Community:

● Create balanced communities. ● Make streets friendlier, more pleasant and safe to make them attractive social

spaces for playing-in and interacting with your neighbours (planning guidelines include well-lit streets).

● Objective - Narrowing Inequalities: ● [Health, employment, transport and housing all affect societal inequalities so that

if we are serious about narrowing these inequalities, the model has to reflect the relative impact of planned developments on inequalities.]

● Objective - Safeguarding Oxford’s Beauty: ensure Oxford remains a beautiful and appealing place to live and work (this will also help with remaining competitive).

● Preserve the historic environment. ● Build distinctive places; no identikit housing estates. ● Avoid building in Areas of Natural Beauty around the city. ● Ensure new developments fit the existing character.

● Economic principle: remain competitive. ● Objective - Safeguarding the Universities:

● Safeguard the city and its region’s position as a leading world university and research centre.

● Objective - Ensuring Adaptability: ● With retail and to some extent office accommodation facing an uncertain future

because of technological advance, policies should encourage mixed use development such as retail/residential or office/residential.

Deciding on measurable criteria for these various objectives and planning guidelines clearly presents a challenge.

● In some cases the answer is relatively straight-forward (for example, ped-shed analysis can assess walkability, i.e. walking distance to transport links and local facilities),

● while others might be virtually immeasurable (e.g. attempting to numerically and ‘objectively’ assess to what extent a proposed development succeeds at safeguarding Oxford’s beauty).

Thus we decided to turn to case studies of other projects that have applied MCA to planning decisions to see how they went about setting objectives and evaluating options. Specifically, we considered four questions:

● How did these projects arrive at their own objectives? ● What criteria and measures did these projects use to assess objectives? ● How did they go about doing the actual modelling? ● How did they make their choices (which includes the question of weightings)?

The cases we chose were the Portland Plan and Envision Utah.

7

To foreshadow our conclusions: ● Envision Utah’s objectives were set by experts, while the Portland Plan used a massive public

engagement campaign. There was a significant overlap among the objectives of the OCS, Envision Utah and the Portland Plan, with some divergence (e.g. the Portland Plan places a higher value on social equity; a concern notably absent from Utah’s principles).

● Both projects used a very large number of measures when assessing planned developments or scenarios. Calculating how planned developments would impact these measures (e.g. air quality) often required complex calculations using large volumes of data.

● As a result, MCA analysis requires (i) the purchase of GIS software and (b) a serious data collection and standardization effort (as data from a variety of sources had to be converted into GIS formats).

● Envision Utah decided weightings using a representative survey of residents, and picked the winning scenario by assessing which scenario residents thought performed the best on the topics that were considered most important on average; the Portland Plan decided weightings after the initial round of public consultation and after the planning authorities had completed their initial data collection and analysis work. This initial round of public engagement and feedback took the form of workshops and community engagement events as well as surveys that ranked public feedback against the objectives defined from the background reports.

2.b. Case Study - The Portland Plan (TPP): Setting Clear Objectives and Measuring Success

i. Introduction The Portland Plan (TPP) was developed as a strategic path forward in response to some of Portland’s most pressing challenges. These included income disparities, high unemployment, low graduation rates and 4

environmental concerns. The Portland Plan places the advancement of equity at its foundation. The Plan set numerical goals and suggested ways of measuring progress towards them. TPP was based on extensive analysis of quantitative data and information about conditions in Portland’s diverse neighbourhoods. Adopted in April 2012, TPP brought together a diverse group of stakeholders (20 public agencies, thousands of residents, businesses and non-profits) to make Portland prosperous, healthy, educated and equitable.

● Three overall goals, each with supporting objectives, provide the big picture (see figure from p. 6 below).

● The plan also sets out which actions and guiding policies will facilitate the achievement of the objectives. For example:

o The objective “growing employment district” is facilitated ▪ by “provid[ing] capacity for Portland’s campus institutions to grow and to remain

competitive” and ▪ by “provid[ing] land supply and development capacity to meet job growth targets,

and improve the cost competitiveness of redevelopment and brownfields.” o The objective “neighbourhood business vitality” is facilitated

▪ by “improve access to jobs in priority neighbourhoods through frequent transit, active transportation, workforce development training and employment growth in neighbourhoods.”

o The objective “access to housing” is facilitated

4 The Portland Plan details and documentation can be obtained at https://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=58776

8

▪ by “provid[ing] for long-term housing affordability by considering the combined cost to residents of housing, utilities and transportation when making housing investment decisions” and

▪ by “continu[ing] to expand access to affordable transportation options, including sidewalks, frequent service transit, bicycle networks, car and bike sharing, and other alternatives that allow households to function without a car or with one car” and

▪ by “develop[ing] corridor-specific housing strategies as a component of major transit investments.”

→ Note the similarities to many of the objectives identified by the OCS. (For more examples of how to facilitate these and the other objectives see: https://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=58776&a=405753) Integrated Strategies

● Promote partnerships. TPP attempts to integrate the expenditure of different public agencies across activities related to the major goals: prosperity, education, health and equity. To get more from existing budgets TPP emphasized an alignment of effort across different public agencies of the city to increase efficiency.

● Goals, objectives and action plans are used to structure the strategy, resulting in policy decisions. ○ Long-term goals and objectives provide the big picture statements about what the

strategies are designed to achieve. ○ Guiding policies are used to help City authorities and partners make decisions about

long-term investments and budgets. The guiding policies also provide direction for the City’s Comprehensive Plan, state-mandated land use and transportation and capital projects plans, asl well as any other local plans. Guiding policies are thus key to forming integrated alignment between city wide agencies and partners to make sure all stakeholders are adhering to the overall vision.

○ 5-year action plans are the specific steps partner agencies or organizations will take in the short-term (5 year) timeframe, and represent the first steps to achieving significant change, or quick ‘low-hanging’ fruit that can provide efficient near term results.

Figure 1: The Goals and Objectives Identified by the TPP (from p. 6)

9

ii. How Did The Portland Plan Define Objectives? The Portland Plan divided its core objectives into both long-term (25 year) goals and short-term (5 year)

action plans. These included:

● Grow the economy and add more and better jobs.

● Create housing and neighborhoods that are affordable for more Portlanders.

● Reduce disparities in health, income and education.

● Improve graduation rates and get people ready for jobs.

● Improve the health of kids, adults and families.

● Increase our sense of safety and overall well-being.

● Create a cleaner and greener built and natural environment—more trees, better air and water

quality, and lower carbon emissions.

● Promote greater access to complete, walkable neighborhoods—with healthy food, parks, shops,

transportation options and other amenities.

Data collection and measurement were used to track progress for each of the objectives/goals (see

‘Measuring Success’).

Public engagement from the outset to define the starting objectives

The fundamental data collection and analysis process at the beginning of The Portland Plan process began

with an extensive public engagement exercise known as visionPDX (see section 3 for further details). This 5

was the largest public engagement exercise that Portland had completed at this time, and involved over

17,000 Portlanders giving their views and opinions, which ultimately defined the three ‘big picture’ goals that

formed the foundation of TPP; Equity and Access, Environmental economic and social sustainability, and

distinctive neighbourhoods and connected communities.

The public engagement process followed a systematic process summarised below:

1. Beginning in 2009, Portland City staff developed more than 20 background reports on numerous

topics such as human health and safety, energy, economic development, watershed health. The

purpose of these reports was to develop a well-researched picture of Portland’s existing conditions.

2. Phase one of Portland Plan (2009-2010), Portlanders reviewed this research, helping to refine facts,

submitting hundreds of detailed comments and ranking their priorities. Nearly 2,500 people

participated in phase one public engagement events, which took the form of workshops, community

presentations and outreach events. At this stage an additional 13,000 youth and adults completed

surveys. The culmination of this was five priority objectives (jobs, education, equity, health and

sustainability). Staff then developed a set of goals for the long-term (year 2035) organised into nine

action areas for consultation in phase two.

3. In Phase two (2010) nearly 1,500 people attended events to evaluate and help prioritize the goals

and objectives of the Plan. Additionally 6,500 people responded to surveys online or by mail. This

further refined the plan by identifying ‘value’ statements such as: ‘We can’t move forward without

addressing equity’, ‘The economy will drive broader success’, ‘Education is key to prosperity’, ‘We

want safe, accessible and walkable neighbourhoods’...etc.

4. Phase three (2010-2011) developed the integrated strategies that defined the final Portland Plan.

More than 35 community fairs, festivals and meetings were used where Portlanders built strategies

5 visionPDX: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/47514

10

around the big ideas; ‘build strong economy’, ‘raise the bar for education standards’, ‘create

20-minute walkable neighbourhoods’, ‘enhance a green built environment’.

5. Phase four involved the use of outside experts in fields ranging from economic development,

education and health to share with residents what has worked elsewhere. Based on this a final

structure for The Portland Plan was created and shared back to the public for review and comments.

Once The Portland Plan had been defined its implementation was also monitored and reviewed through

extensive public engagement. For a review of the various public engagement tools used by The Portland

Plan see the ‘Infobox: VisionPDX - Engagement tools used to initiate public participation for The Portland

Plan’ in chapter 3, section 3.d. entitled ‘Case Study - The Portland Plan: Lessons Regarding Community

Participation’.

ii. Measuring Success Monitoring and data collection was implemented at the governmental level (council) to measure the success of implemented actions and objectives. Twelve key variables were identified as indicators for the city; a brief summary of these quantitative measures and the rationale for using them is given below.

● Equity and inclusion o Income distribution: measuring income distribution between the lowest quintile of earners

and the highest, facilitating a comparison between Portland’s income distribution and the national average.

o Diversity index: reports the percentage of times two randomly selected people differ by race/ethnicity. A higher number indicates more diversity.

● Resident satisfaction - Objective: By 2035 95% of Portlanders should be satisfied with living in the

city and their neighbourhood. o Satisfaction surveys: regular surveys were used to gauge the mood of residents in the city

regarding their happiness with their localities and the wider city in general, with an aim to achieve a 95 % satisfaction from residents rating of neighbourhood livability.

● Educated youth - Objective: By 2035 90% of students graduate in four years.

o High school graduation rates: specifically measure the on-time graduation rate for high school students, i.e the percentage of students who complete high school in four years. this is considered a solid indicator of support and preparedness for future success, and the development of a well-trained workforce.

● Prosperous households - Objective: By 2035 90% of households are economically self-sufficient.

o Measure economic self-sufficiency of households: what percentage of households earn enough income to be considered economically self-sufficient? This measures whether household income is sufficient to cover basic needs, such as cost of housing, childcare, food, health care and transportation.

● Growing business - Objective: By 2035 Portland should be ranked 10th or more in terms of export

value. o The export production rank: this was chosen by The Portland Plan because export-oriented

economy is a significant (circa 20 %) portion of the regions total economic productivity, and tied to a large number of jobs (~125,000 jobs). The export production rank measures total exports (in billions of $) of goods and services among the top 100 metropolitan areas. Portland ranks 12th, with the aim of moving up to 10th as part of the long-term objective.

11

● Job growth - Objective: By 2035 Portlande will be home to 515,000 jobs.

o Unemployment rates, target sector business development, job training: measurement of job growth year-on-year, with a target of > 515,000 jobs by 2035. A strategy of targeted growth in industries in which Portland has a competitive advantage such as manufacturing, clean technology, software research and development and commercialization, allows job creation for Portlanders now and the future generations.

● Transit and active transportation - Objective: By 2035 70% of Portlanders walk, bike, take transit,

carpool or work from home. In order to achieve both health and carbon reduction goals set forth in The Portland Plan, more portlanders were encouraged to choose alternatives to driving to work. The goal of 70% is divided:

o Transit - 25% o Bike - 25% o Walk - 7.5% o Car-sharing to work schemes - 10%

with 2.5% additionally working from home. Walking and biking promote human health benefits for residents. All four action plans further contribute to reduced carbon emission goals, and help relieve traffic congestion on major routes around the city, improving freight mobility. Oxford is well placed as a pedestrian and bicycle friendly city to take these initiatives further.

● Reduced carbon emissions - Objective: By 2035 carbon emissions are 50% below 1990 levels.

o Even with an increased population since 1990, Portland managed to reduce carbon emissions by more than 25% per capita. This was achieved while creating more jobs.

o Carbon emissions and associated climate changes are a strong measurement variable since they are matched to social challenges. Low income residents have fewer resources to respond to these changes; so climate changes and rising energy prices can exacerbate social inequities.

● Complete neighbourhoods - Objective: By 2035 80% of Portlanders live in a ‘complete’

neighbourhood. A complete neighbourhood is defined as a neighbourhood where residents have safe and convenient access to goods and services needed in daily life. These include housing options, grocery stores, schools, open spaces, recreational facilities, transport and civic amenities. A key metric for measuring complete neighbourhoods was the development and use of the 20-minute neighbourhood index: access to these amenities, goods and services should be walkable/bikeable in a time of 20 minutes.

● Healthier people - Objective: By 2035 the percentage of adults at a healthy weight meets or exceeds

the current rate of 44%. For children, the percentage of eighth graders that meet or exceed the national average of 84% has increased.

o Healthy weight of youth and adults. This metric is linked strongly to overall measures of health impact. Being overweight or obese is clearly linked to increased risks of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, stroke and certaun cancers. These health problems adversely affect the quality of life for residents and have a significant impact on health costs. The Portland plan linked the measurement of healthy weight to other factors indicating overall health of residents such as statistics measuring physical activity and quality of diet. This allowed a systematic comparison between Portlands ‘health’ and other cities or countries globally using the worldwide health indicator the

12

Human Development Index (HDI). Portland's HDI of 87 compares favourably to US national HDI of 90, and defines targets for improvement.

● Safer city - Objective: By 2035 75% of Portlanders feel safe walking alone at night in their

neighbourhood. o Residents sense of safety. While most (60%) of residents feel safe or very safe walking alone

in their neighbourhoods at night, members of Portland's ethnic communities of colour reported not feeling safe enough to call emergency services, a problem that leads to many subsequent challenges. Residents who do not feel safe calling emergency services may be less likely to leave their homes or use public spaces exacerbating social isolation and resulting in additional social equity related problems. As such, an aggressive target of 75% was chosen for improvement of this indicator.

o Crime statistics. The crime rate in Portland has been steadily declining since 2005, even though population has increased. A measurement of serious crime per 1000 people was adopted as a metric and linked to both police performance and other indicators of city-wide improvements, such as improved transportation to increase a sense of safety and security.

● Healthy watersheds - Objective: By 2035, all of Portland’s watersheds have a score of 60 or higher

on the Portland Water Quality Index (PWQI). Watersheds are drainage divides in the terrain that separate neighbouring drainage basins. They help to support clean air and water, help moderate temperatures, reduce the risks of flooding and landslides, preserve places to enjoy nature, and help a city to adapt to climate change.

o Water quality index. The PWQI was adopted as a metric to measure watershed health with a score of 60 across eight water quality indicators indicating the water body meets quality standards. This indicator is most useful when analysed over several years to account for short-term variations.

o Factors such as percentage tree canopy cover across the city were also identified as important variables to measure for watershed health and quality. A higher percentage of tree canopy helps to soak up rainwater that otherwise would not be absorbed into the ground because of impervious areas such as pavement and rooftops. In addition tree canopy cover was identified to have additional benefits of removing particulates and sequestering carbon. A target of 33% from a starting point of 26% was chosen as an objective for tree canopy cover.

2.c. Case Study - Envision Utah: An Award-Winning Model of Participatory Scenario Building The OF2050 report “recommended that the priority should be to secure agreement on the scale of growth needed over the next 20-30 years and where it should go.” This is precisely the question that Envision Utah, one of our case studies, sought to answer.

i. Summary Envision Utah combined information about stakeholders’ and the public’s preferences over a) areas that should be protected from future growth, b) areas where future growth should occur, and c) the desirability of various development types, with expert assessments of the resulting consequences for housing, land, transportation, cost, air quality and water, to arrive at an expert-, stakeholder- and public-supported development plan. The winning scenario argued that new development should be “focused to form walkable communities

13

containing nearby opportunities to work, shop, and play. … New development would be clustered around a town center, with a mixture of retail services and housing types close to transit lines. These communities would be designed to encourage walking and biking, and would contain a wide variety of housing types.” They also suggested decreasing lot size to improve density. (p. 19) Overall, Envision Utah’s conclusions were thus not too far removed from those of the OF2050 report, which also recommends “‘join[ing] up’ transport and development and avoid[ing] too much dispersal.” 6

A participatory scenario building and testing approach like that pursued by Envision Utah might generate the “common vision” that the OF2050 report argues is currently lacking. The exercise of establishing a Baseline - a projection of housing, land, transportation, cost, air quality and water if current plans are maintained, taking into account predicted socio-demographic changes - was particularly useful in motivating various stakeholders to engage seriously with the process: the Baseline was costly and unattractive, so that stakeholders were incentivised to fight inertia, overcome their differences, and change the status quo. We review the process employed by Envision Utah below. In this chapter we focus on how Envision Utah sets its objectives and assessed the scernarios (which included the use of GIS). In chapter 3 we focus on its process of public engagement, while in chapter 4 we discuss how it fostered collaboration with local government.

Infobox: What is Envision Utah Envision Utah is “the most ambitious and successful long-term land-use planning effort in American history,” according to a 2017 article by Politico. It “was led not by state officials, but by a bipartisan alliance of business, industrial, religious, political and civic leaders, working from plans crowd-sourced from tens of thousands of Utah citizens and executed on a completely voluntary basis by their local governments.” According to its CEO, Envision Utah’s purpose is to “let the public see their choices and let them lead.” The approach is “voluntary, bottom-up, large-scale and long-term.” 7

Envision Utah was a project initiated by The Coalition for Utah’s Future, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1988 by a diverse group of community leaders seeking ways to increase economic growth and find a way out of a recession. By 1995 the state was experiencing unprecedented growth and “new worries about how growth would affect Utah’s high quality of life began to emerge.” As a response, the Coalition formed a sub-committee, the Quality Growth Steering Committee, which “included several business leaders, a representative from the Governor's Office of Planning & Budget, the president of Utah's largest residential developer, several state legislators, urban planning advocates, and several representatives from local government.” It was charged with “researching and recommending methods to address the state's growth challenges.” After doing initial research on problems and solutions elsewhere (California, Portland and Denver), Its first task was to interview stakeholders on how to best design a process for its work (see the infobox “Interviewing Stakeholders to Design the Process” in chapter 3). On the basis of 150 interviews, the Quality Growth Steering Committee:

6 https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/history-envision-utah Unless indicated otherwise, the quotes regarding Envision Utah in this document are taken from the report entitled “The History of Envision Utah” found at the link above. 7https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/what-works-salt-lake-city-utah-regional-planning-214652

See also: https://www.envisionutah.org/about-us https://yourutahyourfuture.org/

14

“compiled a list of names of those who would be asked to be a part of this community process. By design, the Committee tried to divide the community into as many sectors as possible in order to choose equal representation. Its goal was to invite stakeholders from all aspects of the community, if possible, including local and state government, businesses, developers, utility companies, religious leaders, educators, conservation and citizen groups, and the media. The Committee was meticulous in choosing representatives from all cities and counties within the study region as well as a balance from each political affiliation.”

More than 100 people were invited to be Partners or Special Advisors; only one declined. At their first meeting in 1997, they formed Envision Utah, with the mission “to help residents of the Greater Wasatch Area find a way to deal effectively with the growth-related challenges facing the region while preserving Utah's high quality of life for future generations.” This completed step 1, the launch of the initiative.

ii. Defining Objectives and Criteria How did Envison Utah decide on its objectives and criteria? It asked a committee of experts “comprised of technical experts from various areas of local and state government, as well as business leaders, conservationists and local activists” to “consider multiple areas of impact including social, economic, and environmental impacts at a macro and micro level.” The criteria included consequences for:

● Housing ● Land use ● Transportation ● Costs ● Air quality ● Water consumption

iii. Designing Future Scenarios “Although Denver and Portland had designed future scenarios for their regions based on four basic growth patterns (compact, dispersed, corridor and satellite development), Envision Utah believed the Greater Wasatch Area needed scenarios unique to the region's own personality and geographic constraints. This was also critical for the process to be a true exercise in democracy.” Thus, they “design[ed] a process by which the Envision Utah Partners and Special Advisors could understand the constraints and challenges facing the region and create the alternative scenarios,” (p. 16) and the public could have a meaningful input. The details of this process of public engagement are discussed in the Envision Utah case study in chapter 3.

iv. Using GIS to Create a Baseline Model and Analyze Scenarios To create “a benchmark against which the effects of alternative actions can be evaluated,” a Baseline Model was also created. This projected:

“how the Greater Wasatch Area will grow if current municipal plans are followed through 2020—with extrapolations of those municipal plans to 2050. The Baseline is based on detailed technical analyses of critical trends, historic relationships, national projections, known future events (e.g. 2002 Winter Olympics), and the policies/projects included in planning documents. The purpose

15

of the Baseline was to identify future conditions that would likely prevail if no further actions or initiatives were taken to alter the future.”

A summary of the Baseline Model can be seen on p. 15 of “The History of Envision Utah.” Much like the of OF2050 report argues, GIS proved a necessary component of Envision Utah’s planning process. Envision Utah realized early on that it could only achieve its mission by “purchas[ing] GIS data and services in order to build future growth models and tools for analysis,” which became known as QGET, or the Quality Growth Efficiency Tools (p. 14). Envision Utah convinced the state legislature to provide the funding using evidence from the successes and failures of planning policies in other US cities (see Envision Utah case study in chapter 4). “Steering Committee members… educate[d] House and Senate leadership as well as individual legislators on the QGET request through nearly the entire 45-day session. In the end, they voted to approve a $250,000 appropriation for the development of QGET. The Coalition returned each of the following years to support the QGET effort. An additional $100,000 in funding was approved in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 sessions, resulting in total state funding to-date of $550,000 for the continued development of QGET” (p. 5). The QGET required a massive data collection effort which was described as “labor-intensive, tedious, and expensive.” The QGET committee “contacted all local governments and state agencies having jurisdiction in the Greater Wasatch Area over current and planned land-use data, air quality, water, transportation, infrastructure, housing, business and economic development, open space and critical lands, and neighborhood demographics.” They also formed partnerships with various business entities. In total, “more than 140 public and private entities contributed to its compilation.” The data then had to be standardised into a GIS format. In the end, the QGET committee managed to convince the various agencies to “adhere to guidelines and standards for data collection and recording for future data.” Although the initial effort involved represents a high barrier to implementing this type of modelling, Envision Utah expects it “ to pay dividends for future planning. As new data becomes available in the coming years, the ability to create, model and analyze future scenarios will be relatively easy” (p. 14).

Infobox: Using GIS to Model the Consequences of Various Growth Scenarios The QGET were used to calculate both the baseline model and the consequences of the various scenarios. The land use for each of the scenarios had emerged from the process of public engagement; the consequences for the other criteria followed from it. Water consumption was calculated separately as it only required “land use and lot size data.” “The other areas of modeling required a consecutive sequence.”

● “Transportation modeling took place first and was conducted by the two Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Their job was to model how far residents would need to drive and the use of public transportation to generate projected Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and transit ridership.

● This information was then turned over to experts at the Division of Air Quality where they used VMT and average speed data to determine the amount of vehicle emissions in relationship to population densities. Then they ran the data through very extensive computerized air quality models that analyze projected environmental and atmospheric conditions to determine total emissions, and more importantly, their proximity to future population centers …

● Next, the Governor's Office of Planning & Budget used VMT and information about major infrastructure projects to generate an infrastructure cost model. A renowned engineering firm, Psomas, also lent its expertise to this stage of the process, helping to develop a model to determine the municipal and developer costs of local infrastructure” (p. 20).

16

v. Choosing the Winning Scenario Once the modelling was complete, the results for the four scenarios were disseminated to the public using a public awareness campaign discussed in chapter 3. The same campaign was used to create awareness of a survey available both via the internet and as newspaper inserts. “Nearly 17,500 Greater Wasatch Area residents participated by filling out and returning the Envision Utah growth survey” (p. 25). The survey evaluated three things:

● “How area residents evaluated the growth scenarios presented by Envision Utah,” ● The “importance of ratings assigned to various growth topics,” and ● “Which scenarios fared best on various dimensions of growth.”

The results were weighted to reflect community demographics. “Out of nine growth categories, 52 percent of respondents rated air quality as either the most or second most-important topic. Total water demand, transportation choices, and the consumption of new and agricultural land were rated as very important topics. Average size of single-family lot, walkable communities, and variety of housing choices were rated as less important issues.” One scenario was perceived as the best on eight out of nine growth issues, another was best on one and second best on six (p. 26). As the scenario which won 8 out of 9 categories also won on the four topics rated most important by residents, a clear winner had emerged.

17

3. Public and Stakeholder Engagement In our first meeting, it emerged that one of the OCS’s goals was to improve the process of public engagement with planning decisions. To facilitate this, we put together a guide on best practices in public and stakeholder engagement (sources are indicated in footnotes throughout).

3.a. The Importance of Public Engagement A well-designed public engagement scheme can deliver a range of benefits throughout the planning processes and practices. These can be summarised as follows:

● For communities, real engagement o offers the opportunity to understand what is proposed, o to explore how a development can bring value to an area, o to identify which options would work best within a local context, o to help shape solutions and o to have their say on development plans.

● For planners, engaging with the local community can o provide vital local knowledge, o substantially reduce the risk of challenges and delays, o identify how a scheme can bring value to a local area and o enhance the relationships with all the parties involved.

● For decision-makers, good engagement at the early stages of the planning process may o identify those issues of importance to the local community and show how the proposal has

responded to these. o It will be for the decision-maker to balance these alongside planning policy and other

material considerations, e.g. traffic impact, job creation and make a decision on the application.

In our first meeting, the OCS identified a number of stakeholders with whom you’d like to improve your process of public engagement. We will discuss governmental stakeholders (7 and 8) in chapter 4 on “Interacting with Government.” In this chapter, we will derive lessons from our case studies on how to interact more fruitfully with private stakeholders and the general public (i.e. 1-6).

1. Oxford bus company – primary transport service provider 2. Taxi regulator authority/companies 3. Traders association – most conflictive faction 4. University/colleges – as institutions with development interests 5. Students – as users of infrastructure 6. Residential sector 7. County council – Highways and transport authority 8. City council – urban development authority

The Oxford Futures 2050 report offers an account of the OCS’s current view of public consultation:

“The old style public meeting and exhibition is a formula for conflict, and can deter many from contributing. Community groups and businesses then complain that they have not been adequately consulted, or are put off by ‘consultation fatigue’. Some are cynical that only established interests win out, despite public statements to the contrary. The decision to produce a Joint Strategic Spatial Plan therefore calls for a new approach if the results are to be widely accepted.”

18

“Some of the answers lie in making the constraints clear, with a readily available evidence base, which can include space for discussion such as an Urban Room, as well as a good website. Surveys can help establish the views of those who do not get heard in public meetings. An agreed Charter will aid communication. So too will Advisory Committees and research projects on key options and possible scenarios.”

(From OF2050: p. 6). The discontinuity between authorities and the general public is most evident at the planning level. The classic model of planning urban development behind closed doors, perhaps after hiring a consultant group for the exploration, generation and/or evaluation of a planning concept, perpetrates a distance between planner and user. An example of this practice is the recent report on Oxford City Centre Movement and Public Realm, drafted by Phil Jones Associates. As a result, the general public - and often experts as well - 8

are informed of the planning strategy at a public meeting in which a certain urban development project is discussed. At such meetings, the main objective for the authorities is to defend the concept they have developed, rather than exposing the shortcomings and trade-offs that any project necessarily entails. The representatives of urban stakeholders, neighbourhood associations, and the wider public find themselves on the other side of the fence, often forced to push back on a plan and highlight its limitations and negative effects. Community participation in the idea-generating and concept-defining process would most likely help identify trade-offs at an early stage, and surely would reduce conflict at the public meeting. The objective of this chapter is to offer suggestions for a better involvement of the general public and stakeholder groups at the planning stage. We have picked up and expanded on the various themes raised by the OCS report:

● The need to go beyond public meetings, by adopting tactics that can reach usually under-represented groups,

● The importance of clarifying constraints and ensuring that the reasoning behind decisions is transparent,

● The risk of consultation fatigue, ● The use of the internet, and ● The value of ensuring that public engagement occurs early, and not just when proposals have

already been formulated. We refer to our case studies, which include Envision Utah and the Portland Plan from the preceding chapter, as well as five projects in Mediterranean cities which have been hailed as examples of ‘best practice’, whenever the following theoretical discussion touches on issues these case studies raise. You can thus turn to sections 3.c., 3.d. and 3.e. to see some of the principles of effective public engagement that are discussed in section 3.b. in action. 9

8https://www2.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/roadsandtransport/transportpoliciesandplans/areatransportstrategies/oxford/03001-FinalReport-RevC2.pdf 9 For further resources discussing public engagement see the following: ● The Community Planning Toolkit [website] ● Good Practice Guide to Public Engagement in Development Schemes. Planning Aid England and Planning Aid for

London ● Guidance on Consultation and Pre-decision Matters: Process and expectations on consultation of planning

applications, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government ● Planning Inspectorate services and information

19

3.b. Developing an Effective Model of Public Engagement

i. Guiding Principles of Engagement The aim of a public engagement strategy should not be to seek ‘endorsement’ for a scheme; rather, it should be about how to involve people in a meaningful and inclusive way in the design and/or development processes. The Envision Utah and Portland case studies, as well as the examples of best practice from Mediterranean cities, offer great examples of processes of public engagement that sought to meaningfully include the public in the formulation of proposals. The decision as to what to do, how to do it, and who to do it with, will affect the time taken and the resources invested in consultation and will be different in every instance. The key message is that, whatever is done, should be in proportion to the size and impact of the proposed development. A small scheme with a very limited local impact will not merit the same levels of public engagement that might be expected from a larger project such as major re-developments or, say, a power station. Decisions should be guided by the ‘test of reasonableness’, i.e. asking what would a reasonable member of the public expect to want to know about in their local area and what would they (you) reasonably expect to be able to comment on and/or influence. Eight guiding principles can be identified which form the building blocks for the development of an approach to public engagement. These summarised in the table below.

Table 2 - Guiding Principles of Engagement

Guiding principles Practice examples Sound research and analysis

● Explore the context, history, different communities and groups in the area who may be affected. Identify what will motivate people.

● Examine what else is happening in the area and how it might be connected; if so is there the potential to share events.

● Establish the goals – what are the benefits of engaging with communities and how will these be realised?

Develop ongoing relationships, build knowledge and skills where necessary

● Develop links with key groups and individuals who can assist and advise on what matters in the area.

● Consider how existing community groups, networks and representatives might be involved, what barriers might exist (e.g. lack of knowledge of the planning system, mistrust based on previous negative experiences) and what help might be needed to build the capacity to engage.

● Explore issues such as culture, demography, social and economic factors and consider how these will impact on the approaches used.

Effective communications

● Ensure that the information provided is clear, accessible and sufficient to tell people what they want to know, and to allow them to decide whether to engage.

● Be clear about what is fixed and why, and what is ‘up for debate’. ● Check that mechanisms are in place to allow information to flow in all

directions and that response dates are clear. ● Check that arrangements are in place for feeding back to the public

how their views have been taken into consideration in the final decision and if not why.

Realistic timing ● Be realistic. Allow sufficient time to achieve the goals set at the start of the project.

20

● Provide a clear timetable for the project identifying consultation opportunities.

● Ensure engagement takes place when things can be changed and when it is cost-effective to do so.

● Allow sufficient time for considered and informed responses. How and when will feedback be provided.

Inclusive engagement

● Ensure that under-represented individuals and groups are included and that they have an equal opportunity to be heard. Think about what is needed to help them engage e.g. different formats, timing and location of events, capacity building.

● Be clear when making changes that these do not respond to a vociferous minority but are a response to a wider community view.

Monitor and evaluate and respond

● Monitor engagement and use the results to identify gaps and inform actions to widen the process and ensure a balanced community response is achieved.

● Less will be gained from a poorly attended event – yet the costs will often be the same as for a well-attended event.

● Consider the comments received and how they can be taken into account in the design – is further work required?

Continuing engagement

● Has feedback been given and how will the relationship be continued into the construction and operational phases of a development project?

Reflect, learn and apply the lessons of other projects

● Identify what people think of the way the consultation has worked. What could be done better, what else needs to be done, was it a balanced and inclusive process. Identify the lessons learned and take these forward into other projects.

Adapted from: Public Engagement in Development Schemes (2010), Planning Aid England.

A sound strategy will consider how each of these guiding principles should be developed in the context of a particular scheme. It will also build on the experience of others and other consultations. An approach which has worked on one occasion may not always work elsewhere, as projects and communities are different. However, the guiding principles identified above can be considered sufficiently consistent. The table below explores different types of engagement, examples of projects for which they might be considered appropriate, and a range of issues which may need to be considered in developing a strategy.

Table 3 - Developing a strategy

Type of

engagement Examples of projects Issues to consider in developing a strategy

Awareness raising and

building understanding

● Householder developments

● Small-scale projects

with limited social/spatial impact

● Research the communities who may be affected. Consider different levels of awareness raising for different circumstances e.g. scale, impact and proximity. Notify those most likely to be affected in person. Identify key individuals who can spread the word.

● Explain what is proposed, how to dig out more and why views would be appreciated.

21

● Small change of use applications

● Consider timing of exhibitions, public transport accessibility for the venue, language and style used.

● Consider advertisement placement in public places such as community centres, libraries, shops and places of worship. Also, local publications.

● Considering developing a website – ensure this is kept up to date and easy to navigate.

● Explain the relationship with other consultations.

● Whenever possible, provide a telephone hotline service for those who might want more information.

● Make sure the feedback mechanism that will be used are clear.

● Monitor responses and address gaps.

Awareness raising, building understanding, consult and communicate

● Public art structure

● New motorway

junction

● Small windfarm

● Small industrial

development

● Larger developments

below threshold for ‘major’ development

As above plus: ● Interest and motivate communities to respond

and manage expectations. ● Consider establishing a residents/community

steering group and work with them to identify locations for events and fine-tune the content.

● Identify and connect with other community events (e.g. community fairs).

● Seek feedback and be clear as to what will happen with comments received.

● Monitor attendance to events and consider additional venues/types of events to ensure a balanced response.

● Consider a ‘home visit’ service. ● Re-consult if significant changes have been

made to the initial proposals. ● Use interactive websites to reach the ‘silent

majority’ – focus on the disadvantaged and hard to reach.

There is no ‘silver bullet’ when it comes to developing a successful engagement strategy. It is essential to listen to others, learn from feedback, reflect on what has been done elsewhere, and consider how it can be adapted to suit different schemes, groups or locations. It is important to note that what may work one time, may not work in a different place, with a different scheme and a different community or even with different groups looking at the same scheme.

22

ii. When to Consult and What to Consult On Early consultation will allow key issues to be identified faster. It will also allow for rumours to be dismissed and frustrations due to lack of information to be avoided. When consulting at an early stage it is important to ensure that sufficient information is provided to allow for a meaningful process and informed responses to be made. Choosing the right starting point will very much depend upon the project itself. There is a need to have some ideas and options, and an understanding of the issues and costs which surround these. It is also very important to be open and honest about what is and what is not up for discussion in the consultation process. Most people have busy lives and they need to prioritise their time. Asking people to expend time and effort commenting on matters which are already fixed is likely to cause discontent. If something is already fixed, be clear about the reasons why this is so (e.g. financial reasons). It is important to be prepared for these decisions to be challenged if the case is weak or poorly explained. In such situation, the best approach is to acknowledge that not all the answers have been found by that point in time and explain how the community can assist with shaping the design and policy. Identifying local issues and using local knowledge to support the development and design processes will not only reduce the risks associated with the project and minimize the potential for later delays, but also may well result in a close working relationship with local groups which can bring longer term benefits. It is essential to be prepared to listen to alternative ideas from the local community; often, the best solution for everyone may actually be a hybrid option. The case studies of best practice in the Mediterranean offer several examples of public engagement at the very earliest stage: generating ideas for potential planning proposals, through either discussion of proposals or submission of proposals and active engagement in implementation by the local stakeholders. When consulting on a final scheme or ‘preferred option’, it is essential to explain why other solutions or options have been discarded. Moreover, it is important that responses are given to comments received, and that there is a chance for the public to consider the impacts of those changes (both positive and negative) and understand any ‘trade-offs’ which have been made.

iii. Who To Involve and How To Raise Awareness Identifying how far to spread awareness raising activity requires a ‘common sense’ approach. It is necessary to take into account not only distance, but also potential impact on the local area. Drawing a circle around a development site and concentrating all activity within this area will not work. It is necessary to think about the wider implications of the project and how the impacts might be felt in different locations, and allow this information to feed into the general consultation. As the distance from the development site increases, different levels of engagement might need to be considered. A static exhibition held in the close proximity of a development could be complemented by a travelling exhibition with short stays in other locations in the wider area; further afield, it may be more appropriate to simply raise awareness of what is happening and how, when and where further information will be made available. There are (usually) many organisations willing and able to assist in distributing information to the communities they represent; they are also usually keen on providing guidance on how to reach them. Tenants’ organisations and Registered Social Landlords (RSL) are ideally placed to cascade information through their networks and can also provide more information about their communities. In general, RSLs

23

tend to be in touch with a higher proportion of the hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups, and they are also likely to be aware of the ethnicity, languages spoken by their tenants, and will usually have contacts with other organisations who work with them. The key to success is good research and not being afraid to ask for help. It is likely that most communities and groups will be pleased to assist. For a review of the various tactics of public engagement employed by the Envision Utah project see the infobox “Tactics Used by Envision Utah’s Public Awareness Campaign” in section 3.e.

iv. Achieving Balanced and Inclusive Engagement Some local people are easier to reach than others. The greatest proportion of comments received in response to a public consultation usually come from well-educated males aged over 55 years, whilst the under 35s, those in full-time employment and those from disadvantaged groups are the least likely to respond. Unless engagement is inclusive and the responses received are balanced and reflective of a local community, it is hard to know what weight to place on the views received and what changes are reasonable and appropriate. There may be a range of reasons why some people do not engage.

● Lack of engagement may be the result of social or other disadvantages; ● certain sectors of the local population might be severely time-constrained, ● or might not have enough information or awareness to enable them to make a decision as to the

importance of expressing their views. Awareness of the need to be inclusive, informing people of how their views have been taken into consideration and why certain decisions were made, and developing an approach which seeks to address this variation is the key to success. In order to ensure this, it is important to consider how information is communicated. Many people do not have an in-depth knowledge of the planning system and the processes for getting involved. However, when made aware of changes to their local area, most will be able to draw on their education, skills or local networks to find out more. Alternatively, they may even have the financial resources available to be able to secure professional support. While this kind of support might prove useful, it is necessary to bear in mind that this could mean that some groups or sectors of the population might be advantageously placed to make their views known, in a way that will likely be easy to hear or access. However, it is also likely that these sectors will not fully represent the people in a given local area. Actively reaching out to those who do not normally engage or who have difficulty in doing so requires more thought and preparation, but is vital if a balanced response is to be secured. It is necessary to think through what might prevent different individuals and groups from participating.

● For example, the time of day or the location of an engagement event might prevent some people from taking part;

○ evenings and weekends may be good for those working in a ‘9-to-5 job’, but for others such as those working in the leisure industry, weekends and evenings may be their busiest times.

○ Venues away from public transport connections will be difficult for those reliant upon bus or train services.

● Other factors such as culture, education, child caring needs, age, disability and lifestyle can all have an impact on the ease of engagement.

24

○ Those with mobility difficulties often use their local areas in different ways to the more mobile; their views, however, are equally important and need to be heard.

Opportunities to take advantage of existing local organisations, networks and community events to disseminate information and to use places regularly visited by local people as part of their day to day life should be actively sought.

● For example, using local shopping centres as the location for exhibitions or consultations might prove greatly beneficial.

As research by NESTA suggests, given the right kind of opportunity, advice and support, communities from various backgrounds would be likely to participate in local projects that address a social issue. Although many people face significant barriers to participation, class and income do not necessarily define desire and capacity to act, provided appropriate support is in place. Further, the public appear much more likely to get involved in a local project if it is truly local rather than government-led.

10

Realistically speaking, most developments being built today will outlast those who are currently alive, potentially even their children and grandchildren. Therefore, it is important to try and combine the views from different generations. Schools are often keen to participate in consultation events and, once awareness levels have been raised, the interest from children and young people is frequently high. Younger people often have different views to adults and use their local areas in different ways; this knowledge is of great value to the designer of a development project. Information on projects also cascades upwards through children to their parents, relatives and family friends. Thus, a good engagement exercise at a school is a good way of raising local awareness of a consultation event. Esto No Es Un Solar (This Is Not A Plot) in Zaragoza (Spain) is an example of a project that used this type of approach. Consultation should not only be meaningful, but also informative and, as far as possible, enjoyable. People will not be motivated to participate in something which strikes them as dull or uninteresting. A good event is one where people leave feeling that they have learned something of their interest and their time has not been wasted. If this can be achieved, it is very likely that these people will continue to engage in forthcoming events. Failure to achieve this is likely to further complicate matters. Research has shown that levels of dissatisfaction among the so-called ‘civic core’, comprised predominantly of well-educated, middle-aged professionals, increase substantially as a result of failed engagement . Feelings of not being in charge of

11

their own destiny and not being able to influence decisions in their local area are further amplified . 12

Moreover, this may also result in some people feeling used to legitimise a particular policy or project. For concrete examples, see the case study of the ‘Stairs’ project in Tripoli or the Guadalmedina river integration project in Málaga. A good approach should include ways of monitoring the gender, age, location, ethnicity and the involvement of the different groups identified. This can be done through questions of feedback forms, or event/location exit surveys that make use of visual and other ways of recording visitors views, e.g. asking visitors to drop a token in gender and age boxes. Innovative ways of encouraging participation in this process can include equating each token to a donation for a local charity. This information can then be used to review the success of the approach and reflect on where gaps may exist in the respondent profiles. The next step would then be to address any gaps so that a balanced community response can be achieved.

10 Mass Localism: A way to help small communities solve big social challenges (2010), Nesta 11 Connected Communities: How social networks power and sustain the big society (2010), RSA 12 Power Lines (2011), Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA)

25

The internet can help to address some of the issues raised above. 13

● It can be a very useful tool to engage with busy people and those who may not be able to get to exhibitions or other engagement events.

● With the right resources, the content developed for web-based consultations can also be used at exhibitions and other events. (This may include, for example, a fly through or a 3D visualisation. Models can be made accessible through the web so members of the public are able to see how their local area might look once the proposed developments are in place. The use of gaming technology allows proposals to be shown in context and from every different angle, and to walk, drive or fly around the model.) During physical consultation events, these same electronic resources could be used provided assisting technology is available (e.g. big screens or projectors). This serves to make consultations more enjoyable, and thus more likely to draw attention and attendance.

● The use of websites also offers the advantage of providing additional monitoring of the interest and outreach of the project through the number of visits and search hits it receives. If visitors are prompted for some basic personal information (e.g. partial post-codes), the analysis of this data can quickly identify locations which are under-represented, thus offering the opportunity to develop alternative approaches targeted to under-represented sectors.

v. Avoiding Consultation Overload and Managing Feedback Avoiding consultation overload is a growing challenge. This can be especially problematic in areas where several major developments are being proposed. Overcoming this challenge calls for collaborative working as well as innovative ideas to reduce the workload associated with organising engagement events. For instance, consultation events could be linked to other local events (e.g. local fairs). Doing so may have the advantage of attracting a wider and more balanced audience with the consequential benefit of a more inclusive and balanced set of responses. This strategy can be observed in Portland, where they used local fairs and festivals as opportunities for engagement. Providing feedback on a project to those individuals and groups who have taken the time and trouble to comment is important. Sending regular newsletters, updates or acknowledgements either via regular post or email are ways in which this can be done. This might need to include an explanation of the need to balance views and their impacts, and how this has been achieved. When responding to feedback, responses should not take the form of a rebuttal or a defence of the original scheme design. Instead, it is essential to show that there has been a process of thoughtful consideration of the response and provide an explanation of how the scheme can (or cannot) be adapted to take these views on board. When supporting papers accompanying an application are prepared, it is important that these show how the views of local people have been taken into account and how the original development schemes have been amended in response.

vi. Identifying Appropriate Tools and Techniques There are many different tools and techniques which can be used to support effective public engagement. The challenge is to decide which of the different tools is best suited to the task at hand. The two tables below includes some examples of things to consider when selecting the appropriate tools and techniques to

13 However, it is important to remember that not everyone has internet access. Rural areas tend to be problematic in this regard and so, different approaches might be needed, for example ensuring that schools, libraries and community centres in rural areas are aware of the relevant online resources and that they are able to make these available to the wider public.

26

use. The first table considers 5 aims and suggests the most appropriate tools and techniques for each aim. The second considers a range of techniques of community involvement and suggests when they would be most appropriately applied. 14

Table 4 - Tools for more effective engagement

Aim Tools and techniques Raising Awareness ● Press notice

● Newsletters ● Informative website ● Leaflet drop ● Speak to neighbours ● Show plans

Building Understanding

● Unstaffed exhibitions ● Leaflets ● Informative website ● Information sheets ● Hotlines

Consulting and Communicating

● Staffed exhibitions ● Interactive displays where questions and answers possible ● Questionnaire available for feedback/comments ● Presentations to local groups ● Regular updates via newsletters ● Facilitated events ● Interactive website

Discussing and Debating

● Liaison groups ● Workshops with different groups to discuss schemes ● Focus groups ● Field trips ● Online forums ● Consensus-building and dispute-mediation/ resolution

Increasing Effectiveness

● Community forum ● Consultation panel ● Drop-in sessions ● Staffed hotline ● Visioning and planning workshops for real events

14 The latter is taken from p. 92 of a New Zealand Guide for Urban Planning:

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/docs/chapters-7-13.pdf

27

viii. Public Meetings As identified by the OF2050 report, public meetings are rarely an ideal forum to discuss and debate development projects. However, they may be called for by local communities who want a chance to pose questions directly to the design and planning teams. If well-handled, they can be a good opportunity to listen to concerns and to provide information on a development proposal. However, if they are not adequately managed, there is a high risk of making a difficult relationship worse. If a public meeting is held, there are some key things to consider, including: ● Ensuring the venue and time is accessible for everyone; ● Use of an independent facilitator who will ensure the smooth running of the event and equal

participation for those who wish to speak; ● Setting a clear agenda and rules which ensure that the environment is one which allows everyone to

have their say and to be heard without feeling intimidated; ● Inviting a representative of groups ‘opposing’ and ‘supporting’ a development to speak at the start and

end of the meeting; and ● Ensuring that those attending on behalf of the design and planning teams have the authority and

knowledge to provide informed responses.

28

ix. Risk Assessment Probably one of the most important stages in planning an approach to public engagement is the risk assessment. A thorough risk assessment will help clarify what the needs are and will help in ensuring that the right steps have been taken to prevent a legitimate engagement exercise coming across as a mere ‘box-ticking’ one. Poor engagement is one of the biggest risks to a development project and almost inevitably ends up costing more and taking more time later down the line. The risk assessment should be on two levels. Firstly, an assessment of the overall approach to engaging with the public is needed. The checklist below can be a good starting point: ● Is it inclusive? ● What steps have been taken to ensure engagement with the whole community? ● What monitoring arrangements are in place to identify the pattern of involvement? ● Is there time to secure a more balanced response if needed? ● How will feedback be given and when?

Secondly, the plans for each event or engagement activity will also need their own risk assessment: ● Where will the events take place? ● Are they accessible enough? ● How many events will be held and over what period? ● What time of day/week will they be held on and does this take into account the nature of the local area? ● What staff support will be provided? ● What might the impact be of a single central event versus several smaller, more local events?

It is important to keep in mind that the process of risk assessment is very much like a balancing act, and that the actions taken to address identified risks should be proportionate to the scheme and its impact on local people and the local area.

3.c. Case Study - Mediterranean Cities: Using Public Consultations to Generate Ideas One of the OCS’s challenges is to find a way to engage stakeholders and the public earlier in the planning process. A report published in 2014 by the Mediterranean Network for the Promotion of Sustainable Urban Development Strategies (USUDS, see the Infobox below), entitled Methodologies and Best Practices in Urban Strategic Planning in the Mediterranean, offers a number of possible strategies for public consultation at 15

the very first stage: generating ideas. Below we review case studies of projects in Malaga (Spain), Tétouan (Morocco), Tripoli (Lebanon), Zaragoza (Spain) and Vibo Valentia (Italy), that were hailed as examples of ‘best practice’ by the USUDS.

Infobox: The USUDS and Best Practice in the Mediterranean USUDS is an initiative of MedCities, a network of 47 Mediterranean towns created in Barcelona in November 1991 at the initiative of the Mediterranean Technical Assistance Programme (METAP), established in 1990 by the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations Development Programme.

15http://www.medcities.org/documents/20544/0/Libro_Mediterraneo_ING_OK.pdf/c2e8f3ea-ee6d-4199-bd49-cf89750e25a3

29

USUDS gathers together Mediterranean cities interested in building and developing strategies for urban sustainable development. USUDS has created a network of Mediterranean cities in which three Knowledge Transfer Centers (KTC) have been working to identify the main methods, the tools and best practices that are emerging in the Mediterranean, more specifically in Spain, Lebanon, and Tunisia, in the field of strategic urban planning. The USUDS Project has built a technological platform (www.usuds.org), offering on-line services to elaborate Urban Development Strategies through expert virtual support and different resources available to all users. This technological platform is a core instrument of the network since it facilitates technical assistance available, and people-to-people learning on urban sustainable development strategies. The platform is also a source of news and events on urban strategic planning in the Mediterranean. The project defines a best practice as “that action which is executed with efficiency in managing the resources used and with criteria of good governance in its design and development, and contributes significantly to improving living conditions and development in a context determined and it is expected that, in similar contexts, yield similar results.” Therefore, best practices are those which:

● Have a demonstrable and tangible impact on improving quality of life; ● Are the result of collective effective working between different sectors of society (public, private

and civic); ● Are socially, culturally, economically and environmentally sustainable; ● Can be adapted in order to be replicated in similar contexts.

Best practices pursue the following objectives:

● Improve the performance of urban projects; ● Increase awareness of responsibility for the formulation of plans and projects at all levels and of

the general public about possible solutions on social, economic and environmental problems; ● Share and transfer knowledge and experience through learning with experts and a networked

system.

Ideas contest for Guadalmedina River integration in Malaga (Spain)

● The river Guadalmedina runs from the north to the south of the city of Málaga, which until 1918 periodically flooded in the city center. Two hydraulic interventions since 1980 have turned the river into a dry riverbed. The use of the urban channel for public use has been claimed since the late 80s, but because it is a complex project with multiple administrations skills it has not been resolved so far.

● In 2011 the city council, together with representatives of the CIEDES Foundation (driving the Strategic Plan), decided to head up the project between all administrations with economic competence and cultural and social agents of the city.

● Proposals on how to integrate the dry bed of the river into the city planning were asked to citizens via a public contest of ideas

o Beneficiaries were directly involved in the project: a commission of experts together with members of the key stakeholder groups (employers, neighbourhood associations, unions) drafted the rules for the submission of proposals, and then citizens could submit their own proposals for scrutiny. 16 proposals were accepted as part of the contest, and the council has pledged to abide by the recommendations of the winning proposal.

30

o The strategic project was removed from political debate and electoral processes: all parties agreed to keep the riverbed issue out of electoral campaigns.

o This strategy is likely to be replicable in a variety of settings, as limited resources are needed: a commission of experts, funding for prizes, and perhaps limited grants to encourage submissions.

● How this example relates to the needs and objectives of the OSC: o The strategy of generating a public contest of ideas relates to the twin objectives of

“creating balanced and healthier communities to meet social needs” and “Making streets friendler, more pleasant and safe to make them attractive social spaces for playing and interacting with your neighbours.”

o The inclusion of the wider public in urban development from the very first step would maximise community engagement, stimulate public participation in the project, and generate a democratic mandate behind a specific project.

o The supervision of experts and authorities is not undermined as they will evaluate, endorse, modify and implement proposals. The latter point speaks to one of the key priorities that OSC had stated at the client meeting: to enhance dialogue and participation of both experts and the wider public.

Communal Development Plan (CDP) for the city of Tétouan (Morocco)

● Rather than traditional SWOT analysis, the city adopted an Events, Challenges and Projects (ECP) approach, consisting in:

o Identifying the principal events which will most influence the future of the city o Identifying the economic, social, territorial and environmental challenges posed by these

events o Formulate the future projects that can meet the challenges while taking into account those

already in progress or scheduled ● the ECP approach was developed through consultation with socio-economic actors in Tétouan, who

were concerned about the little interest that SWOT analysis methodologies generated in the public. ● This methodology proved to be very understandable to the citizens and made possible a higher

degree of local actor participation, as well as consultation with external bodies (e.g. consultation with other Medcities councils)

● How this example relates to the needs and objectives of the OSC: o The limitations of traditional SWOT analysis in fostering community engagement have not

gone unnoticed (Balducci 2013). In its quest to engage the wider public, and especially those segments of society that are less willing to participate, the OSC should consider new methodologies of presentation.

o The ECP approach, placing greater emphasis on the trade-offs arising from development projects, might represent a visually and conceptually more impactful strategy.

▪ For example, the trade-offs in the new transport concept proposed by Phil Jones could be re-proposed in a different format highlighting the negative impacts in addition to the positive aspects (something that the current report, according to the OSC, does not do).

Stairs project in Tripoli (Lebanon)

● The project involved restoring the old stairs that connected the old and relatively poorer quarters of the city to the new areas

o The project was prompted by the local community and had a strong local component in its execution

● In order to go beyond the simple renovation of the infrastructure, the project involved the dissemination of a culture of collective memory surrounding the stairs, and involved many

31

members of the neighbourhood in order to strengthen community engagement for the most vulnerable groups.

o Successful examples included the formation of an eco-police group formed by children, a “stairs committee” to organize public events connected to the revival of the stairs, and the involvement of a local orphanage in the renovation activities.

● Although the major works were mostly financed by external body (the Italian Embassy to Lebanon), that was a one-off cost: the project is locally sustainable inasmuch as maintenance activities are low cost and will keep the community involved.

● As the approach is systematic and is based above all on local resources and the interests of the beneficiaries, it can be easily combined with other programs.

● How this example relates to the needs and objectives of the OSC: o The main lesson from this case is that an inclusive, community-led approach can be used for

a low-cost improvement of the infrastructure of neighbourhoods. o The issue is related to one of the objectives identified above: “ensure the travel

infrastructure works for everyone.” It is highlighted that students and marginalised groups have been involved as key stakeholders in the stairs project.

o Despite the significant differences between Tripoli and Oxford, this project suggests a template for the integration and involvement of social groups who are often marginalised in the planning process.

Esto No Es Un Solar (This Is Not A Plot), Zaragoza (Spain) started in 2009 ● This is a project of cleaning, rehabilitation and maintenance of brownfield plots within the city and

the recovery of the same to make them open spaces to neighbours. ● This project expanded the public use of areas in the city in a temporary, flexible and dynamic way,

with wide ranging and online citizen participation. ● A “estonoesunsolar” Technical Office was set up by the city council with the specific purpose to carry

out analysis and research of plot spaces, gather proposal and serve as a contact point for the community.

● Consultations with neighbours’ associations, parents associations, day care centres, and schools under the direction of the Zaragoza City Council gathered ideas on how to use these spaces

o Several meetings took place until a unanimous decision was taken on a rehabilitation plan. The program consequently recovered and processed 14 plots from July to December 2009.

o Some children’s workshops were held in the College of Architects in Zaragoza and the School of Architecture, under the direction of the “estonoesunsolar” team, which helped the children in the drawing process of their proposals. One proposal was chosen for implementation.

● The program has won 8 awards, awarded by bodies such as the XI Biennial of Spanish Architecture and Urban Planning, the 6th European Biennial of Landscape and the Architectural Institute of the Netherlands (NAi) in Rotterdam.

● How this example relates to the needs and objectives of the OSC: o This example combines the key objectives of “Safeguarding Oxford’s beauty” and “Making

streets friendler, more pleasant and safe to make them attractive social spaces for playing in and interacting with your neighbours.”

o Like in the Málaga and Tripoli cases, the Zaragoza “estonoesunsolar” project encourages community engagement in the project of recovery and rehabilitation of the city. In Oxford, this plan could be adapted to suit the needs of specific neighbourhoods other than the city centre, in line with the OCS’s goal to “go beyond the city centre”.

o And like the Tripoli example, the internationally recognised best practice of Zaragoza will serve to “avoid environmental degradation, create environmental improvement, address climate change.”

32

ViboFutura, Vibo Valentia (Italy)

● The project aimed at highlighting the cultural heritage and tourism infrastructure of the city. ● The strategic plan adopted a participatory methodology, aimed at including the entire community

of Vibo Valentia in the construction of a shared development strategy. ● The approach was to interpret the strategic plan as the outcome of a cyclical process that involves a

plurality of local actors. Given that citizens were not in the habit of participating in the definition of territorial policies, the Council engaged in an advertising campaign.

● Public participation proceeded in several stages, and each step of the process required a growing commitment from involved stakeholders.

○ From the beginning of the process, stakeholders were constantly kept informed so that they fully understood the objectives and the different steps of the strategic planning process.

○ First, a presentation event was organised, merely aimed at informing the local community about strategic planning objectives and methodology.

○ Later, ■ representatives of institutions, trade unions and the non-profit sector were

interviewed to gather information and points of view about the territory; ■ schools were involved, too, to encourage students to actively engage in the

construction of their own city and future; ■ working groups were formed and face-to-face meetings with the relevant

stakeholders were arranged to focus on the definition of shared development strategies

○ Finally, focus groups worked on the identification of development projects, consistent with the agreed strategy.

● How this example relates to the needs and objectives of the OSC: ○ The cyclical nature of the process might be of relevance to the OSC: relationships with the

various actors like trade unions and schools can be built up over time, with the long-term goal of working towards a shared development strategy. The Envision Utah project is another example of such a strategy: the sequence of steps was carefully considered to ensure that the project built up momentum over time.

○ Just as for the Envision Utah project (see below), the use of an advertisement campaign was an important element of ensuring balanced and inclusive engagement, as it got the message out to people normally unlikely to become aware of public consultations.

3.d. Case Study - The Portland Plan: Lessons Regarding Community Participation Engaging the people of the city from the outset was a defining characteristic of The Portland Plan. The focus was on the inhabitants of Portland, not the land, and included questions such as:

● What do residents and businesses need? ● What kind of place do they want to live in? ● How do we get there?

i. The VisionPDX public engagement process These questions were addressed as a starting point of The Portland Plan through an extensive public engagement exercise called VisionPDX . The visionPDX process was a way to explore community 16

governance – real community ownership over the decisions that affect the community. Outreach to Portland households and business was achieved through various engagement tools (see infobox below), which included online surveying, large events, community grants to fund focus group/small group discussions and one-on-one interviews. Lastly, additional perspective was sought from local and national

16 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/47514

33

experts on specific topics related to the city or plan. The insights and lessons learned from the visionPDX engagement process was used to produce and engagement report detailing principles for successful engagement of hard-to-reach communities . 17

Infobox: VisionPDX - Engagement Tools Used to Initiate Public Participation for The Portland Plan VisionPDX was the largest public engagement exercise Portland had ever conducted at this time. The purpose of visionPDX was twofold:

1. To invite community members to plan for the future of the city. 2. To open up government to all Portlanders, particularly to underrepresented groups and

communities. From 2005 - 2007 around 17,000 community members were engaged using various tools and strategies in 9 different languages asking the following questions:

1. What do you value most about Portland and why? 2. What changes would you most like to see in Portland right now? 3. Imagine Portland 20 years in the future and all your hopes for the city have been realized. What

is different? How is our city a better place? 4. As you imagine the Portland you’ve just described, what are the most important things we can do

to get there? These questions were deliberately open-ended, allowing community members to write as little or as much as they desired. Some people wrote only a few lines and others wrote many paragraphs, but over the next year, each one of their answers was read, re-read and thoroughly analyzed by community volunteers as well as City staff working on the project. The engagement tools and strategies used to conduct the visionPDX public participation exercise. A summary of each tool is provided below alongside ‘practical tips’ - taken from visionPDX outcomes - about maximising the use of each tool or strategy.

i. Online Surveying To reach as many Portlanders as possible four core questions were asked (questions 1 - 4 above) online in an easy, accessible format. The online survey was posted to the project’s websites. After an initial slow response, VisionPDX worked with corporations to send out the email link to their employees, helping to increase the number of surveys taken. This technique was effective—likely because it was an active request, arriving in people’s e-mail inboxes from someone with whom each individual had an existing relationship. The personal connection helped the e-mail stand out and inspire action. Also, the dynamic between employers and employees, and the implication that it was a priority of the employer that the survey be completed, also likely contributed to responses. Challenges of this Outreach Method

● Only internet-savvy people will fill out an online survey, skewing the response. And only some will take the time to fill out an online survey.

● People filling out online surveys frequently expect closed questions, where only a few options are possible. The open-ended nature of this questionnaire likely dissuaded some from completing it.

● As described above, driving traffic to an online questionnaire can be challenging. Benefits of this Outreach Method

17 https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/6284?show=full

34

● Responses submitted in this way need no data entry and are ready for analysis. Do not underestimate this benefit.

● Online questionnaires can make participation in a process available to large numbers of people, independent of event schedules or time of day.

● Sharing how to participate is as easy as sharing a website address; instructions can be easily included in media and outreach materials.

Engagement tips - online surveys

★ Build on existing relationships to capitalize on new technologies. ★ Emails sent from partner organizations drive traffic better than links from non-affiliated websites.

ii. Large Events VisionPDX members felt the need for the project to have a visible presence at large signature Portland events. The volunteers tried to single out events occurring in each of the main areas of Portland. Types of events selected were e.g. music or community festivals, Church fetes, street fairs. Volunteers and staff handed out information about visionPDX and asked community members to fill out questionnaires at large events. Challenges of this Outreach Method

● Recruiting volunteers for tabling and outreach at these large events was challenging, especially over the summer months.

● Filling out an open-ended questionnaire at large events was sometimes challenging for community members. Volunteers learned to provide chairs and areas to write when possible.

● During one-on-one interviews, volunteers are limited in the number of people they can survey and may get caught up in long conversations.

Benefits of this Outreach Method

● Sharing project information via all methods of connecting with the public (MC, flyers, regular announcements by volunteers, promoting word-of-mouth) increased project visibility.

● Some volunteers found this engagement fun to do in teams. ● One-on-one conversations are generally rewarding for participants, giving them an immediate

sense of being heard. Engagement Tips - large events

★ If you’re going to do outreach at a large event, make sure to connect with the emcee to get some stage time for announcements directing people to your table or outreach workers.

★ Have a team of volunteers all wearing at least one item that clearly identifies your project or work (e.g., t-shirt, button, hat, etc.).

★ Make sure that someone is scheduled to pick up all of your outreach materials after the event is complete — don’t let important pieces of public input get lost in the shuffle.

iii. Focus groups or small group discussions The visionPDX grants program funded non-profit and community outreach organizations to conduct information gathering through focused group discussions. Some organizations used small group discussions to generate thoughtful responses in comfortable environments. Challenges of this Outreach Method

● Ensuring participation is time-consuming.

35

● Requires time commitment by participants. ● Strong facilitation is needed to draw out quiet participants, balance conversations, and ensure

that discussion is on topic. ● Quality of data capture is limited by the skills of the notetaker.

Benefits of this Outreach Method

● The deeper, longer dialogue is rewarding to participants. ● The quality and depth of data and information coming out of a small group discussion is rich. ● After a successful focus group, participants will feel that their opinion is valued. ● Conversations can lead to longer-term relationships and connections among participants.

iv. One-on-one interviews Speaking to people directly is an easy way to engage people at existing events, when doing door-to-door canvassing or when working with clients at a site. Benefits include knowing that you have the completed survey in hand (rather than hoping that people will turn it in later), helping people to complete the questionnaire, and engaging people in a dialogue about Oxford’s future. Challenges of this Outreach Method

● Time-consuming; limited number of responses possible during given event/shift. ● Only effective where people gather; foot traffic is important to generating responses. ● Data collected is only as good as the recording abilities of the interviewer.

Benefits of this Outreach Method

● Provides interaction between two individuals, allowing information sharing back and forth. ● More detail can be captured by a skilled notetaker than the interviewee might have been willing

to write down. ● Provides public presence for project.

Engagement Tips - focus groups and one-on-one interviews

★ Never underestimate the power of existing relationships. ★ Be flexible when working with diverse groups. One size does not fit all. ★ Successful outreach methods—designed, conducted and analyzed by grantees—can build

community leadership and capacity. Other engagement methods Additional public engagement strategies used by visionPDX were events such as house parties and celebratory events and theatre performances. These events had the benefit of providing a fun and entertaining way to bring diverse groups together to be involved in a public process, increasing the chances of people getting involved on repeat occasions. Additionally the community building aspects of these events can build relationships among neighbours or people with similar interests. However, it should be noted that performance based public engagement events can be costly to organise and require a high degree of planning, time commitment and logistics to ensure the event(s) flows well.

ii. Engaging residents to take their own action

● The Portland Plan engaged residents to make them involved in the identification and implementation of action points for the plan. TPP goals of prosperity, education, health and equity

36

could only be achieved if businesses, community organizations and individual Portlanders take complementary actions aligning interests.

● Portland residents were provided with an online forum for connecting with The Portland Plan: www.myportlandplan.com where they can get involved and provide feedback. Ideas and recommendations for how to support the plan are shared at this website.

iii. Conclusions and Discussion In summary, The Portland Plan was defined by a strategy to integrate the different stakeholders across the city of Portland and align their objectives and goals towards a shared vision. Public engagement was a defining feature of TPP from the outset and indeed throughout. Data collection and the use of extensive quantitative analysis, particularly the use of GIS data also featured prominently in the methodology used for the Plan. We briefly discuss The Portland Plan in the context of some of the OCS’s objectives from chapter 1 below. How this example relates to the needs and objectives of the OSC In our meeting with you, the OCS, you said that: 1). “You want to change the process of public consultations by promoting early proactive participation, lowering the bar for entry to the participation process and improving engagement of unresponsive groups (e.g. pensioners, students).”

● The Portland Plan suggests you could address these challenges by emphasising to Oxfordshire planning authorities the advantages of engaging early and often with the public. This results in a refinement of planning objectives from the earliest stages of a project in an iterative process.

2). “Lastly, you want to involve stakeholders in designing a solution.”

● The Portland Plan demonstrated through its public engagement strategy, how workshops and discussion forums can be used to bring stakeholders and planning authorities together to brainstorm ideas and refine solutions with direct feedback from residents who will be affected by changes.

3.e. Case Study - Envision Utah: Seeking Public Engagement at Various Stages

i. Using a Wide Variety of Public Engagement Strategies “Envision Utah identified several key opportunities it would have over the duration of its efforts to gather input directly from area residents [and stakeholders]. These opportunities were expanded as the process progressed.” In the order in which they occurred, these were the forms of public consultation employed by Envision Utah (we will discuss those bolded below):

1. Designing the process with stakeholder input 2. Using in-depth interviews to research what residents value about Utah 3. Armateure Workshops I and II (Where to Grow and How to Grow) involving hundreds of

community stakeholders (especially from local government) 4. Regional Design Workshops 5. Community Options Workshops 6. Internet Site and Online Survey 7. 50 public meetings 8. Meetings with Opposing Parties

37

9. 50 community meetings 10. Sub-regional workshops 11. Community Design Workshops

Infobox: How Envision Utah Interviewed Stakeholders to Design Its Process (Taken from: The History of Envision Utah, pp. 7-8 ) 18

In order to muster the type of community support needed for such an effort, the Steering Committee compiled a list of community leaders whom they would interview to probe their views on this issue and petition for recommendations on how to proceed. [… ] Each interviewee was asked three questions during their interview:

1. “Do you believe a process to coordinate future growth would be helpful?” 2. “Will you support this process?” 3. “Who should be involved in this process to ensure its worth and success?”

The interviews yielded important feedback on how to proceed and what obstacles might occur. The initial interviewees recommended names of other community leaders to be interviewed. Within six months, the Coalition had interviewed approximately 150 community leaders, including religious leaders, educators, business leaders, environmentalists, developers, local and state government leaders, utility companies, minority and civic leaders.

Feedback received from the community interviews led the Steering Committee to the following conclusions on how to proceed:

1. Develop an ongoing process—not a project. 2. The process should be something that could be repeated and updated over the years to address

growth challenges. 3. Identify representatives from both the public and private sectors of the community who would be

willing to work toward the common good. 4. The group must be a manageable size and represent as many segments of the community as

possible. 5. Several alternative scenarios should be developed as choices for future growth. 6. A baseline report projecting how the area would grow without change in current growth trends

should be completed. 7. An effective technical model needed to be developed to create and analyze a baseline and

alternative scenarios. 8. Area residents must have an opportunity to be involved in the process as much as possible, be able

to assess the results, and make decisions about how the Greater Wasatch Area should grow.”

“In January 1999, Envision Utah launched a massive public awareness campaign to educate area residents about the Envision Utah effort and involve them in the decision-making process. This campaign took more than a year to plan and many months to execute. The goals of the campaign included:

● Educate area residents about the growth challenges facing the Greater Wasatch Area in the coming

years.

18 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-07/documents/envision_utah.pdf

38

● Create awareness of the Envision Utah effort, its goals, objectives, and current process. ● Educate area residents about the four possible growth scenarios and motivate them to participate

by filling out the growth survey and/or attend meetings hosted by Envision Utah during January 1999.

… many people knew nothing or little about the effort up until this time.” A list of tactics used by Envision Utah is quoted in the infobox below.

Infobox: Tactics Used by Envision Utah’s Public Awareness Campaign (From: The History of Envision Utah, pp. 24-5 ) 19

● Press conference… to announce the four alternative growth scenarios — this was hosted on a

Saturday to assure that all news organizations were working with the same deadlines.

● Press tour with management, editors, and reporters of the four largest newspapers and four television stations… — this took place several weeks before the formal launch of the public awareness activities and was arranged several months in advance. ...

● Radio and television ads — In his role as honorary co-chair of Envision Utah, Gov. Mike Leavitt

appeared in radio and television ads along with small children depicting areas of concern about Utah’s future. Governor Leavitt appealed to area residents to locate, complete, and submit the Envision Utah survey found in their newspaper or on the Internet. Five 10-second commercials featuring other local celebrities or community leaders were also used to appeal to a variety of community interests. Local television and radio stations provided a total of $140,000 worth of advertising time—$100,000 of which was completely donated. Envision Utah worked with a media buyer to make sure the ads ran on an effective rate and schedule.

● Campaign promo/launch event — This took place … preceding most Envision Utah activities. ...

● Newspaper insert — This was one of the central communication tools for the campaign and the subject of most of the other awareness activities. Residents were directed to look for this four-page insert in their Sunday, January 10, newspaper. The piece was also distributed in newspaper supplements received by most non-newspaper subscribers. The insert described the Envision Utah process and contained an illustration depicting Scenarios A, B, C, and D, a detailed description, and their analysis. A separate mail-in survey accompanied this insert and directed residents to study the scenario information and decide what set of choices and consequences they would prefer for the future of the Greater Wasatch Area.

● Internet site and online survey (envisionutah.org or envisionutah.com) — This site provided an extensive explanation and description of Envision Utah, the alternative scenarios and analysis. It also provided a convenient way for many to fill out and submit their questionnaire.

● Radio, television, and newspaper interviews — These were arranged in advance to coordinate with and promote campaign activities. Appearances were made by the chair, executive director, state planning coordinator, Envision Utah’s public awareness manager, and/or other staff members.

● 50 public meetings — Arranged months in advance and announced in the newspaper insert and some special advertisements. Residents were encouraged to attend to discuss the alternative

19 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-07/documents/envision_utah.pdf

39

growth scenarios and general growth challenges with others in their own communities. Local American Institute of Architects members served as facilitators, and in most cases, no Envision Utah representative could attend because of the number of meetings taking place simultaneously.

● Newspapers-In-Education — Utilizing a long-established forum distributed to K-12 classrooms state-wide, Envision Utah worked to have a special edition of the insert published during the January campaign. This was completely written by a manager at the Deseret News and was promoted through traditional education channels. In conjunction, Envision Utah teamed up with the Deseret News to host a workshop for teachers during the preceding Fall to discuss growth issues among interested educators. Attendees even received credit toward re-certification of their teaching licenses.

● Letter from the Governor to area educators — Envision Utah coordinated the writing and distribution of a letter from Governor Leavitt, on his State letterhead, promoting upcoming Envision Utah activities. This was distributed to civics and history teachers, principals, and teachers of related subjects.

● Documentary focusing on the region’s growth challenges — More than a year before its public awareness campaign, Envision Utah officials began talking with KUED, Salt Lake’s local PBS station, about creating a possible documentary on Utah’s growth. After internal discussion and investigation, KUED agreed to produce an hour-long documentary that aired Sunday, January 10.

Ultimately, nearly 17,500 Greater Wasatch Area residents participated by filling out and returning the Envision Utah growth survey.

In addition, nearly 2,000 residents attended one of 50 town meetings.

Envision Utah used a series of workshops to gather the information its consultant used to define the growth scenarios which were later analyzed by the QDET committee. The first two were armature workshops entitled “Where to Grow” and “How to Grow,” to which they invited their Partners, Special Advisors and many local government officials (see section 4). “Where to Grow” was subsequently repeated 15 times with members of the public as Regional Design Workshops.

Infobox: How Envision Utah Used Workshops To Define Future Growth Scenarios “On May 12, 1998, Envision Utah hosted its first armature workshop—Armature Workshop I (Where to Grow).

● During the workshop, the Greater Wasatch Area was divided into three sub-regions: north, central, and south. Participants worked in groups of 10 at a table with a map of the sub-region in which they lived.

● Local planners and architects served as facilitators at each of the tables. ● Participants were first instructed to identify areas that should be protected from future growth.

○ They did so by marking the maps with a set of colored markers. ○ Many delineated steep slopes, public lands, wetlands and agricultural lands as areas

where development should not be allowed to occur.

40

● Then they had to decide where to place future growth on the map, and do so within the constraints they had just imposed on the surrounding urban area.

○ Each of the three sub-regions had a total of 23 paper chips to place on their map in order to accommodate growth through the year 2020, and another 48 chips to place for projected growth through 2050.

○ Each chip represented 16,000 additional residents at current housing densities of three units/acre, and the total number of chips accounted for projected growth to 2.7 million residents by 2020 and to five million by 2050.

● Participants expressed frustration and concern as they grappled with growth-related issues such as resource availability, land use, and urban density.

● Slightly more than 200 people participated in the workshop, which drew more press coverage than any previous Envision Utah event.”

“A Workshop II (How to Grow) took place a month later with the same group of stakeholders.

● Participants were asked “to consider what types of development and infrastructure would best accommodate the population that was placed on the map during Armature Workshop I.

● The second workshop provided an opportunity for most participants to relieve frustration they felt during the first workshop when trying to deal with densities to accommodate future population.

● In this workshop, participants manipulated land-use icons representing different development types and infrastructure elements to build the region.

● Ultimately, they were asked to decide what mix of walkable and non- walkable development types would best serve the Greater Wasatch Area in the coming years.”

“A version of Armature Workshop I was also made available to the public in the form of Regional Design Workshops—community meetings hosted during the remaining summer months.

● Envision Utah staffers conducted workshops in 15 communities throughout the Greater Wasatch Area.

● Local planners helped arrange the workshops and many mayors mailed out letters of invitation to residents of their respective communities.

● Local architects and planners again volunteered their time to serve as facilitators. ● Envision Utah placed ads in both large and small circulation community newspapers promoting

the event, and mailed out some 6,000 postcards to church groups, union members, conservationists, business owners, clubs and other community organizations. Press releases and reminders to area reporters were also distributed. Many news organizations mentioned the meetings in community bulletins and sent a reporter to cover the local workshop.

● More than 700 local residents, mayors, and city council members participated in the workshops. ● The personal letters of invitation from local mayors seemed to be the most effective

communication tool in motivating attendance at these workshops.” The result of this process was the emergence of four scenarios: Scenario B reflected the Baseline, while Scenarios A, C and D were developed by consultants using the information derived from the various workshops. For summaries of the scenarios see pp. 19-20 of The History of Envision Utah.

ii. Conclusions Envision Utah may form a useful blueprint for the OCS’s future work in a number of ways:

● Rather than being initiated by the government, Envision Utah was run by a charitable organization bringing together various non-governmental stakeholders. It thus operated from a similar starting point to the OCS.

41

● The inclusion of important stakeholders from the very first step - designing the projects’ process - is an excellent way to increase engagement. Stakeholders felt heard and respected because their views were taken into account from the outset, and moreover, having had a say in deisgning the process, they were more likely to agree to participate in it thereafter (only one invitee declined).

● The public awareness campaign offers a number of strategies for reaching time-poor or unengaged stakeholders: e.g. using newspapers inserts, the internet, and the pre-exisiting network of teachers to disseminate information.

● The Armature Workshops were very effective at communicating constraints, and may represent one possible method for convincing Oxfordshire residents that an integrated development strategy would not just be beneficial but crucial for the future of Oxford. Opposition to particular proposals (such as increasing buidling height) might be overcome if its consequences for growth patterns can be clearly demonstrated. Additionally, the deisgn of these workshops (and its partner workshops for the general public - the Regional Design Workshops) was very ‘hands on’: participants were manipulating physical chips on maps. This made it a more interesting format than the standard community forum, and ensured that the discussion stayed closely focused on the practical issues at hand, rather than devolving into more abstract debates.

42

4. Interacting With Local Government According to our first meeting, the “OCS has observed that participation in the debates about proposed developments has proved difficult largely due to the fact that the two key stakeholders, namely the County and City Council are separate entities that tend to work independently. The OCS would like to try and find ways to promote closer collaboration between these two.” The division of tasks between the two councils serves to illustrate the relevance of the issue. On the one hand, the County Council retains authority for the planning, construction and maintenance of the highways, as well as for Oxfordshire’s transport planning. On the other hand, the Oxford City Council has authority over urban development. As urban development and transport planning are intrinsically linked, any policy in one area will significantly affect the other, and consequently the two councils need to be consulted. As a result, the need for multi-level engagement is structural and not contingent on one specific project or on the political environment. This is necessary to achieve a joined up transport and development policy, which is increasingly recognised as a principle of good development. Below, we discuss the relevant lesson from Envision Utah and the Portland Plan. (For a completyely different approach, see the concept of ‘Trading Zones’ in Appendix 3, an alternative framework for the engagement of different stakeholders, including different levels of government.)

4.a. Case Study - Envision Utah: Fostering Collaboration With Local Government The political constraints in the Greater Wasatch Area are more severe than those faced by Oxfordshire. The GWA:

“includes 10 counties, 88 cities and towns and more than 157 special service districts, as well as agencies responsible for air quality and transportation. Each entity is in some way charged with planning for growth. Many jurisdictions have been left to act independently... This fragmentation contributes to a ‘bunker mentality,’ causing citizens to entrench themselves within the smallest defensible unit (their city, neighborhood, etc.) and try to manage growth from a micro level. Until the creation of Envision Utah in January 1997, no single organization existed to bring major public and private stakeholders together to coordinate activities related to growth within the region” (p. 1).

Envision Utah recognized that “local government support and involvement would be critical to the success of the Envision Utah effort. Local government representatives would need to play a key role in directing the process and eventually implementing the results.” As a result, Envision Utah sought to foster collaboration between itself and the various levels of government by “hosting special meetings, seeking input, requesting support for public meetings, and otherwise asking them to become involved.”

● Hiring a Full-Time Liason: ○ “the Coalition hired a staff person to serve as a full-time liaison between Envision Utah and

local city councils, mayors, county commissioners, planners and other elected and appointed officials” (p. 11).

● Including Government Officials Among the Project’s Advisors: ○ Envision Utah included many local and state government leaders among the 150 people it

interviewed for feedback on how to best construct its process. This helped to muster support and identify potential obstacles early (p. 7).

● Keeping Local Government Informed Via Regular Updates and Funding Requests:

43

○ “Throughout the process, Envision Utah has worked to update local government officials as often as possible.” They also submitted various funding proposals, giving ”municipalities added incentive to learn about the process so they could make a decision regarding whether or not to grant funding” (p. 11).

● Educating Legislators Using Evidence From Other Projects: ○ “The Coalition sponsored two legislative luncheons to educate legislators about the need for

a quality growth effort within the state.” It “developed a special slide presentation” that “illustrate[d] the dangers of continuing on an uncharted growth course” by:

■ “look[ing] at how Portland and Denver had responded to growth by studying several growth scenarios.”

■ “point[ing] out the dangers of failing to address growth in a timely manner—pointing out conclusions of the “Beyond Sprawl” report out of California.”

■ “shar[ing] specific projections from the Denver Metro 2020 effort showing that the difference in cost between the scenarios was tens of thousands of dollars of added taxes or other public and personal costs per housing unit.”

○ “The presentation effectively illustrated the need to use resources efficiently and maintain reasonable housing and development costs” (p. 6).

● Using Quantitative Analyses and Projected Costs to Convince Officials: ○ As discussed above, Envision Utah developed a Baseline Model that forecast the outcome if

current policy were maintained, given projected socio-demographic change. “When Envision Utah presented Governor Leavitt with the Baseline data forecasting infrastructure costs, he exclaimed, ‘We can't afford this!’” His response was echoed by many others. The Baseline Model thus played an important role in convincing various actors, including government officials, to participate in and otherwise support the project (p. 14).

○ A similar moment occurred when Envision Utah published the analysis of the predicted consequences of the four growth scenarios it had developed. “Governor Leavitt previewed the data shortly before its public release. When he saw the difference in cost among scenarios, he seemed to have another pivotal moment that reinforced his support and participation with Envision Utah” (p. 20).

● Inviting Government Officials to Planning Workshops: ○ Envision Utah organized two Armature Workshops: Where to Grow and How to Grow. To

maximise input and support from local government, Envision Utah extended “invitations to every major and city planner within the Greater Wasatch Area” (p. 17). Many attended, ensuring that these officials felt that their views had been taken into account at another crucial stage of the process.

● Working as a Conciliator Among Local, State and Private Interests: ○ “After reviewing the alternative scenarios and their analysis, Governor Leavitt decided the

time was right to establish a growth initiative. He informed Envision Utah of his intentions and pulled together legislative representatives and legislative leaders to draft the “Quality Growth Act of 1999. … While Envision Utah officials were overwhelmingly pleased to see legislative efforts to address growth issues, it had concerns about any movement that did not include a strong voice from local government in the decision-making process. … Therefore, Envision Utah began working as a conciliator among local, state, and private interests. It introduced itself to the co-sponsors of the bill from the Utah House of Representatives. It then arranged for and sponsored a weekly caucus meeting during the 1999 Legislative Session to bring together possible opposing interests and help mitigate potential concerns. In addition to concerns expressed by local government, Utah Realtors expressed strong anxieties about this bill. Nevertheless, participants at the weekly meetings gave significant input and revised many drafts of the proposed Quality Growth Act. … Eventually, the initiative passed and successfully established criteria for quality growth areas

44

and incentives, preservation of open space, and the creation of a Quality Growth Commission” (pp. 27-8).

4.b. Case Study - Portland: Promoting Integrated Strategies Across City Planning Authorities In our initial meeting the OCS highlighted that: “You want to find a way to promote closer collaboration between the City and County Councils.”

● The Portland case suggests that identifying a clear and common vision is key to achieving alignment across sometimes disparate City planning authorities. For example, simplifying the planning vision for the city as “Education, economy and health” allows budget expenditure to be integrated around common goals and improving efficiency.

The Portland Plan employed a systematic technique of dividing long-term goals for the city into guiding policies, and immediate practical steps into short-term action plans. The guiding policy deliberately used ‘big picture’ concepts such as ‘Thriving educated youth’, ‘Economic prosperity’ and ‘Healthy connected city’. The effect of this is:

● Guiding policy can be used to communicate connected themes, for e.g. educated youth leads to future economic prosperity because of the supply of a well trained future workforce for the city’s jobs and industries.

● This implicitly brings together the City of Portland with its partners to make long-term investment and budget decisions around these themes.

● Guiding policies also provide a direction of movement for each city partner while maintaining a collaborative link with other agencies who are also working according to the same ‘theme’.

On a practical implementation level The Portland Plan created various groups and committees to promote relationships between city planning authorities. Some of these are highlighted below: The use of Support Partners

● Provide assistance to lead partners where support matches organizations mission or resources. ● Undertake activities that support Portland Plan actions/objectives. ● Coordinate technical assistance or volunteer support.

Support partners include businesses, nonprofits, community organisations and agency partners. Supporting partners are identified through collaborative processes as actions are identified for implementation. The use of Advisory groups Throughout the process of creating The Portland Plan (TPP), community and advisory groups were crucial in 20

collecting evidence and identifying best practices used in other cities that lead to the objectives and action plans that defined the structure of TPP. Some of these different groups included:

● Community leaders at the local district level of Portland ● Subject area experts for different city planning areas ● The Mayor’s Portland Plan Advisory Committee ● Community Involvement Committee (CIC) ● Nine different Technical Action Groups

The Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC)

20 The Portland Plan - Implementation and Measures of Success. https://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=58776&a=420372

45

The PSC played a critical role in TPP. The PSC reviewed and recommended background reports and provided direction for the development of the three integrated strategies of TPP. Members of the PSC were on the CIC and The Mayor’s Portland Plan Advisory Committee, further emphasising the development of integrated strategies that define The Portland Plan.

● The PSC held three public hearings/consultations out in the community to listen to the public testimony on the draft Portland Plan.

● These hearings were followed by a series of work sessions during which the PSC reviewed and discussed the testimonies submitted by the public. These directly fed into revisions of the draft Portland Plan.

● The PSC staff then forwarded the revised plan to the City Council for consideration. ● The final draft Portland Plan includes the revisions suggested by the PSC.

The Community Involvement Committee (CIC) The Portland City Council appointed the CIC, which is comprised of community volunteers, including two Planning and Sustainability Commision members who met regularly to review the public participation process and ensure that as many voices as possible have been heard and incorporated into the plan. The city council charged the CIC with oversight for all public outreach elements of TPP. Portland Plan Advisory Group (PPAG) The Portland City Council appointed the PPAG, with a brief to pose provocative questions, challenge assumptions, promote each other and staff to tackle difficult ideas to support the development of a smart and strategic plan and provide advice to the Mayor and by extension the PSC. Technical Action Groups Nine technical Action Groups were organised according to the action areas identified in the plan, and were composed of people who researched, wrote and/or reviewed the background reports, the directions and objectives, the measurement metrics and integrated strategies for inclusion in The Portland Plan.

46

5. Potential Next Steps

We hope that the previous three chapters provide a useful overview of cases and methodologies which the OCS can use as templates to further develop its own Multi-Criteria Analysis and engagement processes. In this section, we draw our discussion to a close by highlighting five areas which the OCS could prioritise.

● Researching Objectives: One of the key takeaways of chapter 2 is that a clear hierarchy of objectives, measurement criteria and relative weightings is needed to make sure that urban planning takes into account the various tradeoffs and the priorities of multiple stakeholders. The definition of objectives is the first and most crucial step. We have argued that urban planning experts and local stakeholders would be best placed to identify (or choose) these fundamental objectives. The cases above suggest that public engagement for objective identification can be done in two ways:

○ By putting together an advisory group of experts, business and community leaders and local government officials, as in Envision Utah, or

○ By using public engagement, as in the Portland Plan and the Mediterranean USUDS cases of Tétouan and Vibo.

This objective identification can form the basis for a “Charter of Sustainable Growth” as proposed by the OF2050. Appendix 4 contains the Freiburg Charter, which sets out 12 Principles for Sustainable Urban Development in the city and its surroundings. Given the similarities of Oxford and Freiburg in both their development and the challenges they face, the Charter can also be used as a source of inspiration.

● Better Data-Gathering Towards an MCA Model: The engagement with stakeholders and experts will help define objectives, but it is only the first step towards a MCA model. In order to properly measure the implementation of planning guidelines, more accurate data sources are necessary. We are aware that the OCS does not have the financial resources of government. Yet, if there is an area in which we recommend significant investment, it is in the acquisition of more powerful data gathering and analysis tools. In particular, we recommend to consider potential sources of funding for acquiring GIS software and expertise. Envision Utah stands out as a successful effort by civic society organizations to engage in urban planning, and the use of GIS software was paramount in their work. The report “The History of Envision Utah”, cited throughout this document, might serve as a useful source of inspiration. A second recommendation in this regard is to reach out to the relevant government agencies to enquire about the availability of the required data. Building on the lessons of Chapter 4, we recommend working towards a positive, symbiotic relationship with the different levels of government as a necessary step towards exerting long-term influence on the planning process.

● Building Relationships: A common element to most cases of best practices is active public engagement with broad segments of society. The main suggestion our public engagement guide and case study analysis provides is to “bring” urban planning to hard-to-reach segments of society. This can be done at a relatively small costs for a high return in terms of impact and expansion of the OCS’s base. A particularly promising strategy we suggest is initiating relationships with schools and other community organizations, to take advantage of pre-exisiting networks, as in the following two examples:

○ Organize interactive and child-friendly workshops (see the Esto No Es Un Solar and the Malaga Guadalmedina Integration projects). Involving children and young adults - a sizeable portion of Oxford’s population - would help increase awareness of the city’s issues, generate a culture of belonging, and stimulate creativity and innovation in planning. Additionally, it is likely that the information would filter from the children to their parents and relatives, encouraging them to take an interest.

47

○ Attend country fairs, open days and other community events with these workshops (see the Portland Plan). Nesting the OCS’s activities within broader, popular events appears to be an effective way to avoid consultation fatigue and connect with more segments of society who might not otherwise attend meetings at Rewley House or Town Hall.

The resulting relationships and awareness of your organization can be drawn on when organizing later consultations.

● Expanding Your Website:

Related to the effort of increasing engagement and building relationships is the need for a more effective use of information technology. Not everyone has the time or interest to attend OCS events or even fairs and open days. As the various USUDS case studies show (see also the Dietenbach Plan for Freiburg in Appendix 4), the use of websites can be a powerful tool of engagement. Add resources that explain clearly and simply why people should take the time to engage with planning decisions. This can be a resource you use to convince those currently under-represented or time-poor that participation is in their own interest. The envisaged cost would be minimal but the benefits could be quite important. Disseminating the link to your website via a social media strategy could further increase the reach of your organzation.

48

Appendices

1. A Brief UK History of Public Engagement in Planning and Some Persistent Issues The history of public engagement in planning is full of ups and downs. Recognition of the value of a wider public involvement in planning in the UK can be traced back to the late 1960s with the publication of the Town and County Planning Act and the People and Planning report (or Skeffington report as it is often 21 22

referred to). The Skeffington Report was the first attempt to set out a systematic approach to community engagement in planning. It was commissioned to consider and report on the best methods, including publicity, of securing participation of the public at the formative stages in the making of development plans for their area. It was 23

also a response to the growing social and environmental movements and the rise of advocacy planning at the time. The report formally acknowledged the role of the public in making their views on the future of their areas known. Although it was widely criticised at the time of its publication, the influence of this report extends as far as the Localism Act introduced in 2011. 24

By early 1970s consultation and engagement had therefore became a part of the statutory planning system with mixed results. Whilst some local authorities and organisations involved in planning saw the requirements as simply another ‘tick’ required in a box, others recognised the value of good public engagement and began to develop new and innovative ways of securing this. The 1980s saw another low, 25

with engagement seen as slowing down development and part of the ‘red tape’ which interfered with the market. Agencies such as Urban Development Corporations set up at this time largely excluded both the public and local government from decision-making. But by the 1990s initiatives such as Agenda 21 were 26

once again showing the value of public engagement and participation, in this case, in promoting strategies for sustainable localities. Since the 1990s engagement has been on a high, at least in terms of stated policy objectives. The planning reforms of the Government in office gave rise to the new Spatial Planning system. The reforms stated that 27

strengthening participation is a key part of the government’s objectives. Requirements were placed on local panning authorities, for example, to prepare approved Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs) which set out their intentions and methods of engaging with the public in their areas. The focus of the localism agenda is a redistribution of political power from the central government towards local institutions and local people. The Localism Act implemented new rights to neighbourhood planning whereby people are granted statutory powers to engage in planning. 28

21 Town and County Planning Act (1968), Parliament of the United Kingdom. 22 People and Planning: Report of the Committee on Public Participation in Planning - With an introduction by Peter Shapely (2014), The Skeffington Committee, Routledge, ISBN 9780415827874 23 Review of the People and Planning Report (2015), Phil Child, Journal of Planning Perspectives, DOI 10.1080/02665433.2015.1029263 24 Localism Act 2011, Parliament of the United Kingdom 25 Ups and downs of community involvement (2008), Barry Pearce, Town and Country Planning Journal, Vol. 77(11): 453-457 26 Agenda 21 (1992), United Nations, ISBN 978-92-1-100509-7 27 Achieving successful participation in the new UK spatial planning system (2007), Baker et al., Journal of Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 22(1): 79-93 28 Power to the people? The renewed importance of localism in England today (2016), Jane Willis, University of Bristol Policy Press

49

The key provisions of the Localism Act (2011) which have had a major impact on community engagement, as well as on the expectations of communities regarding their role in shaping the future of their places, are: 29

· The introduction of a new local tier of plan making known as Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs); · The introduction of Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs) which grant planning permission for development agreed by the community through a local referendum; · The community right to buy significant local assets; and · The requirement for developers to consult communities before submitting very large planning applications. The difference between this and previous engagement frameworks is that NDPs and NDOs are both statutory, meaning that (in theory at least) communities can have greater control over what happens in their neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood development plans (NDPs) A neighbourhood development plan can establish general planning policies for the development and use of land in neighbourhoods. This means that people (residents or businesses) in a neighbourhood can decide on where development can take place, what they should look like and can draw up locally-relevant policies. However, NDPs have to comply with local planning policies, the National Planning Policy Framework and EU

30

legislation. NDPs have to be drawn up by a Parish or Town Council or a Neighbourhood Forum . A Neighbourhood

31

Forum must be representative of the area and be approved by the Local Authority, as must the boundaries of the NDP geographical area. The Parish Council or Neighbourhood Forum then draws together the evidence and the views of local people to formulate policies and draw up a plan. This has to then go through a ‘light’ inspection and, if it is agreed by 50%+1 of eligible voters in a local referendum, it then becomes a statutory document . The diagram on the next page sets out the NDP process.

32

Neighbourhood Development Orders In addition to NDPs, the Localism Act also enables Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Forums to draw up a Neighbourhood Development Order. A Neighbourhood Development Order allows the community to grant planning permission for development that complies with the order. This removes the need for a planning application to be submitted to the local authority. A further option is a Community Right to Build Order which gives permission for small-scale, site-specific developments by a community group. Both these have to go through an independent check and referendum. Support for NDPs is provided free of charge through the Supporting Communities and Neighbourhoods in Planning Fund and is delivered by a consortium led by Locality , which includes Planning Aid . Planning Aid

33 34

offers people the opportunity to get involved in the development of their local areas. It provides independent professional advice to community groups and individuals who cannot afford to pay professional fees.

29 A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act (2011), Department for Communities and Local Government 30 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, ISBN 978-1-5286-1033-9 31 A plain English guide to the Localism Act (2011), Department for Communities and Local Government. 32 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations (2012), Department for Communities and Local Government. 33 Locality – The power of community [website]. 34 Planning Aid England – Engaging Communities in Planning [website].

50

Figure 4 - The Neighbourhood Development Plan process

Pre-Application Stage The Localism Act 2011 requires planners and developers to: ● Consult communities before submitting certain planning applications, having regard to any advice that

their local planning authority may provide; ● Consider any responses they receive before they finalise their proposals and submit their applications;

and ● Be clear in their applications how they have consulted the local community, what comments they have

received, and how these have been taken into account in the application. Current legislation, however, also makes clear that communities will not have a power to veto over whether a planning application can be submitted, but they will be able to raise issues for the developers to consider, and make suggestions which could improve the development and reduce its impact on the neighbourhood .

35

This policy is expected to reduce local opposition, increase chances of a timely and positive decision from the local planning authority, and improve the quality of the development that results. As the Localism Bill states:

36

“Planning applications are often heavily contested, resulting in lengthier application processes and costs for developers, councils and communities. One of the causes of this situation is that communities are often not consulted closely enough before planning applications are submitted by developers to the local authority, leading to opposition to developments, lengthy enquiries and planning by appeal. This leads to frustration, with communities feeling ignored and unable to influence the course of developments within their area.”

35 Pre-Application Consultation with Communities: A Basic Guide (2001), Department for Communities and Local Government. 36 Compulsory pre-applications for consultations between prospective developers and local communities: impact assessment (2011), Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, ISBN 9781409827511

51

“We believe the best way to fix this situation is to empower local people by ensuring that developers involve them whilst assembling large scale planning proposals. Giving communities a greater say in shaping their neighbourhoods is likely to increase levels of development and reduce the number of proposals refused planning permission. Alongside neighbourhood planning proposals, a new requirement for compulsory community engagement at the pre-application stage is one way through which this can be achieved, particularly for larger applications which are likely to fall outside the neighbourhood planning process. By giving local people a stronger say in the planning process, and making developers aware of issues of importance to the community that will need to be resolved through the design process, we expect that issues will be raised (and resolved) sooner, and planning permission granted more swiftly and in more cases.” Post-Application Stage Under the Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 , there is a requirement for the local authorities receiving applications to undertake publicity.

37

This may include press notices, site notices and neighbourhood notification letters. Section 28 requires that views expressed in response to this publicity must then be taken into account by the decision-makers, and that those making representations must be notified of the decision. Section 23 deals with representations from Parish Councils before determination of an application. The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the local authority policy for involving the community in consultation on planning applications. For larger schemes, most SCIs encourage pre-application community involvement, extending to include the harder-to-reach groups. They may also contain examples of ways in which consultation should be undertaken (e.g. exhibitions, special consultation groups, online surveys, etc.) and will often include a list of local organisations who are interested in commenting on planning applications. Persistent Issues Throughout the changing history of public engagement there are some persistent issues which can be condensed into the following three: · The variable extent to which local authorities promote engagement or adopt a ‘tick-box’ approach to it; · The variable ability of different communities and different groups within society to engage in planning; and · The difference between the stated intentions of polity to promote engagement and what happens on the ground. Despite these issues, public engagement has seen an increase in the sharing of experiences, tools and techniques across ‘professional planners’ and between voluntary organisations and the professionals. This in turn has supported a growing body of knowledge and experience of the different approaches which can be deployed to achieve a meaningful and inclusive public engagement process to the benefit of the planning process.

2. Selected UK Sources Setting Out Objectives for Urban Design in the Last Two Decades

37 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, Article 13

52

By Design (2000)

● Character: a place with its own identity. ● Continuity and Enclosure: a place where public and private spaces are clearly distinguished. ● Quality of the Public Realm: a place with attractive and successful outdoor areas. ● Ease of Movement: a place that is easy to get to and move through. ● Legibility: a place that has a clear image and is easy to understand. ● Adaptability: a place that can change easily. ● Diversity: a place with variety and choice.

Policy Planning Statement 1 (2005)

● create an environment where everyone can access and benefit from the full range of opportunities available to members of society;

● be integrated into the existing urban form and the natural and built environments; ● address the connections between people and places by considering the needs of people to access

jobs and key services; ● consider the direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment.

Urban Design Compendium (originally published in 2000 by the Homes and Communities Agency, updated in 2013, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/urban-design-compendium)

● Places for People: For places to be well-used and well-loved, they must be safe, comfortable, varied and attractive. They also need to be distinctive, and offer variety, choice and fun. Vibrant places offer opportunities for meeting people, playing in the street and watching the world go by.

● Enrich the Existing: New development should enrich the qualities of existing urban places. This means encouraging a distinctive response that arises from and complements its setting. This applies at every scale - the region, the city, the town, the neighbourhood, and the street.

● Make Connections: Places need to be easy to get to and be integrated physically and visually with their surroundings. This requires attention to how to get around by foot, bicycle, public transport and the car - and in that order.

● Work with the Landscape: Places that strike a balance between the natural and man made environment and utilise each site’s intrinsic resources - the climate, landform, landscape and ecology - to maximise energy conservation and amenity.

● Mix Uses and Forms: Stimulating, enjoyable and convenient places meet a variety of demands from the widest possible range of users, amenities and social groups. They also weave together different building forms, uses, tenures and densities.

● Manage the Investment: For projects to be developable and well cared for they must be economically viable, well managed and maintained. This means understanding the market considerations of developers, ensuring long term commitment from the community and the local authority, defining appropriate delivery mechanisms and seeing this as part of the design process.

● Design for Change: New development needs to be flexible enough to respond to future changes in use, lifestyle and demography. This means designing for energy and resource efficiency; creating flexibility in the use of property, public spaces and the service infrastructure and introducing new approaches to transportation, traffic management and parking.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2014) Guidance on Design (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design)

● Local character (including landscape setting) ● Safe, connected and efficient streets ● A network of greenspaces (including parks) and public places ● Crime prevention ● Security measures

53

● Access and inclusion ● Efficient use of natural resources ● Cohesive and vibrant neighbourhoods

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (2015) https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Consolidated%20Local%20Plan%20-%20Section%201%20Spatial%20Strategy.pdf

● To keep life local o Our strategic objective to keep life local is for strong, effective local centres, for social and

community facilities to be widely available, and for neighbourhood functions, including neighbourhood shopping facilities, to be easily accessible, so that residential communities can flourish.

● To foster vitality o Our strategic objective to foster vitality is that the quality of life of our predominantly

residential borough is enhanced by a wide variety of cultural, creative and commercial uses which can significantly contribute to the well-being of residents and to the capital’s role as a world city.

● To offer better travel choices o Our strategic objective for better travel choices is that walking, cycling and public transport

are safe, easy and attractive, and preferred by our residents to private car ownership and use.

● To maintain and extend our engaging public realm o Our strategic objective for an engaging public realm is to endow a strong local sense of place

by maintaining and extending our excellent public realm to all parts of the borough. ● To renew our legacy

o Our strategic objective to renew the legacy is not simply to ensure no diminution in the excellence we have inherited, but to pass to the next generation a borough that is better than today, of the highest quality and inclusive for all, by taking great care to maintain, conserve and enhance the glorious built heritage we have inherited and to ensure that where new development takes place it enhances the borough.

● To achieve a diversity of housing o Our strategic objective to have a diversity of housing is that at a local level it will cater for a

variety of housing needs of borough residents, and is built for adaptability and to a high quality.

● To respect environmental limits o Our strategic objective to respect environmental limits is to contribute to the mitigation of,

and adaption to, climate change, significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, maintain low and further reduce car use, carefully manage flood risk and waste, protect and attract biodiversity, improve air quality, and reduce and control noise within the borough.

National Planning Policy Framework (2019)

● Deliver a sufficient supply of homes ● Build a strong, competitive economy ● Ensure the vitality of town centres ● Promote healthy and safe communities ● Promote sustainable transport ● Support high quality communications ● Make effective use of land ● Achieve well-designed places ● Meet the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change ● Conserve and enhance the natural environment

54

● Conserve and enhance the historic environment ● Facilitate the sustainable use of minerals

Camden Planning Guidance: Design (March 2019) https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/35992328/Design+CPG.pdf/23a7edd5-04a5-8f36-e7df-780343529f73

● Context and character o Development should respond positively and sensitively to the existing context o Development should integrate well with the existing character of a place, building and its

surroundings ● Accessible

o Places should be accessible and easy to get to and move through (permeable) o Development should connect well with existing places

● Legible o New development and places should provide recognizable routes and promote active

wayfinding o New development should be legible and enable connectivity and effective movement

between sites ● Adaptable

o Development should promote adaptability by being responsive to changing social, technological and economic conditions and community needs

o Development should be adaptable to future needs and responsive to use ● Liveable

o Development should be compatible with the surrounding area and be able to accommodate uses that work together and create viable places that respond to local needs

o Development should promote health and well-being o Good design should contribute to making places better for people o Good design should create safe environments

● Sustainable o Development should promote sustainability and efficient resource consumption o Development should make efficient use of the site o Development should make use of good quality durable materials

● High quality public realm o Public spaces should be designed to be attractive, safe, secure, uncluttered and accessible to

all ● Safe and secure

o Developments should enable and support opportunities for passive surveillance o Developments should seek to create a sense of place and community

55

3. The Trading Zone Concept in Strategic Urban Planning It was previously mentioned that dialogue between different administrative levels will be necessary to put forward successful urban planning strategies. If the OCS aims to actively facilitate this dialogue, it will require to navigate the potential political divisions between the two councils. Currently, the majority of members of Oxfordshire County Council and of Oxford City Council belong to different political parties. While this political division is not a permanent feature, it will remain in place at least until the 2020 Oxford Council elections, and it might well materialize again in the future. Therefore, we believe that OCS should be ready to dialogue with institutional bodies and stakeholders who are likely to have strategic divergences. One possible strategy is to move away from the traditional strategic planning model (Calvaresi 2014):

“The “traditional” model of strategic planning has shown many weaknesses and limits. It pays more attention to produce a formally-approved strategy or strategic plan, rather than focussing on a generative strategic thinking (Healey 2007). It hardly handles the place-situated character of planning practices, because it is unable to focus on the specific issues of spatial planning, such as territoriality, qualities and meanings of place and the spatial dimension of strategy-making.” (p. 167)

In the excerpt above, Claudio Calvaresi (Director of the Urban Policies Research Unit, Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale, Italy) highlights the issues with the traditional planning process, aimed at finding fundamental principles that are appealing to all actors involved. This might not always be achievable, especially when stakeholders with different, perhaps opposed, objectives are involved. The concept of “Trading Zones” (Calvaresi 2014) might be helpful in this regard. The “trading zone” concept explains how scientific progress when scientists of different disciplines, despite differences in their respective paradigms, build a common ground to communicate, agree upon on rules of exchange between them, and make a step forward in the development of science (e.g. physicians and engineers interact for the purpose of building nanotechnologies). According to Galison (1997), “The trading partners can hammer out a local coordination, despite vast global differences.” The trading-zone approach explains how a decision can be implemented, despite the lack of consensus between actors, through “the construction of a discourse that is able to intercept the interests of different actors who operate in different arenas” (Balducci 2013). According to Calvaresi, strategic planning is fundamentally an activity to build trading zones.

● A trading-zone approach accepts the bias that politics may have on participation. For these reasons, it is preferred to pay attention to actions that can meet the preferences of the stakeholders. Participation can be really useful to improve the effectiveness of policy making, rather than to strengthen local politics.

● Instead of defining a broad strategy, general objectives, specific objectives and finally actions, a trading-zone approach identifies firstly expected results, then defines the coherent actions to reach them, specifying the targets and the output indicators. Discussion focuses on the selection of appropriate links between actions and expected results. Given the potential disputes among stakeholder and political biases, the idea to reach a full consensus on general objectives is abandoned in favour of building a common ground to host the different systems of preferences of the actors involved.

● In the trading-zone approach, innovation is the product of a social learning process. “The sources of innovation are distributed among the society, that the strategic plan works to awaken and foster. Innovation cannot be fully designed. It must be found out and disseminated. Hence, the primary objectives of a strategic plan should be that of promoting social innovation. This represents a fertile redefinition of participation, that is no longer listening to local community, but implies giving room for the autonomous mobilization of society.” (p. 236)

How could the Trading Zone concept help the OCS facilitate agreement between different administrative units? The (temporary) political difference between the County and City Councils makes it difficult to find an

56

agreement between the two sides on a strategic plan, derived from common objectives and values. This may make it difficult to propose the MCA framework, which is based on “a robust process for agreeing the criteria in advance of making choices.” On the other hand, a “trading zones” dialogue, where the exchange focuses on coordinated, local actions that are enabled by the thinness on interpretation rather than the thickness of consensus provides a useful alternative.

57

4. The Freiburg Charter: A Successful Process of Public Consultation 38

Freiburg and Oxford: why compare?

● The cities of Freiburg im Breisgau and Oxford look very similar both in their appearance, structure, and problems they face. Although Freiburg’s population is larger than Oxford’s (220,000 versus 150,000), the two localities both are experiencing population growth. A sizeable population of students and young professionals live in both. And the housing market in both cities is facing similar pressures.

o Both places are home to important universities and training centres o The bulk of the people moving to Freiburg is comprised of 18-to-25-year-olds. They move to

Freiburg in order to study or train for a job. This is not dissimilar from Oxford. o The cohort of people leaving Freiburg belong particularly to the age group of the

25-to-50-year-olds. They leave the city for work-related reasons and upon finishing their professional training or degree. The same applies to children below the age of 10, i.e. Freiburg is losing young families who primarily move to the surrounding communities where living spaces are more affordable or more available to begin with. While the same features may or may not apply to Oxford, it is true that living space in Oxford is also quite expensive.

Why is Freiburg a good model?

● At the end of 2009, Freiburg received the Academy of Urbanism’s “European City of the Year 2010” award in London. A majority of the jury members voted for the City of Freiburg on account of its impressive urban development and urban planning principles, which had been followed consistently for decades.

● in October 2010, representatives of the academy of urbanism passed the Freiburg Charter together with the City, which was to outline the framework of a viable, sustainable urban planning policy based on 12 principles.

● The 12 principles of the Freiburg Charter for Urban Development o Spatial principles

▪ Ensure diversity, safety and tolerance ▪ Choose neighbourhoods as the units ▪ Ensure short distances to access basic services ▪ Urban development along public transport routes à high-density model

o Content principles ▪ A city education, science and culture ▪ A city of commerce, economy and employment ▪ A city of nature and environment ▪ A city of quality design

o Principles of procedure ▪ Historical consistency and long-term planning ▪ Communication à public ▪ Reliability, obligation and fairness ▪ Cooperation, participation and partnership à public participation

● The following objectives are of paramount importance to the responsible development of cities and regions, and are based on the 12 principles:

38 Summary of information contained in “Town planning in Freiburg: Dietenbach, the new part of town” (The Academy of Urbanism and City of Freiburg im Breisgau, 2012), “Freiburg Charter: Requirements in Urban Development and Planning for the Future” (Department of Urban Development, City of Freiburg im Breisgau, 2016) and the webpage “Freiburg’s new district: Dietenbach” (https://www.freiburg.de/pb/,Lde/495838.html)

58

o preserving local identity, strengthening neighbourhoods and promoting cultural diversity and differentiation

o strengthening and expanding public transport networks and dovetailing these with the development of settlements

o carefully managing resources, restraining construction in previously undeveloped areas and developing adequate urban density

o identifying, maintaining and linking green areas o ensuring high quality in construction and preserving public spaces o securing social peace and promoting an overlapping of social and functional use o creating a variety of accommodation options (housing provision) for all groups of the

population securing jobs and creating new, innovative ones o improving dialogue and participation

Example of urban planning in Freiburg: the new district of Dietenbach

● Rationale: growing population in Freiburg à demand for living space and pressure on the housing market (rising house prices)

o According to projections by the Empirica institute, “the demand will rise to almost 134,900 dwelling units by 2030. The current assumption is that approximately 14,600 new dwellings need to be created until 2030.”

o “The need for additional housing can only be met in a responsible fashion by creating a new part of town. It is also the best way to create sufficient options for supply and services as well as the necessary social infrastructure.”

● Timeline o On 11.12.2012 the city council adopted the decision approving the development of a new

part of town in Freiburg o 2015: dialogue and consultations with civic society o April 2016: a public workshop was conducted in order to present and compare the results of

the civil dialogue events with the goals, spatial visions, and framework conditions resulting from the in-depth analysis as well as several report on the the new part of town.

o 2017: An urban design competition is launched for the development of the district o 2018: the local council decides to carry out an urban development measure for the new

district of Dietenbach, approves the framework agreement with the savings bank company and initiates the development plan procedure. The winner of the urban design competition is announced by the end of the year.

o On 24 February 2019, the referendum on the construction of the Dietenbach terrain took place, 60 percent of voters answered the question "Should the Dietenbachgebiet remain undeveloped?" with no.

● Comments o The principles of the Freiburg Charter served as guidance for city planning o The public consultations and referendum allowed the citizens and interest groups to be

involved o The concepts for housing, social issues, open spaces, as well as transport and energy supply

have been regarded as “closely interrelated” o Provision of an online platform as well as four Infobriefe ("info letters”) which give an

overview of the current status of the project o The questions on the website, while clearly guided by a desire to defend the project, analyse

potential criticisms and negative effects of it (e.g. the loss of agricultural land which will need to be compensated, costs of the project…).

59

5. Legal Disclaimer The Researcher Strategy Consultancy is a programme of learning and development activities for University of Oxford researchers. It provides employability skills training and work-based experiences to researchers whilst at the same time giving free consultancy to local businesses, charities and community organisations (Clients). After an initial induction period facilitated by the University of Oxford Careers Service, teams of researchers undertake short, limited scope projects for clients. Whilst of course the University will do what it can to structure and operate this programme efficiently, it will be appreciated that neither the University nor the researcher participants will owe any duty of care to Clients; or accept any responsibility for the work undertaken or the advice given in the course of what is a free and amateur service. All liability is therefore disclaimed, to the maximum extent permitted by law. In particular: a) The University and the researchers do not warrant the accuracy of any information, written or spoken, provided by the researcher teams, and Clients should not rely on its accuracy to make decisions. b) Project teams do not have, or hold themselves out to have, specialist or expert knowledge. c) In general, teams should not be expected to spend much time on a client’s site; however, if they do, then the health and safety responsibility rests with the Client. d) No commitment can be made as to the amount of time researchers can or will spend on a project as it is understood that this work has to be fitted around their academic obligations that take first priority. Clients and teams will be expected to clarify timing and scope at the start and from time to time during the project. The researchers will own the copyright in their reports, but each Client will have a free, irrecoverable, non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to use each report which it commissions, for the purpose of the Client’s operations.

60