Want to really engage the community? Don't walk under Arnstein's ladder

Consultation in planning should not be a dirty word. Consulting a community about a proposed change that could affect their lives, or that of their children, should not be the domain of the "spin doctors", or seemingly held in skeptical disregard by academics, community activists and some practicing planners.

This is not to deny the rationale for this skepticism. Indeed the way many attempts at community consultation have been facilitated and determined makes it understandable. It is of little benefit to ask an opinion of a predetermined outcome. But consultation still remains a valuable tool to meaningfully engage a community on planning and decision making.

Nor is the concept a difficult one to grasp. You ask for an informed opinion, you listen to the rationale, you discuss the options and arrive at a decision that will best fit.

Community consultation should foster the opportunity for people to talk and listen, share ideas and expertise, build a rapport which will lead to a mutual respect. Community consultation is simply about opening, maintaining and, importantly, constructively closing a channel of communication.

Community Consultation is well recognised and accepted as a business practice for both government and business. Planners and project managers are governed by the legislative requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Review of Environmental Factors (or other similar term depending on the state you reside) to facilitate a programme of community consultation into planning major projects.

Since coming to vogue in the heady days of the student movements and social rethinking of the 1960s, the idea of providing a greater input and comment from the community about proposed changes with a potential to impact on day to day lives has been placed firmly on the agenda by planning authorities. From impacts of change on Californian communities and community-focused architecture to the landmark Skeffington report in the UK, the 60s heralded a sea change in the thinking about the why and how a community should participate and be involved in planning.

In the much often-cited paper by Shirley Arnstein, first published in the American Journal of Planners in 1969, she grasped this idea of public participation and sharing planning power. She summed it up as follows in a US context of the time:

The idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach: no one is against it in principle because it is good for you. Participation of the governed in their government is, in theory, the cornerstone of democracy - a revered idea that is vigorously applauded by virtually everyone. The applause is reduced to polite hand claps, however, when this principle is advocated by the have-not blacks, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Indians, Eskimos and whites. And when the have-nots define participation as redistribution of power, the American consensus on the fundamental principle explodes into many shades of outright racial, ethnic, ideological, and political opposition.

Intrinsic to this philosophy of power-sharing was an "us and them" approach. She advanced a ladder-style framework of public participation, in which the rungs of the ladder depicted what she considered to be an "elevating" framework of meaningful public interaction with planners. This framework includes "consultation" for what is arguably the first time in a planning context.

In this participatory ladder, each rung represents a degree of citizen power in influencing planning and policies, climbing the ladder led to more meaningful participation and greater public power sharing. The ladder depicted eight rungs. "Manipulation" is at the bottom with "citizen control" at the top. Arnstein considered manipulation and therapy as a public-relations exercise and non-participation, while the tokenism of informing, consulting and placating (the next rungs) to be largely the domain used by planning authorities in attempting to fulfill their participation responsibilities while still maintaining the dominant power structure.

The top rungs represent a model where participants are able to establish a partnership and have the power to share decision-making responsibilities and finally to influence and control outcomes.

Despite its simplistic rationalisation, the paper has enjoyed considerable currency in the journals and academic writing right to the present. Indeed, it is a landmark paper. It is the first found to advance the idea of establishing a structured framework of engaging a community and using consultation within the planning/participatory framework of decision making. Many academic commentators have commented on its simplistic assumptions but it remains a damm good start.

Community Consultation is sadly positioned as a tokenistic gesture, an idea still being advanced today, and has marginalised the serious interest and worth of community consultation as a worth process of community engagement.

Consultation, particularly community consultation, with regard to policy decision-making or planning proposals such as an REF or EIS, is the cornerstone of meaningful participation or engagement. You ask the community what they think, and if they don't agree with a proposal you ask them why and take this into account in making your decision. Then you explain the reasons.

If properly conducted, community consultation will achieve a far more equitable decision-making process. In accepting the reality of the modern democratic system in which we live and operate, it underpins the very idea of citizen control that Arnstein advocated but without the anarchistic overtones of French students rushing the barricades.

If used correctly, consultation is the foundation of information provision and establishes the necessary partnership that lets meaningful participation occur. Sadly, all too often community consultation simply comprises an opinion poll as to whether the decision already made is acceptable to a community, and if not, well too bad - let the power struggle commence.

More often than not a PR consultant (euphemistically named in this instance) is engaged to put the best possible spin on the decision and in the event of community concern or opposition, then move into damage control.

A lack of transparency in the process and a limited degree of accountability in determining whether the consultation has been carried out to any degree of community satisfaction has positioned community consultation within the framework of participation advanced by Arnstein. In so doing it will continue to be marginalised and tokenistic.

It is clear from the research and the texts that people want to be included in the decision-making agenda, especially if it has the potential to impact on their lives or locale. Why wouldn't they? People appreciate being consulted but communities are in danger of experiencing consultation overload and little tangible results apparent for their efforts.

Professional planners and policy makers know how to turn data into information, information into knowledge, and knowledge into policy, plans and projects. Too often, however, community groups are participants at the last stage, and without the data or technical knowledge to articulate or even substantiate their positions.

Community consultation should not be a difficult concept. It is about timing and a commitment to the consultation process at the outset of planning. Genuine consultation requires regulators and planners to present information to a community in a user-friendly fashion and at a timely point in the planning process. They need to develop a habit of listening to the public and, importantly in terms of closing the communications loop, provide useful and useable feedback and data to allow that public to make an informed contribution.

Increasingly, the public expects to be consulted. Today planners cannot overlook or revoke this right for a community to be consulted about projects and developments which will impact on the day-to-day lives without risking public anger and suspicion.

Community consultation is not about divesting planning power to a community but rather keeping an open mind with regard to legitimate community concerns about a proposal. In soliciting input and ideas about such a planning proposal, it's about taking the time and effort to provide information and explanations back to those concerned communities.

This offers many advantages for both the planner and the community for which the plan is planned. Informed people make informed decisions. Decision making is not a contest. It is about engaging a community and providing the best workable solutions.

Consultation assists this process. Its time to step out from the shadow of Arnstein's ladder.