Participatory engagement and social research: methods toolkit

5. Analysis of Methods

Section 2 listed some of the key principles and challenges of SEIA. The methods listed in Table 3 above are now analysed against this list of principles in Table 4 below.

Table 4 covers in more detail some of the aims of public participation, and the extent to which these are met by different methods.

5.1. Defining and Understanding Participation

Participation is a term that means many things and is often used interchangeably with ‘engagement’, ‘deliberation’ or ‘communication’. There are, however, subtle differences between these terms and each carries a different sense of the public may be able to influence the definition, scope and possible outcomes of the development or intervention. In order to clarify what is meant by participation, the following scale is used – this draws from the IAP2 [International Association of Public Participation] on a Public Participation Spectrum (2014), which was developed to define the role of the public in participation processes, and which is internationally recognised. The first two rows are from the IAP2; the third row has been added to list the methods that could be used to achieve each of these goals.

Table 5: Categorisation of methods by participation goal

Public participation Goal

• Inform: To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.
• Consult: To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.
• Involve: To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.
• Collaborate: To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.
• Empower: To place final decision-making in the hands of the public.

Promise to the Public

• Inform: We will keep you informed.
• Consult: We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.
• Involve: We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.
• Collaborate: We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.
• Empower: We will implement what you decide.

Appropriate methods

• Inform: Community events Public meetings Secondary data analysis Social media Tours and field trips.
• Consult: Archival research Community events Focus groups Landscape immersion One-to-one interviews Public meetings Scenario mapping Secondary data analysis Surveys Tours and field trips.
• Involve: Citizens’ Juries Ongoing panel Participatory Appraisal Public dialogues Scenario mapping Structured consensus-building.
• Collaborate: Citizens’ Juries Ongoing panel Participatory Appraisal Public dialogues Structured consensus-building.
• Empower: *Community ownership, Partnerships, Vetoes/casting votes, Community ballots.

*Note that ‘empowerment’ approaches are beyond the scope of this Toolkit, as by their nature they extend beyond impact assessment and into areas such as policy, governance and planning which require a much broader set of skills to set up and implement. Nonetheless, for further insight into empowerment approaches, please refer to: Scottish Government (2019) Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments

Other resources include: Community Energy Scotland’s homepage, which includes a section of case study development or interventions.

Local Energy Scotland guide to community benefits.

Key points about participation:

• Community participation is often presented on a spectrum, with increasing public input and involvement in decision-making often corresponding to increasing time and resource commitment on the part of the developer. However, all of the goals of public participation listed in Table 5 may be valuable for socio-economic impact assessment at different stages of a proposal or development or intervention.
• The goal of participation, and therefore the methods used, should be appropriate to the stage of a development or intervention, and to the particular context. It may be appropriate to use more than one technique at different times within a development or intervention depending on the stage of the development or intervention, and the community’s response so far.
• Informing a community is sometimes necessary and valuable; however more intensive methods require more input from community members, and may not always be appropriate. Just as lack of consultation can lead to concern or opposition towards a development or intervention, so too can over-engagement and associated ‘consultation fatigue’ reduce support.
• What matters is the rationale behind the efforts to engage. Different forms of community engagement reflect different rationales (Wilsdon and Willis, 2004): instrumental, where engagement is used to avoid or overcome public opposition and hence increase the likelihood of a development or intervention coming to fruition; normative, where communities are engaged because it is the ‘right’ thing to do in line with how citizens expect decisions to be made in a democratic society, or because they have valuable knowledge about their local area; or substantive, where the goal of engagement is to lead to ‘better’ outcomes for both the developer/policy maker and the community, by building a deeper understanding of what the community’s concerns and requirements are and of how the developer/policy maker and community may work together to attain these. It is important that the community knows what the rationale is, and understands how much influence or impact their engagement is expected to have.