• Save
SPI/U3 Summary Slides for Planning (March 13)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


SPI/U3 Summary Slides for Planning (March 13)

Uploaded on

Slides showing SPI questions, photos, SPI protocols and SPI analysis

Slides showing SPI questions, photos, SPI protocols and SPI analysis

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • This slide summarizes our guiding principles for this project.On the left is a typical ladder of public participation. As you can see, at the bottom we have public involvement approaches that essentially foster no direct participation by the community. At the top, we have activities that do – ranging from equal partnership to full leadership.Our first guiding principle is to use a process that promotes full stakeholder participation.Secondly, as we have previously indicated, we seek to follow the recommendations of the “Politics of Cleanup” report.Finally, we will be employing a series of new technologies and methodologies that are designed to maximum the quantity and quality of citizen input into this process.
  • This slide provides a general summary of the process that we are proposing to follow. The process involves three basic steps:Stakeholder interviews (to identify a range of issues, concerns, and opinions)Stakeholder focus groups (to solicit feedback on potential end state visions).Stakeholder community meetings (to solicit preferences on a range of options).As part of this process we will also be constituting a future vision advisory panel to be made up of representatives from the CAB and the other stakeholders for the purpose of providing critical feedback and guidance to each step of the process.The ultimate result of this process will be:A report that summarizes the preferences of the various stakeholdersA computer model that will store and extrapolate stakeholder preferences
  • This slide gives a hypothetical example of what the final scenario matrix might look like. On the left had side you see several different future vision categories, ranging from land use, waste disposal, to other issues such as groundwater and surface water. For each category you all see a range of options. For example, for land use the options may range from nuclear industry to residential apartments. While the later may not be realistic, this never the less represents an example of the types of things we are looking at.
  • This slide illustrates an application of the Community Based Participatory Process for this project.[Simply walk through the slide]
  • Using the Structured Public Involvement process, we will hold several public meetings in which a range of possible future vision scenarios will be presented to the public. After all the scenarios have been introduced and explained, each scenario will be presented a second time at which point each person will register their preference through the use of the key pads.
  • In addition to use the results of the preference voting to rank a given set of possible scenarios, the results can also be used to develop a mathematical model that can be used to predict collective preferences for other non tested scenarios. This slide provides a visual example of how that can be done in three dimensions, where the vertical scale or axis is shown here, and the x and y axes are shown here. In this case the X axis might represent the type of land use and the y axis might represent the type of waste decision (on-site vs off-site). Taken together, these data can be used to develop a three dimensional map of the preference surface where high elevations would represent positive preferences and low elevations would represent negative preferences.While in theory such a model could be use to determine the optimal or best solution, it is probably more useful to use the model to identify bad solutions – those that we want to stay way from.One final benefit of such a model, is that it can continue to be used into the future, even when certain conditions might change.
  • At this point, we anticipate this process taking approximately 18 months, with a final draft of the report completed by August of 2010
  • At this point, we anticipate this process taking approximately 18 months, with a final draft of the report completed by August of 2010


  • 1. High Performance Participatory Processes for Improved Governance Keiron Bailey, University of Arizona Ted Grossardt, University of Kentucky John Ripy, University of Kentucky
  • 2. Louisville Transit Development project (2002)
  • 3. Louisville Bridges Project.Dr. Ted Grossardt leads public meeting, Louisville, KY.Hundreds of participants, open public meetings, 2005-06
  • 4. Land Use Project. Simpson County, KY (2007)
  • 5. Bridges Project. Madison, IN.Larger public meeting (2010)
  • 6. PGDP Small focus group (2010)
  • 7. John Ripy and Ted GrossardtDemocraticBridge Buildingby Doug TattershallTed Grossardt learned about democratic decision-making on the familyfarm in Claflin, a town of 700 people in the middle of Kansas. This communityis guided by the farmer cooperative, an institution that strongly supports farmfamilies. After graduating from college, Grossardt returned to work on thefamily farm and also served on this cooperative. The winning design has tall,H-shaped towers. This rendering shows the bridge as it will appear when it iscompleted in 2020. research center in the UK College of Engineering, butGrossardt’s work on improving public satisfaction with bridges and other publicprojects was inspired by his work on the co-op. “The idea that large groups ofpeople can effectively make decisions is something I grew up with,” saysGrossardt, who came to UK in 1993 to pursue a doctorate in geography andworked at the Transportation Center while completing his degree. Hisexperience with the farmer cooperative has served him well…….
  • 8. SPI Meeting Questions
  • 9. How Did You Hear About this Meeting? (choose up to 3)1. Radio 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%2. Newspaper3. Flyers4. Neighborhood Councils5. Television6. Online-Website7. Other rs o er er n e s di io sit c il e ap h Fly Ra vis Ot un eb sp le Co W w Te e- Ne d lin oo On o rh hb ig Ne
  • 10. How Young Are You?1. 5-15 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12%2. 16-253. 26-354. 36-455. 46-556. 56-657. 66-758. 76-infinity ity 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 5- fi n 16 26 36 46 56 66 -in 76
  • 11. Female or Male?1. Female 50% 50%2. Male e ale al M m Fe
  • 12. Some Things I Do (choose up to 3)1. Business Owner 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12%2. Student3. Retired4. Work Part Time5. Work Full Time6. Looking for Work7. Parent8. Volunteer .. nt e d r nt e er ne o. im im e re de te ti r W w lT tT Pa n u Re sO r lu St l r fo Fu Pa Vo es ng k k si n or or ki W o Bu W Lo
  • 13. The Arnstein Ladder: Degrees of Citizen Participation (Arnstein 1969) 8 Citizen Control Degrees of citizen power 7 Delegated Power 6 Partnership Degrees of tokenism 5 Placation 4 Consultation 3 Informing Nonparticipation 2 Therapy 1 Manipulation
  • 14. The Arnstein Ladder (Arnstein 1969)1. Where are we now?2. Where should we be?
  • 15. Where are we now?0% 1. Manipulation33% 2. Therapy33% 3. Information33% 4. Consultation0% 5. Collaboration0% 6. Partnership0% 7. Delegated power0% 8. Citizen control
  • 16. Where should we be?0% 1. Manipulation0% 2. Therapy0% 3. Information33% 4. Consultation0% 5. Collaboration67% 6. Partnership0% 7. Delegated power0% 8. Citizen control
  • 17. How SPI fits into a larger project context
  • 18. PGDP Future Vision Project www.uky.edu/krcee/project23.html
  • 19. Site Facts• Total Federal Acreage: 3,556• Gaseous Diffusion Plant Acreage: 748• Total Number of Buildings: 161• Process Buildings: 4• Process Building Dimensions: 1,100 ft. long, 970 ft. wide, 90 ft. high• Process Building Acreage Under Roof: 74 acres• Number of Enrichment Stages: 1,760• Peak Design Power Capacity: 3,040 megawatts• Largest Process Motor: 3,300 horsepower• Water Utilization: 26 million gallons per day• Number of Control Instruments: 85,000• Miles of Process Piping: 400 (approximately) Miles of Roadway: 19• Miles of Railroad: 9 Miles of Perimeter Fence: 5 miles• Number of Employees: 1200• Annual Regional Economic Impact: $147 million *www.usec.com
  • 20. Project Goal: Assist the localcommunity to identify a vision TVA DOEfor the future use of thePGDP site (3,556 acres). leased to WKWMAProject Funding: Federal 1,986 acearmark facilitated bySenators McConnell,Bunning, andRepresentative Whitfield. DOE Controlled Areas 822 ac DOE Security Area 748 acWKWMA
  • 21. Guding PrinciplesCitizen Control Ladder of Citizen • Foster Citizen Power Participation • Follow principles in “Politics (Arnstein 1969) of Cleanup”Delegated Power Examined Citizen Power community Partnership involvement in cleanup activities at: Placation 1) Rocky Flats 2) Mound 3) Oak Ridge Consultation Tokenism and made recommendations Informing • Use Community Based Participatory Communication Therapy Non Process Participation • Use Structured Public Manipulation Involvement Process
  • 22. PGDP Future Vision Process Future Vision Advisory Panel (Representatives Drawn from Stakeholders)(1) Stakeholder (2) Stakeholder (3) Stakeholder Interviews Focus Groups Community Meeting (s) Report Community CBPC SPI Future Vision Assessment Final Community Protocol/ Scenario Preference Initial Matrix Database Scenarios UK/KRCEE
  • 23. Example Scenario MatrixFuture Vision Categories Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario 1 2 3 4Land Use: Plant Sitea. Nuclear Industry:z. Residential ApartmentsLand Use: Surrounding Areaa. Nuclear Industry:z. Residential ApartmentsWaste Disposala. On-siteb. Partialc. Off-siteGroundwatera. Water Policy & Active Treatment:z. Monitoring & Enhanced Inst. Controls
  • 24. Example Scenario Fact Sheet Trends: Energy Needs Economic Environmental Uncertainties: Funding Regulations Demographics Impacts: Health Economic Environmental
  • 25. (2) Stakeholder Focus Groups(Community based participatory communication - Dr. Chike Anyaegbunam - UK) 3) Focus group critiques process Focus Group Each Team Each team Each team Focus divided into Provided identifies presents Group: Teams Fact key their 1) Critiques Sheet issues results scenarios for a and/or to the 2) Identifies Potential additional total additional Scenario data needs stakeholder data needs for their group Scenario
  • 26. Stakeholder Categories• Federal and State Agencies (DOE, EPA, TVA, USF&W, KYDWM, KYDOW, KYF&W)• Federal & state representatives and local government• Residents near the facility• Employees at the plant• Environmental/Health Activists• Economic Development Community – Including KYCED• Healthcare Community• Education Community• Media• Religious/Spiritual Community• Recreation/Tourism/Wildlife• Regional Stakeholders (Ballard County, Metropolis)• THE SILENT MAJORITY
  • 27. (3) Stakeholder Community Meeting (Structured Public Involvement - Dr. Ted Grossardt - UK) Future State Visualizations Vote on Scenarios DiscussionFuture Vision Using Keypads Scenarios Fact Sheets
  • 28. Community Preference Model (CAsewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE) - Dr. Keiron Bailey - UA)Fuzzy Knowledge Builder Good Bad Solution Solution 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 5 1 3 8 7 5 3 3 9 8 5 3 3 Sampled Scenarios Modeled Scenarios Solution Evaluation
  • 29. •Wildlife DOE-WMA Management Area Property on PGDP and DOE- Boundary WKMA Land Softball/ PGDP Plant Soccer/Rec. •Recreation Areas Boundary Area on DOE-WKWMA Land •No WDA •Groundwater Treatment Across Extent of Contamination Expanded Wildlife Wildlife Management Management Area Area Golf Existing UraniumCourse/Rec. Hexaflouride (UF-6) Area Plant and Cylinder Yard
  • 30. WMA Alternative from NE
  • 31. Institutional control with expanded WMA (from South)
  • 32. Future Vision TIMELINE Stakeholder CommunityStakeholder Stakeholder Meeting (s) Develop Interviews Focus Groups Final Report Community CBPC SPI End State Vision 4/09 -8/09 9/09 -12/09 1/10 -5/10 6/10 -8/10
  • 33. Actual Scenario Scoring Data from SPI phase
  • 34. Recent Demographic Analysis of Wikipedianshttp://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Age_Gender_30March%202010-FINAL-3.pdfhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/wikipedia-known-unknowns-geotagging-knowledge
  • 35. Metrics: addressing the “I” metric McCracken County Age Distribution Ballard County Age Distribution 140012,000 120010,000 1000 8,000 800 6,000 600 4,000 400 2,000 200 0 0 Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years Under 5 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years years years years years years years years years years years years years and over years years years years years years years years years years years 48 over and
  • 36. ComDec. Who are we? And why listen?Innovators of Structured Public InvolvementFourteen years of high performance process design.More than thirty successful public involvement projects.Variety of partners (e.g. FHWA, FTA, NSF, State DoTs, MPOs,private consultants).Ten thousand stakeholders involved.Fifty peer-review publications.Committee memberships on National Academies panels.Service on professional organizations, journal, grant proposalreview from environmental management to civil engineering.Largest Arnstein Ladder data set published.Largest Q-metric data set for public processes.SPI. Just Google it!
  • 37. What is this?This is not:Deliberative democracy e.g. AS, Public Agenda.Unstructured public involvement.Focus group/Consensus-seeking approach.This is:About performance metrics and conflicts.What/why/how.About justice and equity, as measured by participants as wellas process designers.Jerry Maguire: “Show me……the DATA!”Suggestions on how to get there.
  • 38. Characteristics of effective processPhilosophy of stakeholder involvementJohn Rawls Procedural JusticeMethodological considerationsPartitioning of decision environment into feasible domain forpublic inputResist gaming from inside and outside processBe seen to do soScalability, simultaneity, anonymity, transparency,segmentationDecision support system: how to achieve effective decisionmaking under uncertainty
  • 39. Process Metrics: Q, I, C and ECriterion Indicator DataInclusion Number of organizations, Count attendees, citizens and groups participant groupsProcess quality Satisfaction Open quality evaluationClarity/utility of decision Expert evaluation Testimonials, narratives,support comparisons to state of the art methodsEfficiency Cost and time $ spent on public involvement, time taken and demanded
  • 40. Metrics: Q Mean satisfaction with SPI Processes Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007) Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007) Bypass study (KY, 2008) Land Use Planning (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 5 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 4 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 3 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 2 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 1 (KY, 2005) Bridge AAT (KY, 2005) Noisew all Design (AZ, 2006) Noisew all Design (KY, 2004)Transit Oriented Development (KY, 2002) Rural Highw ay improvement (KY, 2000) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  • 41. Metrics for PGDP Visioning: Q MeanMeeting 4Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 3 Meeting 2Meeting 2 Meeting 1Meeting 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  • 42. Metrics: INumbers of attendees.PGDP ~220 plus ~70Interstate widening ~70Highway rehabilitation ~100Land use planning in IN town ~90Bridge design 1, Louisville ~300Bridge design Western KY ~600Segmentation of participation.Third-party evaluation narratives.Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)“I’ve never seen this level of public involvement before”Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)“I wish my neighbors were here”Resident of retirement community (Noisewall Design 2006)“Thank you. Your team is doing a good job”
  • 43. Metrics: C
  • 44. Metrics: CFederal official (Bridge project 2005-07)“I had never been through a process using this type of activity. This was verytransparent, very open, available to all stakeholders. There’s a lot more credibility fromthe public’s perspective this way.”Federal official (Bridge project 2005-07)“We were very impressed. The polling process gave a true picture of what the publicliked and didn’t like and the final designed reflected that. We thought the process wasexcellent.”“I was amazed by how accurately this process predicted the public’s wishes.”Project Manager, State Transportation Agency (Bridge project 2005-07)“For the state of Kentucky, as owner of the bridge, the polling process proved to be anefficient way to get the thoughts from the public that we were after.Lead engineer (Bridge project, 2007)“The polling process used in the Louisville Bridge project gave us more specific feedbackthan ever before…This way, more vocal contingents at public meetings can’t dominatethe debate. People get excited about it, because they see that their participation is real.”
  • 45. Comparison of process methods across QICE Q 3 2.5 2 1.5 Focus group methods 1 Town hall 0.5 Deliberative democracyE 0 I SPI Online participation Phone survey C
  • 46. ObjectivesChampions of Participation, 2009, p.7.“2.8 Modify and augment existing performance measurementand scorecard systems to include community engagementcriteria and metrics.”Response: Commentary on the Champions Report. Send to allparticipants. Invited to DC by five agencies to discuss.But there are problems…..
  • 47. Problems we face….•Lack of capacity to define and address the needs of the“SILENT MAJORITY”•Being directed by those who know nothing about highperformance processes, or who actively oppose them•Academic and professional prejudice against respect forcitizen values•Skepticism about the feasibility of inclusive, high performanceprocesses•Resistance to discussing these ideas (e.g. TRB)
  • 48. Strategies we adopt….•Build knowledge of processes by visiting participatoryresearchers worldwide (13 countries in 3 years)•Propose incremental research to funding agencies e.g. NSF•Address barriers to discussion in research organizations (e.g.TRB)•Open communication with politicians and high-level agencyrepresentatives as private citizens (e.g. Rt. Hon. F.Maude, 2008; Gov. Palin’s office, 2008; Commentary onCoP, 2010)•Build coalition with those interested in promoting moretransparent, inclusive methods (e.g. Transparency Camp 2011)•Seek external funding for more advanced processes(here, Flinn Foundation, Soros Foundation, Gates Foundationetc.)
  • 49. Collaborative project sitesRomaniaDr. Claudia Popescu , Academy of Economic Sciences, Bucharest.City redevelopment plan in former socialistCzech RepublicDr. Premsyl Stych. Charles University, PragueNuclear plant enlargement at Temelin and DukovanyColombiaDr. Monica Pachon, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota.Citizen online platform for infrastructure project nominationCosta RicaDr. Carlos Moreira, Universidad de Costa Rica, Heredia.Indigenous participation in management of natrional forest reserveSpainDr. Pere Suau-SanchezUniversidad Autonoma de Barcelona.Catalan Regional Development Plan
  • 50. Our Role as Change Agents1. Demonstrate that large-scale public processes can be mademore accountable, more transparent, more collaborative2. Encourage the application and evaluation of high-performance methods, including SPI and others3. Document performance in accessible databaseLimitations1. Time – this is not our major appointment2. Resource – the most useful interactions are funded on ourtime and dime e.g. contact with senior politicians3. People – lack of ability to recruit collaborators withoutfunded mechanisms4. Funding – needs to be independent of agency control