4.0 Problems with Public Participation - WHY?
If current forms of public participation were flawless there would be no reason to investigate new methods and tools. Since this is not the case, Chapter 4 answers the question: "Why investigate the Internet as a public participation tool?" by identifying the problems that currently exist.
There are many theories and ideas about why certain public participation programs fail. The issue is complex because while one party may believe the program was a success, another might consider it a complete failure. This is because different participants want different things from programs. Different groups have different ideas about what characteristics make a public participation program successful.
4.1 Current Problems
There are several problems that can occur in public participation
programs. These problems fall under three main areas (with some
overlap) of public participation: dynamics, attitudes, and access.
Dynamics
This section refers to problems associated with individuals coming
together with varying opinions and social positions.
Program Dominance by Particular Group or Individual
When a participant feels particularly strongly about an issue the result can be the entire process becomes all about their concerns especially if they are quite vocal or powerful. This is a very common problem. Because the person or group has become so vocal, the views of others can be lost, both the opposing as well as the assenting. The result can be an inaccurate representation of public view.Crowd Anxiety on the Part of Participants
Many people have opinions and ideas for their communities but have a fear or anxiety about voicing them in public because of they think they don't possess the needed skills to relate their ideas such as public speaking and presentation. This is the opposite of the above mentioned problem but its effects are similar. Because anxiety can prevent certain groups from representing themselves, the public participation program can be inaccurate.Incivility
When an issue is particularly sensitive, public participation can become edgy and tense. Sometimes incivility results as people lose their tempers in frustration and anger. Incivility can also be caused by a lack of information provided prior o the process or a lack of notification of the process. Sometimes even the physical set up of the room (i.e. raised platform and sunken audience) can instil feelings of hostility in participants. If public concern is not addressed until late in the planning process this problem is often compounded. The result can be delays in entire process if meetings and hearings are cancelled.Inefficient Use of Time
It can prove frustrating to participants when their time is not used efficiently and this can lead to future low attendance. Conversely, if participants insist on using the program time inefficiently, this can turn planners and other organizers off the process of gaining public input. The result is unproductive programs which provide little insight.
Attitudes
This section refers to problems that relate to the actual process
of public participation and the attitudes and perceptions of those
who take part and those who organize the program.
A Token Process
When this attitude is present people get the feeling that public participation is being used to sooth the them or mitigate political confrontation. The program is being held merely to avoid public uproar or to satisfy legislation. The result is an unsatisfied public and this can lead to more problems.Immediate Issues Get More Attention than Long Term Issues Reactionary bias sometimes results when solving a particular problem seems of immediate importance. The public (and planners) can sometimes let the short term edge out the importance to looking at long term issues as well.
Tendency Toward Compromise
Bold innovative ideas are often dismissed too soon and sanitzed for the public. If an idea seems too beyond the traditional way of doing things, it can be ignored early on in the process.Ideas Trying to be "sold" to the Public
Some public participation programs consist of planners trying to convince the public to accept a decision that has already been made or is extremely close to being made. Politicians sometimes use public participation to try to persuade the public to agree to with what they want.Lack of Regional/Global View
Public participation is simpler and easier to implement when it concerns one particular, well-defined, local problem or issue. It is difficult to get participation when there is no direct threat to people and the program is more about visioning on the broader scale. If people don't feel as though the issue affects them, they are less likely to offer their input."People Versus the Politicians" Dynamic Emerges
When people feel threatened by an impending decision that negatively affects their community, this attitude can quickly emerge, especially if the public feels they are being "sold" an idea or pressured into agreeing.Feedback Vacuum
This vacuum can emerge if the information that is gathered from public participation is documented and stored but not put to any productive use or if it merely perceived to have not been put to use.Assumptions About the Public's Grasp of the Issue
Public participation can sometimes be preempted because the organizers have assumed either that the public hasn't the knowledge to offer opinions or because they have assumed the public is well read and knowledgeable on the issues and therefore fails to provide adequate information.Transportation
If time, money, energy, and personal risk are assessed by the public as being too high to make it worth attending programs, then again, information cannot be gained or given and communication is lost.
Access
This section refers to problems concerning access to information
and programs both prior to and during the process by both the
public and the planner/politician.
Low Attendance/Lack of Diversity
Planners can't gain information and expertise from the public if there is not enough in attendance to accurately represent the view of those affected.Language Barriers
Certain individuals cannot understand not only the proceedings of the program but also any information presented prior if a language barrier is present. This is significant when the issue at hand is concerned with an ethnically distinguished community.Lack of Information on Specifics
If dates, times, and issues are not effectively advertised and distributed prior to a program or meeting, low attendance, which might be attributed to low interest, might actually be due to lack of awareness.Actual Decisions Made Behind Closed Doors
If a process seeks public input but then makes the actual decision process a closed one, the participants can be left feeling that their contributions were not taken seriously.Physical Barriers
Disabled or elderly individuals will not be accurately represented if the process is conducted at a facility which presents physical barriers to participants.Identity/Vested Interests
Some participants my identify themselves as persons with vested interest in the issue even though in actuality they may be far removed from those affected by decisions.
4.2 Problems Solved
When investigated,
it becomes clear that using the Internet as a supplementary tool
during public participation processes would remedy several of
the above mentioned problems. This section will go through the
problems outlined in section 4.1 and determine which ones can
be entirely eliminated or, at the very least, alleviated by implementing
an Internet component to public participation.
It is important to point out that in the analysis of potential solutions to these existing problems, it will not be clearly defined exactly what would be the tool or application of the Internet in each solution. These potential solutions will be determined based on a very general and overall definition of what form an Internet application of public participation can take. Generally, an "Internet application of public participation" is defined as some form of online communication using any of the three types of Internet communications tools mentioned in section 3.1 (The Web, Email, IRC).
Crowd Anxiety
Someone who avoids public participation because of crowd anxiety of feelings of intimidation may be more likely to participate online. An Internet method of participation can reduce the crowd anxiety as well as reduce certain individual's ability to intimidate others.Incivility
Incivility is less likely to occur as part of an Internet public participation method. This is for three reasons. Firstly, with no physical presence, the risk of a violent outbreak is eliminated and the physical set up of the room is not an issue. Secondly, if the Internet process is not a real-time IRC type of process, then hostile attitudes will be calmed as the time passes between interaction and thirdly, since lack of notification and information can sometimes lead to hostility, the Internet's superior methods of providing this notification and information can reduce the chances of public upheaval.Lack of Regional/Global View
An Internet application could help to create a more global or broad view and reduce the affects of this problem in two ways. First by providing a public input venue that is very global and widespread in nature and second, because of the wealth of global information provided through the World Wide Web.Feedback Vacuum
Two things can happen here. The Internet can solve this problem or compound it. One can argue that the vastness of cyberspace provides even more of a vacuum into which feedback can be lost. However, it can also be argued that the instantaneousness of the Internet (through email and the world wide web) can provide information on how the feedback is being used quickly.Transportation
When it comes time to participate, some people assess the time and expense to be involved to be not worth having their say. People are very busy. An Internet application could reduce the intensity of this problem by providing a venue for participation from home or a more easily accessed place.
Low Diversity/Low Attendance
This is one major problem an Internet application could potentially solve. Implementing Internet technology could reach other groups of individuals who would not normally attend a traditional program but might become involved online if a mode by which people could participate from home was provided by the Internet. These might include youth or the elderly.Language Barriers
Some people avoid giving their input because of they don't speak the language well. This problem could be reduced if an Internet application was applied as some people may feel more comfortable writing in a language that's foreign to them than speaking trying to speak it in front of a crowd.
Physical Barriers
If participants can use home computers or computers in an easily accessed area, this problem could be greatly reduced. People who could not physically be present for meetings could give their input through various Internet applications.Lack of Information Prior, During and After
Adding the Internet to the standard list of information media could reach more people. Although the Internet might not prove to be a tool for the actual process, it could be a useful method of distributing information needed before, during, and after the actual program happens. The Internet can provide ready access to material as well as allow people to think about issues with reference material at hand. If people can easily access the needed information, they may also be more likely to attend the program or attend programs in the future.
Using a generalized definition of what form an online public participation method would take, it is clear that many problems with traditional programs can be solved by implementing such an online method.
4.3 New Problems
Although the
use of the Internet will solve several problems that currently
exist, there also emerges many new problems that must be addressed.
As in section 4.1, the determination of the new problems created
by an Internet application of public participation is based on
a general broadly defined concept of what form that application
may take.
Illiteracy
An Internet application of public participation would be very text based due to the technology of its components. This could present problems for those who cannot read or write. Traditional programs provide the venue of the podium for public input and only the ability to speak is required. However, an entirely text based program would eliminate some citizens.Another issue is computer illiteracy. While Internet programs could designed and implemented to ensure ease of use, those who have never used a computer or Internet technology prior may feel too intimidated to take part. Some participants may also have reservations about using the Internet because of misconceptions about privacy and security online.
Current Limited Access to Internet
While current statistics (see Appendix A) show that high percentages of Canadian cities (some as high as 40%) connected to the Internet, there is still the issue of participants access to computers and Internet technology.Not Actually Reaching a New Group of People
The Internet could reach a new group of people who, for whatever reason, do not regularly give their input, statistics show (see Appendix A) that people to usually participate in public programs are the same people who are connected to the Internet.A New Kind of Crowd Anxiety
A new kind of crowd anxiety can emerge with Internet applications. Those who feel uncomfortable typing or writing may switch roles with those who feel uncomfortable speaking.Technical Problems
As with any computer technology, there exists the inconvenience of technical problems. As the technology becomes more complex, the technical problems become more difficult to remedy.Accuracy of Information
The Internet, specifically the World Wide Web, holds an immense amount of information of a variety of topics. However, as mentioned in section 3.3, the accuracy of this information is sometimes questionable.Identity/Vested Interest
This is another dual perspective issue. It can be argued that the Internet would increase a participants ability to be anonymous and would therefore, jeopardize the accuracy of the public participation program. However, the other side is that technology could enhance security by requiring login names and passwords for participants thereby making the identity of the participants even more certain than a traditional program.Loss of Feeling of Community
This new problem arises when the Internet application is more advanced such as a realtime IRC. Communicating without being face to face with community members can result in the loss of a strong sense of community.No body Language Interpretation
This is an extension of the "Loss of Feeling of Community". When participants are not in direct contact with others, interaction on a level beyond words can be lost.No Socialization
Ideas often emerge from the "in-between" dialogue. The Internet can hinder participants ability to talk casually before or after the public participation program.True Emotions Do Not Come Out or are Exaggerated
In entirely text based communication, true emotions are sometimes not evident. Or in some cases they are exaggerated. Jokes and sarcasm can be missed and words can be misinterpreted.Current Legal Requirements
Legislation states how the public's input must be retrieved. Internet applications would have to be designed such that they did not go against this legislation. Or the legal aspects of public participation would have to be altered to allow for Internet methods.Feedback Vacuum
As mentioned in an earlier paragraph, the probability for feedback to be lost could be greatly increased due to the openness of the Internet.Civic Legibility
During traditional forms of public participation, where you are frequently tells who you are. The Internet sets up a kind of "black hole" in that no one is really anywhere, they are all meeting in a place that physically doesn't exist."A face-to-face human conversation is a spatially coherent, corporeal, and strictly synchronous event. The participants are all present in the same place, everybody hears the words as they are spoken, and replies usually come immediately." (Mitchell 1995)
This non-physical communication can take away from the sense of community but can also cloud individual roles in the participation.
It is evident that although an Internet application could prove to solve many of the problems that currently exist, several new problems potentially emerge. This does not mean, however, that the Internet is not a viable public participation tool. The task now is to find balance. The Internet applications chosen must maximize problem solving abilities and minimize new problem creation.
