Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Intro & Data
Lesson 8 Public Engagement
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Design Charette | Intensive collaborative effort that brings together citizens, stakeholders, and staff to develop a detailed design plan for a specific area Way for community visioning/input |
| Pros/Cons of Charette | May be held over one or more days Effective technique for quickly developing a consensus Good for contentious social issues Good for discussing plan concepts before drafting a plan Good for committee with specific task |
| How does a Charette work? | Typically small groups are formed Each group focusing on a design solution for an area Each groups has a facilitator who is typically a design professional |
| Delphi Method | Structured process of public participation with the intent of coming to a consensus decisions Developed by RAND in the 1950's |
| How does the delphi method work? | A panel of selected, informed citizens and stakeholders are asked to complete a series of questionnaires Questions are typically written as hypothesis Over time, the range of answers decreases and converges towards a single solution |
| Nominal Group Technique | Group process involving problem identification, solution generation, and decision making that can be used for groups of any size that want to come to as decision by vote |
| How does the nominal group technique work? | Someone is creating a list of ideas Participants than rank the solutions Rankings are then discussed This can lead to further ideas or combinations of ideas |
| Facilitation | Uses a person who does not have a direct state in the outcome of a meeting to help groups this disagree work together to solve complex problems and come to a consensus |
| How does the facilitation method work? | The facilitator is typically a volunteer from the community who is respected by all groups In some cases, a professional facilitator is hired to assist in running the meeting |
| Mediation | A method which a neutral third party facilitators discussion in a structured multi-stage process to help parties reach a satisfactory agreement |
| How does the mediation method work? | Mediator assists the parties in identifying and articulating their interests and priorities The agreement typically specifies measurable, achievable and realistic solutions |
| Public Hearing | Typically associated with the Planning Commission, City Council, and other governing bodies Public hearings are typically mandated by law |
| Pros/Cons of Public Hearing | Allows formal citizen input at the end of a planning process Typically ineffective at building public participation and consensus |
| Visual Preference Survey | Technique that can be used to assist citizen in evaluating physical images of natural and built environments |
| How does visual preference survey work? | Citizens are asked to view and evaluate a wide variety of pictures (houses, site, streetscapes, etc.) Scores are used to indicate whether a design is what a citizen sees as appropriate for their community |
| Paul Davidoff | Active in the 1960's Credited with creating advocacy planning Correctly social injustices by giving equal footing to the planning process |
| Sherry Arnstein | Created latter of citizen participation Three Levels of Participation |
| Three Levels of Participation | Non participation Tokenism: for the sake of inclusion Citizen Power: citizens are active and involved |
| Saul Alinsky | Community organizer in Chicago Very active to try and promote community engagement Obama was influenced by his methods |
| Rules of Thumb for Planners | For planners, more input in better than less input; planners should be pro-active in getting stakeholder input Planners should not push their "solutions" Big public hearings are less effective as a means of gathering input |
| Survey | Good for understanding perceptions; gauge attitudes Not about consensus building Internet-based surveys not a good way to reach elderly/poor Mail surveys have low response rates |
| Focus Groups | Help build consensus For controversial social issues; facilitate sessions with small groups Good for discussing plan concepts before drafting plan Good for committee with a specific task |
| Public Meetings: Conventional Practice | Speaker/Expert focuses Citizens air concerns "Usual suspects" no group discussion Individual testimony/final report |
| Public Meeting: Current Practice | Participant focused Shared ideas & prioritization Participant recruitment/facilitated small groups Real-time polling |
| Oregon Model | One of the first places to pioneer the use of community based visioning |
| Five Steps of Oregon Model | Where are we now? Where are we going? Where do we want to be? How do we get there? Are we getting there? |
| Charrette is Not | A one-day workshop A multi-day marathon involving everyone all the time A plan authored by a select few that will effect many "Visioning session" that stops short of an implementation plan |
Created by:
amshinn18
Popular Miscellaneous sets