Category Deliberative Engagement   Show all

• WasteMINZ: Combining digital hui and EngagementHQ

  Share WasteMINZ: Combining digital hui and EngagementHQ on Facebook Share WasteMINZ: Combining digital hui and EngagementHQ on Twitter Share WasteMINZ: Combining digital hui and EngagementHQ on Linkedin Email WasteMINZ: Combining digital hui and EngagementHQ link

  Bang the Table examines how WasteMINZ conducted national hui in a purely digital fashion after plans to host in-person meetings were thwarted by COVID-19.

  The numbers at a glance

  • 67+ stakeholders
  • 27 individual phone interviews with contractors and processors
  • 11 regional hui with 67 councils invited, their contractors, and elected councillors

  Project performance

  • Engagement success: 139 attended the 11 online hui (meetings)
  • 80% of councils were represented
  • EngagementHQ private project page had 120 participants with 110 (92%) engaging in articles and discussions and 58% actively participating in discussions or contributing ideas
  • Survey (via EngagementHQ project page) was sent to all councils throughout New Zealand and completed by 37 local authorities (55% of councils), representing 76% of the population

  
  

  Initially planning a series of in-person regional hui (meetings) throughout New Zealand, WasteMINZ changed its approach to a purely digital one in the face of a global pandemic.

  WasteMINZ is the largest representative body of the waste, resource recovery, and contaminated land management sectors in New Zealand. The membership-based organisation has over 1,500 members—from small operators through to councils and large companies.

  WasteMINZ works closely and collaboratively with industry partners, the Ministry for the Environment, other government agencies, and local governments on advancing waste and contaminated land management issues.

  As the authoritative voice on waste, resource recovery, and contaminated land in New Zealand, it was responsible for a project initiated by the Ministry for the Environment and which built upon some work already completed by the organisation. The Standardising Kerbside Collection in Aotearoa project sought to get agreement on what kinds of recycling should be collected at the nation’s kerbsides.

  The recommendations provided in WasteMINZ’s final report would be broadly divided into two: recommendations for the standardisation of materials collected through domestic kerbside recycling, and recommendations for best practice collection systems to reduce residual waste to landfills and improve recyclable material quality.

  Engaging stakeholders during a time of uncertainty

  The three-month project had only a six-week window for consultation and, of course, project planning was in full swing at the moment that the Covid-19 pandemic began to restrict movements—a national lockdown was inevitable.

  “Some councils were already having restrictions placed on them and we realised that even if we had had face-to-face meetings we needed another tool to allow for discussion and input beyond each regional meeting. This became even more important when we moved the hui to an online format,” WasteMINZ sector projects manager Sarah Pritchett says.

  “I think that, in a way, Covid-19 was on our side because it meant that people were working from home and some of them had more time than usual.”

  Both Sarah and project partner, environmental consultant Sunshine Yates, found success and increased participation through using EngagementHQ as the project’s engagement site. Sarah says the Covid-19 pandemic was not the reason but a catalyst for the realisation[ that a digital platform provides a holistic engagement approach, regardless of whether face-to-face interactions are possible.

  Sarah found the setup of the private project page to be “really intuitive.”

  “The team at Bang the Table was really responsive to all of my queries and the setup was very smooth.”

  Inter-regional conversations in a digital setting

  WasteMINZ needed to engage with the 67 Councils, their contractors, and on-shore processes with just over two weeks to conduct the regional hui in 11 regions.

  The hui or meetings had several different purposes and levels of engagement. Some aspects were merely presenting decisions which had been made such as agreement on bin lid colours to differentiate between recycling, rubbish and organics, and signage. For the standardisation of recycling materials, WasteMINZ was presenting what the recyclers had agreed to and getting feedback from the councils with the aim of reaching agreement from them.

  For a more “controversial proposition” about collection systems, WasteMINZ aimed to get the pros and cons of each system while identifying through its own desktop research and conversations with processes, which system produces the best quality recyclate and the least amount of contamination.

  Sarah says it would have been really difficult to have physically held each regional hui because that involved traversing the length and width of the country in a 2.5 week period.

  “With the travel time between each one, it would have been nearly impossible to try and digest the information we were getting and actually do something useful with it.”

  Regional hui were set up on Zoom and promoted on WasteMINZ’s EngagementHQ private project page. An existing database was uploaded to WasteMINZ’s database (within the platform), with automatic invites going to hui attendees who would first complete their registration to sign up for the project.

  At each hui, both Sarah and Sunshine introduced the participants to the project page and explained clearly how it would feature throughout the discussion. Each hui was three hours long, which Sarah says felt quite short considering the complexity of the topic they were all trying to tackle.

  “At various parts throughout the hui, we would introduce a new EngagementHQ tool that we wanted participants to use. They would post stories of successful things happening in their respective areas, and we would post news items as they evolved and developed more thinking around the project. People would also share an idea using the Ideas tool,” Sarah says.

  Participant adoption of digital hui

  Sarah says the response to the digital hui was varied, with some diving straight into providing feedback via EngagementHQ and others taking a few days to reflect after the hui.

  “Some people would respond to one of our many newsletters which alerted people [in the EngagementHQ database] to what was new on the project site.”

  “What was great was some people who were not able to make the hui, were quite active on our project page—they hadn’t been part of discussions but were able to participate using one of the tools.”

  Participants who could not attend the hui had access to a wealth of information and video recordings of discussions as well as additional uploaded documents. Sarah believes this was a real strength of digital engagement during an uncertain time.

  “It’s always difficult to engage with 67 different councils who have got really heavy workloads and they’ve got their own local issues that they’re dealing with,” Sarah says.

  Gathering community input with an online platform

  The Forums tool, deployed to unpack key project themes and straw man options, proved to be “A really useful tool that led to a lot of discussion between different regions,” Sarah says.

  
  

  This allowed for an open and transparent cross-regional conversation about collection systems. The forums highlighted how regional collection systems varied due to topography, weather conditions, and transport routes.

  “We originally planned for the project page to be clean for each hui, but then we realised that it was actually useful to have the conversations and carry those conversations on, across regions and for an extended period,” Sarah says.

  “Some participants were really active, others read things and some would ask a lot of questions or share their opinions. Some preferred to talk...In the end, we fed into the survey some of the discussion points that came up in the forums.”

  If there was an interesting point made by participants in the forums which generated a lot of discussions, the project team would do some more research on that issue and explore the idea.

  This meant WasteMINZ would sometimes alter the original list of recycling materials with additional research backing up the change.

  Polls were also deployed to test certain propositions, entice people to contribute, and stoke rigorous debate.

  Making sense of qualitative feedback and the final report

  The final report to the Environment Minister was informed by a previous literature review and the successful regional hui conducted by WasteMINZ.

  The qualitative data (written feedback) was used to assess the straw man options that had been presented at the hui and see whether the options were viable.

  “It [the data] showed that people preferred their own systems. But it’s good to know the pros and cons of the crate-based system and wheelie bins,” Sarah says.

  “We were able to tweak the standardised list of recycling materials by using some of the forum qualitative data that had created a lot of discussion. What was especially helpful was to screenshot everything for the final report and refer to it as we couldn’t always take notes.”

  The organisation made it clear from the beginning of the process that it was not telling all councils that they must have a particular collection system. And it was also obvious that if there was a particular system that created the best quality recyclate and least amount of contamination, it wasn’t going to suit every council.

  “And we heard that really strongly. We thought if we came out with the recommendation for a specific collection method there would be a lot of backlash and we didn't want it to be an antagonistic process.

  "We wanted everyone to know that we listened to them, while still highlighting which system produced the best quality recyclate, but acknowledging that there are other issues that need to be taken into account that we didn’t know at the beginning of the process,” Sarah says.

  A report was presented to the Minister for the Environment in May 2020 and is publicly available online.

  “It was received really well by the Minister and she (at the time of the project) was keen to progress all of the topics that were raised in it,” Sarah says.

  Since a change of government and the minister holding the portfolio, the recommendations in the final report have been put on hold.

  Want to take a closer look at the power of EngagementHQ? Watch a 4-min demo.

• Deliberative Engagement Builds Trust within Community

  Share Deliberative Engagement Builds Trust within Community on Facebook Share Deliberative Engagement Builds Trust within Community on Twitter Share Deliberative Engagement Builds Trust within Community on Linkedin Email Deliberative Engagement Builds Trust within Community link

  Deliberative community engagement occurs when a group of people who represent a community agrees to come together to help guide a decision about a project or issue that affects them.

  It’s a structured process, where evidence and diverse perspectives are provided to participants, who then ‘deliberate’ options and come to a consensus about a way forward.

  As Sally Hussey writes, “At its core, deliberation requires weighing up competing arguments around policies and public decisions in a context of mutually civil – and diverse – discussion.”

  Often (but not always), participants in deliberative engagement are selected through a two-step process to enable a random selection of participants to fulfill a representative demographic quota. They form a deliberative panel, also known as citizen juries, community panels, local partnerships, and consensus conferences, and so on. Deliberative panels may come together for a one-off session, a series of sessions (pre-determined, with dates set in advance), or be ongoing.

  Deliberative community engagement can be used to guide policy and strategic direction, and help make decisions about complex challenges.

  A digital deliberative process is one that takes place online, using digital tools and methods.

  How does deliberative community engagement differ from other engagement methods?

  With other engagement methods, you tend to hear from people who are interested in a topic and want to share an opinion through available channels. While this is valuable in gathering general sentiment, there is no guarantee the responses will truly represent the diverse opinions across your community, or that you will hear from those who often don’t have a voice. There is also no way of knowing how well respondents understand the issue/topic at hand, particularly if it is complex.

  Why undertake a deliberative process?

  Generally, you should consider using deliberative engagement when:

  • an issue or project is likely to impact a wide range of people
  • an issue or project is complex or multi-dimensional
  • there is a need and opportunity to rebuild trust with your community
  • there is a need to find common ground between polarised views on an issue
  • there is a genuine opportunity to empower your community.

  What are the benefits of online deliberative community engagement?

  Fundamental to deliberative community engagement is the ability of participants to think broadly and deeply about information and views being presented to them in a respectful environment. With digital deliberative community engagement, that environment is online.

  Some of the key benefits of digital deliberation include:

  • a safe and moderated environment for dialogue and deliberation
  • greater inclusiveness (through digital accessibility features)
  • greater flexibility in how participants engage
  • transparency throughout the process
  • easy access to relevant data, research and other information
  • meaningful connections between participants, and between participants and facilitators.
  • ability to engage at a time that is convenient for participants
  • reduced barriers to geographic location
  • reduced costs of participant travel, accommodation and hire costs, and catering.

  These benefits can help build trust in the process and between participants and the decision-making organisation.

  Why is deliberative community engagement important?

  Deliberative community engagement allows people who truly represent a community to make informed recommendations about a complex topic or issue that affects them.

  It provides an opportunity for the community to have a voice at the table in a way that reduces barriers, creates connections, and engages in meaningful and supportive ways. It’s an inclusive process, offering opportunities for participation regardless of age, gender, ability, geographic location, cultural background personal resources, values, or beliefs. The method provides a structured environment in which perspectives can be shared and understanding of an issue increased through evidence and expert presenters.

  Deliberative community engagement also empowers the citizens who participate. It demonstrates to the community your commitment to open and transparent decision-making, in turn, building trust between community and government.

  By bringing diverse voices to the table, deliberative engagement enables contrary views and potential tensions to emerge and be managed in a structured, respectful manner. This in turn adds to the depth and richness of reaching consensus. It can often mean engaging with rather than avoiding difficult conversations.

  Deliberative panels, once no longer active, can also continue to be advocates for the resultant outcomes in the community.

  What are the outcomes of a deliberative community engagement process?

  The aim of a deliberative community engagement process is for your representative panel to reach consensus on the advice it wants to provide to decision-makers on the topic or issue under deliberation.

  This advice (often a statement or series of recommendations) is then presented to the relevant decision-maker. How much influence this advice will have on any final decision, policy or direction MUST be understood from the start.

  Note: When using deliberative community engagement, you need to be prepared to relinquish control and accept unpredictable outcomes.

  How does it work?

  There are eight key components to a deliberative engagement process or methodology.

  Design and build a digital platform	Your first step is to create the online environment in which your digital deliberative engagement will take place. It will be an accessible, one-stop shop where participants can access everything (and everyone) they will need throughout the process.
  Defining the remit	This involves clearly defining the challenge/remit for deliberation and what is negotiable. Often this can be posed as a question with clear parameters.
  Recruiting participants	This is where you look at the ‘shape’ of your community, as defined by criteria including gender, age, ability, and cultural background, and you recruit a sample of people to match that profile as closely as possible.
  Once your deliberative panel is in place:
  Setting the scene	You now convene and run one or more structured sessions with participants (including – or exclusively – online), providing evidence and expert speakers to support discussion. You will: define the challenge and explore the human context define why it’s important set expectations on what can be influenced. Participants must be able to trust each other, which means that confidentiality is respected and dialogue is respectful. They must also suspend assumptions and preconceptions in the interest of the common good. Expression of difference is encouraged.
  Exploring and investigating	In this step, the panel is guided to ideate on how to solve problems/challenges using design thinking. Participation takes various forms as appropriate at different stages throughout the discovery and decision-making process.
  Dialogue and deliberation	Participants are empowered to influence the process and are given ample time to question and reflect on the material, presentations, and discussions.
  Consensus	After informed discussion and deliberation, participants are facilitated/guided to reach a consensus on a recommended way forward.
  Evaluation	This way forward can then be tested with the wider community.

  How many people should be involved?

  Research tends to indicate that groups between 40 and 100 are most effective for deliberative engagement depending on the population. Smaller groups may not be truly representative, and larger groups can reduce genuine interaction between participants from different backgrounds. Larger groups can also lead to factions.

  Digital Deliberative Community Engagement

  Online deliberative processes mirror the face-to-face processes, but with additional key principles.

  Equitable technology access	Participants must have equitable access to online technologies and resources
  Equitable abilities access	The digital technologies and formats provided must enable people with different abilities and capacities to participate
  Commitment to goodwill	Online dialogue is about reading, listing, watching, and learning. As with other forms of deliberative engagement, participants are required to enter the dialogue with goodwill towards other participants.
  Commitment to openness and fairness	Online dialogue is about writing, speaking, expressing, and being heard. Participation must be open, fair, and equitable through both the recruitment and facilitation processes. Status is suspended in favour of open discussion. Some form of within-group anonymity may be designed into the process.

  Things to think about:

  The Challenge	Why is this challenge/opportunity important? To what degree can deliberative engagement influence decision-making? What is negotiable?
  General Understanding of the Challenge	How well understood is this issue in the community? What can you do to educate your community (‘preparing the ground’ for those who may be invited to join the deliberative process)?
  Tools, Activities, and Information Needed	How will deliberation occur? Will participants meet in person or online (or a combination of both)? What digital tools will you use? What information do participants need to understand the context of their deliberations? Who will they need to hear from?
  Participant Recruitment	How will you do this? Will you use an independent third party? What does ‘representative’ look like in your community? What does it look like for this particular topic/issue? How do you increase inclusiveness where needed? Will you pay participants for their time?
  Coordinating and running sessions	Will you manage the deliberative engagement in-house, or will you engage an independent third party? Have you established a charter or terms of reference? Is everyone clear on the outset of their role, responsibilities, and scope of influence? How will you manage strong personalities? How will you manage conflicts and disagreements among members? Is consensus the end goal? What happens if your panel can’t reach a consensus?
  Managing other stakeholders	Is it appropriate to invite elected members and senior staff to present or speak to the panel?

  
  

  Learn more about what to look for when seeking online deliberation software.