Public Engagement and Feedback Analytics

28 March 2020

Before studying Master of Urban Planning, I worked as an Urban Planner in the Ministry of National Development (MND) Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and I was involved in several public engagements of various types and scale. Public engagement is an important communication channel between planners and stakeholders and it is an important source to collect information and feedback from the community; which provides valuable insights and statistical evidences for agencies to plan projects to meet local needs. Nevertheless, the greatest challenge for public engagement is to choose the most appropriate engagement method for the selected target audience and purpose.

For the "Reimagining Tampines” research project, we utilized 7 engagement methods, namely – stocktaking of ongoing projects, ground audit, user count, user observation, pop-up booth, walking conversation and community workshop, to identify gaps in infrastructure provision, engage local stakeholders and gather feedback from the residents of Tampines. The collected data were analysed and used to design solutions to address gaps and improve local planning and development coordination. As each method has its pros and cons, planners need to use a hybrid of approaches to ensure data collected is objective and comprehensive. For example, walking conversations and community workshops are the more intimate form of engagement that allows planner to establish personal and trusted communication with the residents. However, the information collected might not be objective due to the small sample size and discussions might be dominated by a few vocal minorities. On the other extreme, pop-up booths allow planner to reach out to a larger target audience and the community could feedback anonymously. However, the information collected might not be in-depth or statistically significant. Planners might also receive unexpected feedbacks (e.g. many residents feedback that there are too many covered walkways, making the town looks ugly) during pop-up engagements.

I worked closely with colleagues from government agencies, Ministry of Law (MinLaw), Members of Parliament (MP) and grassroot leaders to resolve encroachments on State Land by properties off Jalan Kayu. After several discussions with the MP, the agencies unanimously agreed not to regularize or sell the land to the affected owners because it will send the wrong signal to the public that land owners can lease or purchase land cheaply through illegal encroachment. We organized a series of engagements with the affected property owners, grassroot leaders and the MP to inform the owners to remove their encroachment by the stipulated deadline. I research intensively on the background and legal policies, which were useful in responding to the difficult enquiries. I also had the opportunity to assist MinLaw with the closed-door engagements with members of affected golf clubs whose lease were not renewed upon expiry; the engagements became rowdy at times.

Therefore, it is important for Urban Planners to be properly trained in planning, organizing and managing public engagements. Planners must know how to engage the community, which includes attentive listening, observation of non-verbal cues, management of dominative participants and handling of unexpected feedbacks. Planners must also filter noise, Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) feedback and grassroot leaders lobbying for personal agenda from the engagements. As reaction and feedback collected from public engagements are important source of primary information, Planners must know how to analyze and interpret the findings objectively; which can be assisted by technology (e.g. Excel, GIS, R, Python). The ePlanner is a very powerful analytical tool that is able to support the findings with information from other sources (e.g. ez-link transaction). I am looking forward to the public version of ePlanner, which will be of significant help in urban analysis. Furthermore, based on evidences gathered, Planners might also need to ‘fight’ productively with colleagues from other agencies to ensure the proposed projects meet the needs of residents.

References
1. Guo, R., Twu, S.M., Lee, L.F. & See, B.P. (2018). Tampines Liveability Blueprint 2018 Addendum. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
2. Guo, R. (2018, May). Rejuvenating Mature Towns: Some Lessons from Tampines. CLC Insights, 37.
3. Chang, Y., Yang, J., Song, M., Guo, R., Phua, S.H., Sim, J., Ruan, N. & Koay, X.Y. (2017). Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.
4. Khoo, L., Boh, J. (2018). Engaging Well, Forging Bonds: The Community as Stakeholders in Urban Development. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.

[This is an essay submitted for "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" module on 28 March 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5111 Planning Technologies" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP).]

Labels: ,

Public Engagement and Feedback Analytics   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.