Kalowski, J (2008) Community consultation: Lessons from Sydney. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 161(2), pp. 65-69. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
This paper describes the mechanisms and potential benefits and pitfalls for community consultation on major infrastructure projects, based on the author's 20 years of experience as a community liaison group facilitator in Sydney, Australia. It reports in particular on lessons learned from consultations on two major projects: the Epping to Chatswood railway and the Cross City Tunnel. Despite being run along similar lines, consultations on the former were widely considered a success by all parties whereas the latter degenerated into open hostility, with negative long-term consequences for the project and its promoters.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure planning; public-private partnerships |
| Index terms: | infrastructure project, infrastructure planning, community consultation, partnership, Australia, major project, facilitator, lessons learned, promoter, tunnel |
| Subjects: | Geography, practitioner, strategic project management, professional development, sociology, partnership management, infrastructure and transport systems, participation process |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here