Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Community Engagement for Urban and Regional Futures

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures

  • 48 Accesses

Abstract

The infrastructure necessary to support development of urban and regional futures must be technologically and environmentally robust while meeting the day-to-day needs of communities. Community engagement will play a critical role in improving understanding of priority community needs, developing the local relationships necessary for successful infrastructure delivery, and managing social risks associated with development. This chapter provides readers with an introduction to community engagement theory, practice, and challenges. It presents an Australian case, drawing on the Australian National University Institute for Infrastructure in Society’s (I2S) development of the Infrastructure Engagement Excellence (IEE) Standards to demonstrate the important interconnections between best practice community engagement and capacity to deliver the urban and regional futures that will support socio-environmental sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F.-P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhtar, S., Bhattacharya, A., Buchoud, N. J. A., Hendriyetty, N. S., & Yoshino, N. (2021). How quality infrastructure can bring private sector finance into infrastructure investment to recover from the Covid-19 crisis. www.G20-insights.org: G20 Global Infrastructure Hub.

  • Albrecht, G. (2005). ‘Solastalgia’. A new concept in health and identity. PAN: Philosophy Activism Nature, (3), 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S. (2013). No more sun shades please: Experiences of corporate social responsibility in remote Australian mining communities. Rural Society Journal, 22, 138–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S. (2014). What gives you a social licence? An exploration of the social licence to operate in the Australian Mining Industry. Resources, 3, 62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility as institution: A social mechanisms framework. Journal of Business Ethics: Springer, 143, 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S., & Moffat, K. (2014). Social licence to operate and impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32, 257–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S., Brueckner, M., & Pforr, C. (2017). Putting social license to operate on the map: A social, actuarial and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model). Resources Policy, 53, 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S., Poole, A., & Sullivan, H. (2018). Public policy in the ‘Asian century’. In Concepts, cases and futures (1st ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S., Neely, K., & Einfeld, C. (2019). Next generation engagement: Setting a research agenda for community engagement in Australia’s infrastructure sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78, 290–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bice, S., Emerson, S., & O’Connell, K. (2021). State of infrastructure and engagement report: 2019–2020. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanc-Brude, F., Chen, G., & Whittaker, T. (2016). Towards better infrastructure investment products? A survey of investor’s perceptions and expectations from investing in infrastructure. Singapore: The EDHEC Infrastructure Institute-Singapore and Global Infrastructure Hub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T., & Youngs, R. (2015). The complexities of global protests. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Publications Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, R., & Devine-Wright, P. (2018). A ‘delivery-democracy dilemma’? Mapping and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20, 499–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D., Frere, M., West, S., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Developing and using local community wellbeing indicators: Learning from the experience of Community Indicators Victoria. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 45, 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R., & Franks, D. M. (2014). Costs of company-community.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11, 421–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Martinis, M., & Moyan, L. (2017). The East West link PPP Project’s failure to launch: When one crash-through approach is not enough. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desouza, K. C., & Jacob, B. (2017). Big data in the public sector: Lessons for practitioners and scholars. Administration & Society, 49, 1043–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead – Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einfeld, C., Bice, S., & Li, C. (2018). Social media and community relations: Five key challenges and opportunities for future practice. Extracting Innovations: Mining, Energy, and Technological Change in the Digital Age, 287–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built – And what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25, 344–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, F. (2011). The paradox of regulation: What regulation can achieve and what it cannot. Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C., Hodges, J., & Schur, M. (2003). Infrastructure projects: A review of canceled private projects. World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, B., & Bice, S. (2014). Social impact assessment, social development programmes and social licence to operate: Tensions and contradictions in intent and practice in the extractive sector. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32, 327–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42, 441–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, G., Greve, C., & Boardman, A. (2017). Public-private partnerships: The way they were and what they can become. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76, 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAP2. (2015). Quality assurance standard in community and stakeholder engagement. Brisbane: IAP2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infrastructure Australia. (2019). Australian infrastructure audit 2019. Sydney: Infrastructure Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infrastructure Australia. (2020). Common principles of infrastructure recovery (COVID19) [Online]. Canberra: Infrastructure Australia. Available: https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/common-principles-infrastructure-recovery-covid-19. Accessed 12 Dec 2020.

  • Infrastructure Partnerships Australia. (2019). Australian infrastructure investment report 2019. Sydney: Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5, 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, D., & Owen, J. R. (2013). Community relations and mining: Core to business but not “core business”. Resources Policy, 38, 523–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legacy, C. (2016). Transforming transport planning in the postpolitical era. Urban Studies, 53, 3108–3124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legacy, C., Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2017). Planning transport infrastructure: Examining the politics of transport planning in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Urban Policy and Research, 35, 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legacy, C., Cook, N., Rogers, D., & Ruming, K. (2018). Planning the post-political city: Exploring public participation in the contemporary Australian city. Geographical Research, 56, 176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, M., Guo, L., Yu, M., Jiang, W., & Wang, H. (2020). The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and general public – A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandarano, L., Meenar, M., & Steins, C. (2010). Building social capital in the digital age of civic engagement. Journal of Planning Literature, 25, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mati, J. M., Wu, F., Edwards, B., El Taraboulsi, S. N., & Smith, D. H. (2016). Social movements and activist-protest volunteering. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, M. C., Hoggett, P., & Miller, C. (2007). Navigating the contradictions of public service modernisation; the case of community engagement professionals. Policy & Politics, 35, 667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffat, K., & Zhang, A. (2014). The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resources Policy, 39, 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montemurro, N. (2020). The emotional impact of COVID-19: From medical staff to common people. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 87, 23–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62, 424–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T., & Jo, S. (2018). The future of public participation. In Conflict and collaboration: for better or worse (p. 75). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nish, S., & Bice, S. (2012). Participatory planning and monitoring in the extractive industries. In New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and method (pp. 59–77). Chelthenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, A., & Stapleton, P. (2017). Examining the use of corporate governance mechanisms in public–private partnerships: Why do they not deliver public accountability? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76, 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, L., & Glaeser, E. (2021). Debate: Funding infrastructure investment in a post COVID-19 economy [Online]. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/debate-funding-infrastructure-investment-in-a-post-covid-19-economy. Mckinsey Insights. Accessed 27 Nov 2021.

  • Vanclay, F., Esteves, A. M., Aucamp, I., & Franks, D. (2015). Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. International Association for Impact Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vella-Brodrick, D. (2017). Community engagement in infrastructure: Fostering well-being and resilience. [Online]. www.nextgenengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Next_Gen_Expert_Commentary_Series_Vella-Brodrick-1wldapv.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2018.

  • Victorian Auditor General’s Office. (2017). Public participation in government decision-making. Melbourne: VAGO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwalf, S., Hodge, G., & Alam, Q. (2017). Choose your own adventure: Finding a suitable discount rate for evaluating value for money in public–private partnership proposals. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76, 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Sara Bice & Kirsty Jones

  2. School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Sara Bice

Authors
  1. Sara Bice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsty Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Bice .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Our Future Water, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Robert C. Brears

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Bice, S., Jones, K. (2022). Community Engagement for Urban and Regional Futures. In: Brears, R.C. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87745-3_269

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation