Methods of Public Participation - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 159

opportunities for the public, or selected representatives from particular interests or com-
munities, to join a conversation, share ideas, collaborate on projects and build relationships
through electronic communication. Online discussion based consultations utilize Internet-
based discussion tools, including Email Lists, Live Chat, Web-based discussion boards,
and/or Group Collaboration applications.
FORMAL GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Questionnaires and surveys. These methods aim to determine public attitudes and percep-
tions on various issues, through a structured questioning process carried out by the pro-
ponent. To avoid potential misinterpretation of the i ndings, the survey must be carefully
designed to ensure that the surveyed individuals accurately represent the community as a
whole. The disadvantages of this method are its high demand upon personnel resources
and the lack of a two-way dialogue.
Public meetings. Such meetings require the proponent to make a presentation describing
the project and the relevant issues, which is then followed by a question and answer ses-
sion. These should be held at a central facility, readily accessible to the community. Public
meetings are relatively inexpensive. The information provided by the proponent should be
kept simple in order to communicate with a wide section of society; otherwise the discus-
sion may fail to be benei cial to the proponent or the public.
Public hearings and inquiries. These are more formal than public meetings and are viewed
as the traditional method of public participation in many jurisdictions. However, many
individuals are unwilling to voice their opinions in such a formal setting where the discus-
sion is highly structured. They are also time-consuming and tend to be expensive for all
parties wishing to present their case. Nevertheless, they provide an opportunity for two-
way communication to occur.
Group presentations. These involve presentations given by the proponent to specii c com-
munity groups. They allow the proponent to focus upon specii c issues relevant to the
audience and to select an appropriate level of detail. Discussion after the presentations
allows feedback and prevents thuds misinterpretation of the information. The restricted
coverage of all of the issues at these meetings may preclude the audience from receiving a
realistic overview of the project.
Workshops. These are most effective for discussing and identifying solutions to problems,
scoping of potential impacts and creating other plans of action. However, they are lim-
ited to using small groups of selected community representatives and require extensive
organization by the proponents, which make them expensive.
Source: based on University of Manchester EIA Center 1995.