Community Engagement Practice for effective SIA in the extractive sector in NSW

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PRACTICE FOR EFFECTIVE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS IN THE EXTRACTIVE SECTOR IN NSW, AUSTRALIA

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY ARCH9092 URBAN REPORT UNIT COORDINATOR- A/PROFESSOR NANCY MARSHALL PHD PREPARED BY Nayonika De

Contents: Abstract 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Research questions 1.3 Methodology 2 Literature review 2.1 Involving the communities in planning and decision making 2.2 Climbing on and off the participation ladder 2.3 Models of public participation 2.4 Difference between community engagement and public participation 2.5 Social Impact Assessment and community engagement are not alike 2.6 Community engagement for SIA practice 3 Case study discussion 3.1 Narrabri Gas Project 3.2 Gloucester Gas Project 4 Analysis 4.1 Going beyond IAP2 and heading towards Co-production 4.2 What is Co-production?

5 Conclusion 6 Recommendations 7 Limitations and future research directions 8 Bibliography

Acknowledgement I am really grateful to my professor, Nancy Marshall, my supervisor, Scott Daniel Perugini Kelly, my friends and family for their immense guidance and support in completing the unit ARCH9092 Urban Report.

PAGE 01

Abstract

Community engagement methods have been in use since the time the governments and the extractive sectors around the world felt the need to engage the people in decision and policy making processes. Australia too followed in the footsteps of the US and included participation as a part of EIA and SIA in 1974. Since the 2000s there has been a massive shift from public participation to community engagement. The immediate question arises if it exhibits an evolved way of contemplating the participation process, or is it the use of terms interchangeably. In Australia, the extractive sectors have made use of the IAP2 public participation model.

With the advent of the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Social Impact Assessment Guidelines for the State Significant Mining petroleum production and extractive industry development in 2017, the IAP2 model has been extensively applied as a community engagement model in various extractive projects in NSW. The practice of the existing IAP2 model of community engagement further leads to questioning the efficacy of the model. This research has been initiated to comprehend the current IAP2 method and find an effective model of community engagement that efficiently addresses the social impacts of the extractive projects in NSW and also involves communities efficiently in the decision making process.

Keywords: Community participation, decision making, community engagement, public engagement, Social Impact Assessment, policy making 1 Introduction 1.1 Background

The rising concern over the relation disruption between the mining sector and the local communities in the past few decades (Basu, Hicks, Skoko and Sherley, 2015) has led to the evolution in the approach to communicate with the public (Parsons and Moffat, 2014) for the extractive sector in NSW, Australia. This evolution derives from the fact that the extractive industries are accountable and responsible towards the communities residing in the mining regions that are beyond legit and socio-economic determinants (Parsons and Moffat, 2014). The recent infrastructure growth and mining development (Parsons, 2019) in NSW has contributed to unavoidable social changes to the lives of the people who are vulnerable and do not hold the power to influence the decisions (Parsons, 2019) in relation to the state significant projects.

PAGE 02

The power dynamics of the government and the private stakeholders in relation to communicating with the communities has led to the evolution of the community engagement methods and practices around the world including NSW. Prominent cases of communication gap and noninclusivity in the decision making for the extractive projects have been identified in NSW. This has led to the demand for inclusive community engagement and clarity in the communication process for the extractive projects has resulted in the formulation of SIA Guidelines with the section of community engagement in 2017 in NSW. 1.2 Research questions

The gap in the communication process introduces the next immediate question of whether the existing community engagement model is effective in dealing with the rising disconnect between the communities and the government and the extractive companies in NSW. Subsequently, it culminates in the examination of the present community engagement model practiced in NSW. The research is concentrated on understanding if there is an effective way to engage with the communities in the mining regions of NSW? And is there an opportunity to improve on the community engagement model.

1.3 Methodology

The research has been meticulously structured to identify the opportunities to improve the existing community engagement model practiced for the extractive sector in NSW. The framing of the research questions commences with the identification of gaps in the literature on communicative planning and participation and community engagement models leading to thorough literature review. The research has focused on shaping the knowledge, studying the issue and identifying the scholarships. The methodology includes: defining the problem, literature review, research statement, research design, analysis and conclusion and further research opportunities.

Knowledge shaping

The author developed the topic of interest with the assistance of mind map and study of literature with the keywords on communicative planning, public participation, community engagement, community involvement, Social Impact Assessment and extractive industry. An in depth study was undertaken to comprehend the subject matter and develop questions eventually.

PAGE 03

Study of the issue

After rigorous study of the relevant literature, the opportunities were identified for further research based on the research questions.

Scholarships and theory identification

While undertaking the research few significant scholarships were identified based on which the literature review was initially framed. The ladder of citizen participation, IAP2 and co-production model are the prominent scholarships studied in order to address the research questions this paper is attempting to address.

Case study and analysis

The desktop research on secondary data for the existing community engagement model, i.e. IAP2 led to the selection of the case studies in NSW. And further research and analysis of the chosen case studies assisted the author in refining the literature review.

Proposal of new model and recommendations

Based on the literature review and the case study analysis, a new model of community engagement known as the co-production model has been proposed along with the recommendations. This paper also includes limitations and further scope of research.

2 Literature Review

According to Prof. Chester Rapkin* (refer to the note in the last page) since the 1900s urban planning around the globe has turned more inclusive in scope by involving the economic, land and built environment, social and political policies (Soen, 1981). The shift from end-state plans to more comprehensive and flexible plans formulated for the future development, has encouraged urbanism to interact with the interests, needs and concerns of the various communities (Soen, 1981). Arnstein in the 1960s had stated that citizen participation in urban planning is a continuum (Kotus, 2012) and now, the involvement of the communities considered a prerequisite for the effective and efficient execution of any urban renewal projects (Soen, 1981). The governments in both the developed and developing nations around the world have recently passed legislative regulations to engage communities for socially and environmentally impactful project decisions (Momtaz and Kabir, 2018).

PAGE 04

Irvin and Stansbury (2004) have also asserted that increased community engagement in the government policy and decision making system has numerous benefits but also argue that positive outcomes are what are envisioned when it comes to collaborating with the citizens in the planning and policy making for favorable environmental and social changes (Arnstein, 1969, 2007, 2019, Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). * Chester Rapkin: "Recent Development in Community Participation in Urban Planning in the United States".

Research Statement

With comprehensive research this literature review supports the viewpoint on improving the existing model of community engagement in NSW for the extractive projects and to effectively and efficiently communicate with the communities for better outcomes for both the project and the society.

2.1 Involving the communities in planning and decision making

In practice as well as in concept, the existing neoliberal governance system considers ‘community’ to be powerful for a productive and sustainable growth (Mayes, McDonald and Pini, 2013) and thus involves them in the decision making mechanism. Community engagement is mainly promoted as collaborative approaches to frame the local socioeconomic and environmental corollaries (Mayes, McDonald and Pini, 2013). The established research views community engagement as vital to reinforcing democracy and mitigating serious environmental and social problems (Hurlbert and Gupta, 2015). Nelson and Wright (1995), Irvin and Stansbury (2004) have argued the community engagement process as the medium for social reform that produces better decisions and thus leads to the progress of society. The furtherance of the society is dependent on process and end results (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). The societal progress also includes the amenities that need to be anticipated i.e. the involvement of the benefactors like the government, private institutions and the communities in assessing the efficacy of the community engagement process which will help to overcome the constraints of policy making (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). Involved and informed communities apprehend the practically complex situations and pursue holistic and community wide resolutions (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). The intention to achieve cooperation from the communities is what motivates the governing and policy making bodies to delegate their decision making tasks to the engaging public to ameliorate policy outcomes by becoming aware of the community priorities (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004).

PAGE 05

On the other hand, Ostrom (1990), Irvin and Stansbury, (2004) state that collaborative planning and decision making systems perform best when the participating groups are relatively small and homogenous. Until these small public participants represent a constituency, there is no assurance by the governing institutions that each participant is able to persuade in his or her community. Irvin and Stansbury, (2004) state that the complacency of the public gives a strong argument for the top-down governing authority to disregard public participation on the grounds of effectiveness and efficiency. Lawrence and Deagen (2001) emphasize and imply that in situations where the citizens are likely to agree on the mandate of the decision making body, the public involvement process is nonessential (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). Involving the communities in the decision making process led to the development of participation methods, one of them being Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation.

2.2 Climbing on and off the participation ladder

The classic “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” continues to frame our perception of community participation beyond planning (Rosen and Painter, 2019). For the past few decades, Arnstein' s ladder has been used as a benchmark by the policy makers and planning practitioners to promote community engagement (Tritter and McCallum, 2005). Arnstein, 1969, 2007, 2019 and Soen, 1981 consider public participation as an irrefutable term for power to the public (Arnstein, 1969, 2007, 2019 and Soen, 1981). It is the delegation of power that authorizes the excluded public, to be included to share the amenities the affluents are benefitted from and influence for a major social change (Arnstein, 1969, 2007, 2019).

However, Arnstein's citizen participation framework is entirely focused on power to participate in the decision making process and acquiring this control is the key objective of public participation, which restricts the understanding behind the challenge of efficiently involving the communities in the decision and planning involvement process (Tritter and McCallum, 2005, Rosen and Painter, 2019). Such a weightage on power presumes that it has a generic ground for citizens, private developers, government and policymakers and disregards other relevant learning and expertise (Tritter and McCallum, 2005). Arnstein’s participation theory imparts partial authority to the public (Rosen and Painter, 2019). Arnstein’s model includes communities in a restricted way and fails to distinguish between method, typology of user and results (Rosen and Painter, 2019). The participation ladder by Arnstein is onedimensional, based on the citizens’ power to respond in the formal planning and decision-making systems (Rosen and Painter, 2019).

PAGE 06

With this realization, different professionals and authors have designed models to involve the communities in the decision making process.

2.3 Models of public participation

Today the literature comprises varied levels of public participation models and community engagement models (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013) and they have ameliorated to surpass the popular participation ladder by Sherry Arnstein (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016).

These models offer ‘best practice’ guidelines for professionals (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013). The linear and the nonlinear participation models illustrate the levels of community involvement in policy and decision-making with distinct participation methods from noninvolvement to tokenism to citizenship control (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013; Stakeholder participation: Arnstein’s ladder, 2016). The involvement level initiates with manipulation to informing the communities where the concerned organizations provide the with minimum information about particular projects to placation where the organization listens to the communities and ultimately to partnership where extended involvement of the communities take place. According to Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat (2013) collaboration with the communities includes the organizations to delegate authority and resources to the communities. The below chart shows the location of consultation in various engagement and participation models. A distinctive attribute amongst all the community engagement and public participation models relevant for the extractive and other sectors, is the position of the most prevalent terms - consultation (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013).

Source: Scales of community participation (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013)

PAGE 07

It signifies that consultation goes above and beyond informing and educating the communities, but at the same time, it is lesser than active community engagement (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013).

Additionally various reports and guidelines use the term community consultation equivalently to community engagement and community involvement (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013). Though it does not exactly indicate that bigger participation is always advantageous, many researchers and professionals have recommended that the level of participation should be based on the situation (Ross, Buchy and Proctor, 2013; Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013). Lately, the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), has framed the standard model for public participation applicable to all the nations. The values in IAP2 portray standard principles, asserting “communities impacted by any judgement have the right to be included in the decision-making process” (Parsons, Lederwasch and Moffat, 2013; Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016).

2.4 Difference between C.E and public participation

Since the early 2000s there has been a shift from the use of the term public participation to community engagement in various government, public and private discourse (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016). The prominent international body for the engagement of various communities and stakeholders, International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) has admitted to using the term public participation and community engagement reciprocally (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016). Public participation as specified and defined by IAP2 is “a process that includes the public in the decision making mechanism and utilizes public feedback to make decisions and policies. It involves identifying the issues and opportunities, developing options and making decisions. It uses processes that are generic to a number of communication fields” (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016). The IAP2 also exhibits its range of public participation with the use of both the terms (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016). It has been framed to choose the range of participation that will define the role of the communities in the process of community engagement (IAP2 2016; Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016). Australasia has been affiliated to IAP2 and the public participation model by IAP2 is applicable (IAP2 Australasia, n.d.) for various industries and institutions.The major difference between public participation and community engagement is that, public participation is specific to particular projects by the government and other industries, while community engagement is regarded as a continuous two-way or multiway process where relationship with the stakeholders rather than the

PAGE 08

decision outcomes are much more focused on (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016). Thus, community engagement is an adaptive method for any organization to achieve positive relations preferably, by learning from and with the communities (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016).

According to Aslin and Brown (2004), community engagement transcends public participation and community involvement. It includes grabbing the attention of the communities and diverting it towards the issues that will likely impact them and they have the right to be informed about it (Aslin and Brown, 2004). Community engagement focuses on committing and executing as a process that has consequences from decisions by the government and other organizations (Aslin and Brown, 2004).

This concept of community engagement has crucial consequences where people engage to understand the issues and actively participate and advocate on the issues that impact them (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016).

Hence, in community engagement, communities are the organizers and advocators where they are not restricted to the externalities of proposed projects, decisions and plans (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016). Aslin and Brown (2004) have argued that community engagement has benefited the environment.

Aware, informed and engaged communities take responsibilities to protect themselves and their surroundings (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016).

2.5 Social Impact Assessment and community engagement are not alike

It is crucial to involve the affected communities in analyzing the social impacts (Vanclay, Esteves, Aucamp and Franks, 2015) of the state significant projects in NSW, Australia. Conventional top-down decision making methods called Decide, Announce, Defend is an ineffective method for a sustainable growth. Alternatively, Meet, Understand, modify has been heralded (Vanclay, Esteves, Aucamp and Franks, 2015). SIA comprises an analytical research process that impacts the decision making process and planning for social issues (Burdge and Robertson, 1990; Vanclay, Esteves, Aucamp and Franks, 2015).

Community engagement is a continuous and an effective way to tackle the socioeconomic issues which includes substantial and good faith communication among the stakeholders including the communities to influence policy and decision making (Burdge and Robertson, 1990; Vanclay, Esteves, Aucamp and Franks, 2015). To the contrary, public participation processes include the requirement to inform the communities and permit them to voice their opinions about the planned intervention (Vanclay, Esteves, Aucamp and Franks, 2015).

PAGE 09

2.6 Community engagement for SIA practice

The functioning of the various extractive industries operating in the different regions in Australia and elsewhere have massive social, economic and environmental impacts on the local communities residing in the periphery of the mines (Lin, Li and Bu, 2014). Also, in land use and infrastructure planning Social Impact Assessments (SIAs) have become increasingly significant (Parsons, 2019, Gomez, Donovan and Bedggood, 2014) thus providing advocacy on evaluating the capacity to administer the social impacts of their projects (Gomez, Donovan and Bedggood, 2014). Communities also constitute a part of stakeholders that are immensely influenced by the extractive industry activities(Lin, Li and Bu, 2014). Public inspection is being carried out for the different mining companies to analyse their effects on the communities and society in general (Cesar and Jhony, 2020). The extractive sector has seen an increased number of social conflicts happening between the extractive industries and the surrounding local communities (Davis and Franks, 2014, Cesar and Jhony, 2020). Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is undergoing changes both in terms of evolution and revolution (Parsons, 2019).For example, NSW in the past has witnessed urban and infrastructure growth and its consequences intensifying in Sydney, and mining growth in the Hunter Valley region (Parsons, 2019). The communities irrespective of extractive or non extractive projects functioning, are living with continuing inevitable social changes (Parsons, 2019). State Significant projects like the WestConnex, Narrabri gas project and coal-seam gas and coal mining, have had considerable social impacts and community objection but at the same time the expectations of the public has evolved (Parsons, 2019). Communication and provision of information on the projects is crucial and this is why, there is a need for discussion on both practise and development of community engagement as a part of SIA (Parsons, 2019). For example, community participation is central to practise sustainable urban development and the developers and practitioners need approval of the communities for significant planning and decision making projects (Thomson and Boutilier 2011; Luke 2017; Luke, Brueckner and Emmanouil 2018; Parsons and Moffat 2014a).

Therefore, there is a high demand from the public to both government and private developers to thoroughly evaluate how the State Significant projects might impact the locals, before the approval and finalization of such projects (Parsons, 2019).SIAs however have a scope to further improve (Parsons, Everingham, Kemp 2018).

PAGE 10

And it requires improvement to work with diverse communities with varying beliefs, values systems and interests that are existent in the various societal situations (Lockie, 2001, 2012, Gomez, Donovan and Bedggood, 2014).

The quantitative variables divert the attention from serious social impacts towards easily recognizable and measurable impacts (Ahmadvand et al., 2009, Gomez, Donovan and Bedggood, 2014). This means there are sociocultural impacts which are overlooked (Lockie, 2001, 2012, Rowan, 2009).

The inattention paid towards the social issues of the communities residing in the vicinity of the mining areas leads to tense relationship with the government and the extractive sectors. Gomez, Donovan and Bedggood (2014) have argued that community engagement within the initial stage of the SIA is either disregarded or inconsistent in practice. It is significant to understand that collaborating and empowering the communities help the private and government stakeholders to initiate and continue state significant projects. In response, the co-production model has been identified that empower the communities and their inclusive engagement can be crucial in the decision making processes.

Below is the co-production model that will be further discussed in this research.

Source: From Citizen Control to Co-Production, 2019

3 Case study discussion

The increasing pressure on the extractive companies to gain social acceptance by extensively involving the local communities (Wilson, 2016; Koivurova et al., 2015; Tuulentie et al., 2019). has led to designing strategies of community engagement.

PAGE 11

The engagement process has evolved from delivery of information (Hanna, 2000; Tuulentie et al., 2019) by the government and other stakeholders to an interactive method of communication for decision making by the communities and empower them (Hanna, 2000; Tuulentie et al., 2019).

The Co-production model acknowledges and expresses the significance to involve the communities by including them and empowering them in the process of decision making.

The following case studies have been selected to study how the existing IAP2 model has worked to involve the communities in the decision making process of the extractive projects in NSW. 3.1 Narrabri Gas Project

Situated in the Pilliga region, south of Narrabri, NSW, Santos has proposed to develop the Narrabri Gas Project (Narrabri Gas Project, 2020).

This State Significant Development (SSD) project aims to build a new gas field along with improving its associated infrastructure to assist in the sound functioning of the gas field. The project will provide gas in NSW (Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements, n.d.; Narrabri Gas Project, 2020).And as stated by DPIE, this project is of public good as it will secure gas supply for NSW (Taylor and Park, 2020). This claim is derived from Santos’ commitment to supply gas entirely to NSW (Taylor and Park, 2020). The extractive project consists of critically miscalculated hazards to the surrounding communities, the existing water resources and the ecosystem (Taylor and Park, 2020). Professor Deanna Kemp (2017) has identified the social impacts of this project based on the SIA report.

The SIA for the Narrabri Gas project does not consider the social impacts of diverse groups within the communities residing in the periphery of this project (Kemp, 2017). Solely the landholders have been recognized and consulted as a major group to discuss their grievances arising from this project and the major discussion was composed on local tourism and trade (Kemp, 2017). The socio-economic impacts on the disadvantaged people and their housing crisis were disregarded (Kemp, 2017). The Chapter 9 of SIA Community and stakeholder consultation, Santos is restrained in engaging with the vulnerability of the marginalized sections and considering (Kemp, 2017). The community engagement process lacks information clarity as mentioned by Kemp (2017).

The question arises, to what extent the communities were involved and their views were considered in the management of the social impacts caused by this project? And if the engagement was inclusive enough?

PAGE 12

“The engagement and the advocacy for open cut mining and for coal seam gas in this region has been done badly by the state. And the ones who could do community engagement and advocacy—mainly the shires— were not involved. The state didn’t involve them and say, hey look we can’t handle this, can we have your help?”

(Community stakeholder) (Askew and Askland , 2016).In the Narrabri Gas Project, the discussion on ambiguity and information availability surfaced and the communities despite trying to engage with the project couldn' t succeed to derive accurate information about the process of the project (Holmes, Measham, Jeanneret and Kear, 2018). The communities by observing the oversight in the procedures to involve them in the project, hesitated to trust both the government and the private company (Holmes, Measham, Jeanneret and Kear, 2018).

3.2 Gloucester Gas Project

This project is situated in the Gloucester region, about 62 miles from Newcastle, New South Wales. This proposed project had a huge potential to cater the gas supply requirements in NSW (Luke, Brueckner and Emmanouil 2018).In the year 2009, the commencement of community consultation reported conflict (Grubert and Skinner, 2017) to an extent where the extractive company was barred access to the resources and services in the region (Grubert and Skinner, 2017). Ultimately in 2016, the outcome was the withdrawal of the project by the CSG company (Luke, Brueckner and Emmanouil 2018). Transparency and data accessibility issues have been identified along with the difficulty to information interpretation (Holmes, Measham, Jeanneret and Kear, 2018) in this particular project.

4 Analysis

These case studies highlight how crucial community engagement procedure is in the industry-community relationship and conflict resolution (Luke, Brueckner and Emmanouil 2018) for the state significant projects to continue and benefit NSW and its people. Though mitigating the social impacts is significant but the flawed community engagement processes have lowered the trust of the communities towards the industry and hence the acceptance rate is low even if the impacts have been mitigated (Walton and McCrea 2020).The NSW Government is a crucial actor in maintaining a good relation with the extractive industry as this project will secure gas supply for NSW (Taylor and Park, 2020) and also with the communities impacted by the Narrabri Gas Project (Walton and McCrea 2020) to continue the project in the region.

PAGE 13

According to Hindmarsh and Alidoust, (2019) and Maloney (2015) the pro CSG NSW Government exhibited strict rules surrounding CSG plans, potential environment and social impacts and community consultation and information. The Greens considered the community consultation process to be weak and poorly regulated and put forward recommendations on community engagement by reflecting on the limited “inform and consult� form of community engagement (Hindmarsh, 2010; Hindmarsh and Alidoust 2019).Another notable issue in the public participation and community engagement process has been identified on the regulation and reliability of information (Hanna, 2000) provided by the extractive sectors and other stakeholders. Community engagement has been effective in conducting collaborative fact finding in which the communities can question the information supplied to them (Ozawa, 1991) and provide their input to the stakeholders that can be beneficial in the decision making processes in the long run (Fischer, 1993, 2002). Coproduction framework has significantly transformed the communication and participation between the communities and the other stakeholders.

4.1 Going beyond IAP2 and heading towards Co-production

The prerequisite for the involvement of the communities started with environmental and socio-economic decision-making with the introduction of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA), from 1974 in Australia (Ross, Baldwin and Carter, 2016).

The existing public participation and community engagement processes extends to varied alternative practices (Head, 2008). But at the same time, there is no doubt in terms of evident ambiguity under which the community engagement process is established (Head, 2008). In fact, this issue's intensified and is intentional by the use of imprecise terms in the community engagement practices (Head, 2008). This ambiguity keeps the communities in doubt about the engagement processes. IAP2 public participation and community engagement process has caused ambiguity of various terms (Head, 2008) which has been officially used in NSW since 2017 for the extractive and state significant development projects. IAP2 has readily accepted to have used the public participation and community engagement terms interchangeably. Rather than looking at the community government communication as the conventional two way process of engagement, where the communities react to the extractive project proposals from the government and the private stakeholders (Innes and Booher, 2007), there should be a multi-way communication where the communities have a stronger voice to influence the decisions of the extractive sector before the approval of the extractive projects (Innes and Booher, 2007).

PAGE 14

It is also crucial to understand the power dynamics and limitations of the organizations (Head, 2008). This standpoint is critical in comprehending the existing nature of the government to collaborate with the stakeholders including the communities (Osborne 2000; Mandell 2001; Head 2008). The co-production model, unlike the conventional engagement models, has viewed communities as active participants with strong opinions who can influence decision making (Rosen and Painter, 2019) thus alerting the power dynamics and empowering themselves. The individuals in the communities have different levels of awareness, information and involvement that caters to efficacious participation (Cavaye 2004; Head 2008). Capacity building is pivotal for successful engagement of the communities (Head, 2008) for any project (Head, 2008). It bridges the gap for the individuals in communities to be informed and hence empower them to contribute in the decision making process effectively and efficiently irrespective of the scale of the project (Head, 2008). The model of co-production provides an inclusive model of community engagement that gives more power to the communities (Rosen and Painter, 2019).

4.2 What is Co-production?

Though the community engagement process for the extractive sector in Australia and around the world has been complicated and filled with challenges (Booth and Halseth, 2011; Tuulentie et al., 2019), the role of community engagement in urban planning is regarded as place-specific and is mainly based on the stipulated planning initiatives (Healey, 2004; Lane, 2005; Tuulentie et al., 2019) which also includes the mining sector.

Also, the role of community engagement involves providing information and knowledge (Bruckmeier and Tovey, 2008; Hanna, 2000; Tuulentie et al., 2019) that is crucial for the communities and social acceptance of the extractive companies.In the literature of urban planning, the model of coproduction is gaining prominence (Wamsler, 2017). Co-production contemplates the contribution of both the Government and the communities’ knowledge and skills in the planning and implementation (Wamsler, 2017) of state significant development projects in NSW. This model is based upon the science and policy along with the public private partnership (Wamsler, 2017). Co-production includes explicit involvement of the communities (Sarzynski, 2015; Wamsler, 2017) in different phases of the decision making process. The Co-production model’s main objective is to surpass the conventional (Wamsler, 2017) involvement and collaboration structure and adapt to the evolved and gradual transformation to achieve resilience in the planning and decision making system (Wamsler, 2017).

PAGE 15

This model specifically presents a long term process to transform the power dynamics among the stakeholders including the communities (Rosen and Painter, 2019). Thus, a co-production model characterized by persistent and explicit collaboration leads to uninterrupted information exchange among the communities, government and the private stakeholders (Rosen and Painter, 2019). The dynamic and collaborative process of engagement in each phase of the project provides the communities with resources and power delegation authority (Rosen and Painter, 2019). This indicates long term benefits for both the stakeholders undertaking significant projects and decisions and as well as the communities.

5 Conclusion

The models of public participation and community engagement have come a long way and still have a long way to go. In this era of neoliberalism, the power dynamics and the relation among the government, extractive sectors and communities play a key role in determining the execution of the extractive projects in NSW. Narrabri and Gloucester Gas projects studied in this paper have presented the prevailing process of community engagement and have led to analysing and proposing a new community engagement model known as the coproduction model. This model is an initiative to reduce the communication gaps through explicit participation of the communities in exchanging information with the government and the extractive companies. The co-production model encourages multi-way interaction and delegation of authority to the communities thus influencing the policy decisions.

6 Recommendations - The NSW Government is responsible to coordinate with the extractive sector to function efficiently (Walton and McCrea 2020). At the same time it is important for the government and the private stakeholders to support capacity building of the locals and empower the diverse communities (Walton and McCrea 2020). It is of utmost importance to improve the community engagement process to gain trust of the communities (Walton and McCrea 2020) which can be done through the co-production model. - Fairness of the community engagement procedure to build and maintain the relationship with the communities should be practiced to provide amenities and attain the desired community outcomes (Walton and McCrea 2020).

PAGE 16

- Based on the discussed case studies, the Social Impact Assessments of the extractive projects should also include the detailed social impacts of the proposing, planning and involving the communities regarding the extractive projects along with including the social impacts of the extractive projects proposed (Grubert and Skinner, 2017). - Essentially, the planning practitioners should transcend public participation beyond community engagement and involvement, using a robust, long-term community engagement model, with capacity building and resource allocation, to make sustainable and resilient communities (Rosen and Painter, 2019).

7 Limitations and future research directions

The limitations are based on the analysis of this paper and the literature studied for this research work that can assist in future studies. This research is restricted and future study will broaden the discussion of the topic of effective community engagement model. Future research scope consists of investigating the existing co-production model that will assist to understand if the top-down approach by the NSW Government is still effective in involving the communities in decision making. In terms of quantifying the research, this research paves a way to explore the correlation between the existing co-production model and the dynamics of faith of the communities in the government and the extractive sector.

Furthermore, indepth research on the existing co-production model can lead to new models and approaches of community engagement in all the sectors including mining. The community engagement model has been developed based on the desktop research and no interviews or survey was undertaken to analyze this research topic.

This research is based on the extractive sector in the remote locations of NSW. Consequently, the research outcomes based on the case studies can't be considered for the non extractive projects in the metropolises.

Most of the extractive companies do not have absolute relations with the diverse communities and henceforth, it paves the way to further examine the effects from the mining activities like, inclusion of human rights and involvement of the aboriginals, even before the inception of the extractive projects. This research has not considered the perceptions of the mining communities of NSW. Further study could focus on studying the role community engagement plays in making the extractive sectors more sustainable as per the Sustainable Development Goals 2030.

8 Bibliography

Adams, V., 2012. Mining And The Environment: The Future Of Australia’S Brand. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/mining-and-the-environment-thefuture-of-australias-bran d-8094 Ahmadvand, M., Karami, E., Zamani, G. and Vanclay, F., 2009. Evaluating The Use Of Social Impact Assessment In The Context Of Agricultural Development Projects In Iran. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S019592550900050X? token=E6EFA036936C4A4FBE8EAC20DB6B3236C378079B49AEDFDB8D5A376F274B2398F05E D51FABFB28FA538AD1D38E918F6B Andrea Sarzynski, Public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in cities,Urban Climate, Volume 14, Part 1, 2015, Pages 52-67, ISSN 2212-0955, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.08.002. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212095515300158 Annie Booth, Greg Halseth, Why the public thinks natural resources public participation processes fail: A case study of British Columbia communities, Land Use Policy, Volume 28, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 898-906, ISSN 0264-8377, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.03.005.

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837711000263 ANU. 2016. Stakeholder Participation: Arnstein’S Ladder. [online] Available at: https://i2s.anu.edu.au/resources/stakeholder-participation-arnsteins-ladder Arnstein, S., 2007. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation: Journal Of The American Institute Of Planners: Vol 35, No 4. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01944366908977225?needAccess=true Askew M, Askland HH. 2016. Local Attitudes to Changing Land Use – Narrabri Shire. Summary Report. December 2016. Newcastle, NSW: The University of Newcastle, NSW Department of Primary Industries Aslin, H. and Brown, V., 2004. Towards Whole Of Community Engagement: A PRACTICAL TOOLKIT. [online] Open research-repository.anu.edu.au. Available at: https://openresearchrepository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/77450/2/1831_towards_whole_of_community_engagem ent_toolkit.pdf Bruckmeier, K. and Tovey, H. (2008), Knowledge in Sustainable Rural Development: From Forms of Knowledge to Knowledge Processes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48: 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00466.x Burdge, Rabel & Robertson, Robert. (1990). Social impact assessment and the public involvement process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 10. 81–90. 10.1016/01959255(90)90008-N. Cavaye, J., 2004. Governance And Community Engagement: The Australian Experience, In Participatory Governance. [online] Semanticscholar.org. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Governance-and-Community-Engagement%3A-TheAustralian-Lovan-Murray/b33249a7e7d7a1165ea2fbe780edb00d33e6c838

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cesar, S. and Jhony, O., 2020. Making Or Breaking Social License To Operate In The Mining Industry: Factors Of The Main Drivers Of Social Conflict. [online] Reader.elsevier.com.

Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0959652620336854? token=A58600BB2F 0B77C643558268FDC6751882A494FA8FD3465FE40B77FC1F94F8D05572678B151 A28ED27E987076F6981DD Chandra, V. and Harindran, A., 2017. Research Methodology. Pearson. Dare, M., Schirmer, J. and Vanclay, F., 2014. Community Engagement And Social Licence To Operate. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14615517.2014.927108?needAccess=true Davis, R. and Franks, D., 2014. Costs Of Company-Community Conflict In The Extractive Sector. [online] Shift project. Available at: https://shiftproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/Costs_of_Conflict_Davis-Frank s.pdf Fischer, F. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 26, 165–187 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999715 Fischer, F., 2002. Citizens, Experts, And The Environment: The Politics Of Local Knowledge. [online] Socialnaekonomija.si. Available at: http://socialnaekonomija.si/wpcontent/uploads/Citizens__Experts__and_the_Environment__The_Politics_of_Local_Knowled ge.pdf Getting results through collaboration; networks and network structures for public policy and management. 2002. Reference and Research Book News, 17(1),.

Gomez, A., Donovan, J. and Bedggood, R., 2014. Social Impact Assessments: Developing A Consolidated conceptual Framework. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0195925514000742?token=0FF3A22F0B 84942B6C3F6DA9B4582D27961681BCE483784B11752FC748AF1A7BB944F3EA894 4AC5331EAA7D6BF12938F Grubert, E. and Skinner, W., 2017. A Town Divided: Community Values And Attitudes Towards Coal Seam Gas Development In Gloucester, Australia. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2214629617301706? token=088666E68E97AEA6C9F3A8B2768E18A587A7B95EC12B062E8FDD124244FA602050C7E9 E4A1F67FD111A7779C488B2EBF Hanabeth Luke, Martin Brueckner, Nia Emmanouil, Unconventional gas development in Australia: A critical review of its social license, The Extractive Industries and Society, Volume 5, Issue 4, 2018,Pages 648-662, ISSN 2214-790X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.10.006.

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X1830234X Head, B., 2008. Community Engagement: Participation On Whose Terms?: Australian Journal Of Political Science: Vol 42, No 3. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10361140701513570?needAccess=true Healey P. (2004) The Treatment of Space and Place in the new Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe. In: Müller B., Löb S., Zimmermann K. (eds) Steuerung und Planung im Wandel. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80583-6_17

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hindmarsh, R., 2010. Wind Farms And Community Engagement In Australia: A Critical Analysis For Policy Learning. [online] Duke University Press. Available at: https://read.dukeupress.edu/easts/article/4/4/541/60966/Wind-Farms-and-CommunityEngagement-in-Australia-A Holmes, C., Measham, T., Jeanneret, T. and Kear, J., 2018. Decommissioning Coal Seam Gas Wells. [online] CSIRO. Available at: https://gisera.csiro.au/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/Social-9-Final-Report.pdf Hurlbert, M. and Gupta, J., 2015. The Split Ladder Of Participation: A Diagnostic, Strategic, And Evaluation Tool To Assess When Participation Is Necessary. [online] Science Direct.

Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1462901115000131?token=EDEA70CD0 864D3FE1A0B03F32D1F5096C4C91EEBA7FE2B86DBA4AC19A807D0E41703115EC C1014962855F5C18D8F54EE IAP2 Australasia. n.d. About IAP2 Australasia | IAP2 Australasia. [online] Available at: https://www.iap2.org.au/about-us/about-iap2-australasia/ IPCN. 2020. Narrabri Gas Project. [online] Available at: https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/projects/2020/03/narrabri-gasproject/referral-from-the-department-of-planning-industry-and-environment/dpie-finalassessment-report.pdf Irvin, R. and Stansbury, J., 2004. Citizen Participation In Decision Making: Is It Worth The Effort?. [online] JSTOR. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3542626? seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Judith E. Innes & David E. Booher (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century, Planning Theory & Practice, 5:4, 419-436, DOI: 10.1080/1464935042000293170 Kemp, D., 2017. Narrabri Gas Project Social Impact Assessment Preliminary Review And High-Level Gap Analysis: Questions To The Proponent. [online] Majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au. Available at: https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?

AttachRef=SSD-6456%2120200611T102337.692%20GMT Kevin S. Hanna (2000) The Paradox of Participation and the Hidden Role of Information: A Case Study, Journal of the American Planning Association, 66:4, 398-410, DOI: 10.1080/01944360008976123 Kotus, J., 2012. Position Of The Polish City On The Ladder Of Public Participation: Are Wegoing The Right Way? The Case Of Poznan. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0264275113001285?token=E9F567F9E1 AC1C775E1A67A9AC8DD35FD4E2751ECAC5B02401774CC5786604AFFD6E25AD11 6B1D87C23C4F66C45C8B20 Liang Ma & Xia Wu (2020) Citizen engagement and co-production of e-government services in China, Journal of Chinese Governance, 5:1, 68-89, DOI: 10.1080/23812346.2019.1705052 Lin, P., Li, B. and Bu, D., 2014. The Relationship Between Corporate Governance And Community Engagement: Evidence From The Australian Mining Companies. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S030142071400083X?token=6A9E5236B2 157F464944069DCF92616291AFBF6E1630E79C677B122A4030027A91E0163CFE2 6D37E776A1330102B08E7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lockie, D., 2012. SIA In Review: Setting The Agenda For Impact Assessment In The 21St Century. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3152/147154601781766952?needAccess =true Majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au. 2010. Gloucester Gas Project. [online] Available at: https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?

AttachRef=MP08_0154%2120190807T055705.842%20GMT Marcus B. Lane (2005) Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history, Australian Geographer, 36:3, 283-299, DOI: 10.1080/00049180500325694 Martin, N. and Rice, J., 2019. Coal Seam Gas Projects: Proposed Policy Model For Compensation And Benefits Sharing. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0301420719300066? token=6097E049AC7AB54C1E32A4743CF485025CA760772551DA48FFDA6157A9A4299804F3A93 CB58E95077D78E1492DDDCC0B Mayes, R., McDonald, P. and Pini, B., 2013. ‘Our’ Community: Corporate Social Responsibility, Neoliberalisation, And Mining Industry Community Engagement In Rural Australia - Robyn Mayes, Paula Mcdonald, Barbara Pini, 2014. [online] SAGE Journals. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1068/a45676 Momtaz, S. and Kabir, S., 2018. CHAPTER 6 Evaluating Community Participation In Environmental Impact Assessment. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/B9780128150405000061?token=8E50EBE 76AAAEF69020BFEC16EF99888A3FA25AE1DD142B1290631313404B3559D431841 C9EE78C8ACD432D34798087E Olivier Boiral, Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria, Marie-Christine Brotherton, Corporate sustainability and indigenous community engagement in the extractive industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 235, 2019, Pages 701-711, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.311. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619322887 Osborne, S. (2000). Public-Private Partnerships. London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203207116 Ozawa, C., 1991. Recasting Science Consensual Procedures In Public Policy Making. Westview Press.

Parsons, R., Lederwasch, A. and Moffat, K., 2013. Clermont Preferred Future: Stakeholder Reflections On A Community Foresight And Planning Initiative. [online] Pdfs.semanticscholar.org. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d12/53868e93e6cfecb6cbb98b857edacf2535aa.pdf? _ga=2.105207235.1178115174.1604896784-476286826.1604896784 Parsons, R. and Luke, H., 2020. Comparing Reflexive And Assertive Approaches To Social Licence And Social Impact Assessment. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2214790X20302021?token=80C8530589C05 86E9E69C32744DAF3D9456F0AFFC81749B2F6144A80AFF684619B287CD65F14F 0EDB7A9A0CFE9EDD1DF Parsons, R., 2019. Forces For Change In Social Impact Assessment: Impact Assessment And Project Appraisal: Vol 38, No 4. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14615517.2019.1692585?needAccess=t rue&

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Parsons, R. and Moffat, K., 2014. Integrating Impact And Relational Dimensions Of Social Licence And Social Impact Assessment. [online] Research Gate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265340606_Integrating_impact_and_relational_di mensions_of_social_licence_and_social_impact_assessment Parsons, R., Everingham, J. and Kemp, D., 2018. Developing Social Impact Assessment Guidelines In A Pre-Existing Policy Context: Impact Assessment And Project Appraisal: Vol 37, No 2. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14615517.2018.1485612?needAccess=true Planning.nsw.gov.au. 2017. Social Impact Assessment Guideline For State Significant Mining, Petroleum Production And Extractive Industry Development September 2017. [online] Available at: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Guidelines/social-impactassessme nt-guideline-2017-09.pdf Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. and Johnson, B., 1993. Public Participation In Decision Making: A Three-Step Procedure. [online] Research Gate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226518377_Public_Participation_in_Decis ion_Making_A_Three-Step_Procedure Richard Hindmarsh, Sara Alidoust, Rethinking Australian CSG transitions in participatory contexts of local social conflict, community engagement, and shifts towards cleaner energy, Energy Policy, Volume 132, 2019, Pages 272-282, ISSN 0301-4215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.035. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303398 R.M. Colvin, G.Bradd Witt, Justine Lacey, How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia, Energy Policy, Volume 98, 2016, Pages 483-494, ISSN 0301-4215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.022.

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516304888 Rosen, J. and Painter, G., 2019. From Citizen Control To Co-Production: Moving Beyond A Linear Conception Of Citizen Participation: Journal Of The American Planning Association: Vol 85, No 3. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01944363.2019.1618727?needAcce ss=true Ross, H., Baldwin, C. and Carter, R., 2016. Subtle Implications: Public Participation Versus Community Engagement In Environmental Decision-Making. [online] Tandfonline.com.

Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14486563.2016.1194588? needAccess=true Rowan, M., 2012. Refining The Attribution Of Significance In Social Impact Assessment. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3152/146155109X467588?needAccess=true Sara Bice (2015) Bridging corporate social responsibility and social impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33:2, 160-166, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2014.983710 Soen, D., 1981. Citizen And Community Participation In Urban Renewal And RehabilitationComments On Theory And. [online] Oxford Academia. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/cdj/article/16/2/105/269076 Taylor, M. and Park, S., 2020. A Contentious NSW Gas Project Is Weeks Away From Approval.

Here Are 3 Reasons It Should Be Rejected. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/a-contentious-nsw-gas-project-is-weeks-away-from-approvalhere-are-3-reasons-it-should-be-rejected-144201

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tritter, J. and McCallum, A., 2005. The Snakes And Ladders Of User Involvement: Moving Beyond Arnstein. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0168851005001314?token=64FE047AE8 937DE5464F9F54006C06090A3AB0EFD397CAD7C5531E93B3DF8474738B38F5CD0 06FFFBB574F837932647F Tuulentie, S., Halseth, G., Kietäväinen, A., Ryser, L. and Similä, J., 2019. Local Community Participation In Mining In Finnish Lapland And Northernbritish Columbia, Canada–Practical Applications Of CSR And SLO. [online] Elsevier. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0301420718305993? token=18C611B2BFFF9885DE8B6BFF11F9898BDEBFD69DBF51A023D0C011659288EBE56D1920F C526696508237EE69AE59F7A1 Vanclay, F., 2012. International Principles For Social Impact Assessment. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3152/147154603781766491?needAccess =true Walton, A. and McCrea, R., 2020. Understanding Social Licence To Operate For Onshore Gas Development: How The Underlying Drivers Fit Together. [online] Reader.elsevier.com.

Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S030626192031237X? token=BEDC8290C5BA7061963DA7688F275928D4C97CC44DC5434D2665E1A34E8A90C6BC872 4D356D8A75527402AAFEFB32C22 Wamsler, C., 2017. Stakeholder Involvement In Strategic Adaptation Planning: Transdisciplinarity And Co-Production At Stake?. [online] Reader.elsevier.com. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1462901117301296? token=0794B4AF6953BE052FBBFE0069581FD5526DA476D9754AE3A272F4D34C4E8FE17702FC 2FB9D5193E12CF4D0C3DA8C799 Wilson, E., 2015. What Is The Social Licence To Operate? Local Perceptions Of Oil And Gas Projects In Russia’S Komi Republic And Sakhalin Island. [online] Elsevier. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2214790X15001318? token=6282925764D19EA02DF96F70CED55E92A4C5C901D558628E9B74EB602E829043914FC3 A0E2373DCDDED71927DF9E5ABA Wondolleck, JM, Manring, JA & Crowfoot, JE 1996, ‘Teetering at the top of the ladder: the experience of citizen group participants in alternative dispute resolution processes’, Sociological Perspectives, vol. 39, pp. 249–262. doi: 10.2307/1389311