Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study

JPMA-01735; No of Pages 12

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx – xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study Jingyu Yu a,⁎, Mei-yung Leung b,1 a

b

School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Tunxi Street, Hefei, Anhui, China Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Received 4 May 2014; received in revised form 17 January 2015; accepted 27 January 2015

Abstract Public engagement (PE) is increasingly employed to gauge public opinions and obtain their support on large-scale planning and development projects. Despite its booming development, there is a lack of research on how to prepare PE activities. In order to explore the factors of preparing PE activities in the construction industry, four focus groups were conducted, each including different stakeholders (e.g., PE organizers, construction professionals, interest groups, and local residents). Seven critical factors for preparing PE were identified into 3 main dimensions: (1) social (e.g., governmental support and bottom-up consultation approaches); (2) project (e.g., project characteristics, PE program, and project information and publicity); and (3) stakeholder (e.g., stakeholder identification and representative sampling). Based on the results of focus groups, we propose several practical recommendations to stimulate active engagement and improve performance of PE activities, including developing PE guidelines, preparing project information with appropriate language and formatting, and establishing stakeholder identification methods. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Construction projects; Focus group; Preparation; Public engagement

1. Introduction The government widely supports the use of public engagement (PE) in construction projects (Ogunlana et al., 2001). PE involves actively exchanging information and viewpoints between the government, construction professionals, non-governmental organizations, and the general public (Petts, 2007). Engaging multiple stakeholders is thought to be the most efficacious path to not only more acceptable project products, but also the empowerment of the public through the provision of more authority in the decision-making process (Hajer and Kesselring, 1999). However, it is still challenging to apply PE in large-scale infrastructure

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13003061547. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Yu), [email protected] (M. Leung). 1 Tel.: +852 34421742.

projects. In various countries and areas such as Australia, Hong Kong, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States, PE activities have still been perceived as a means of defusing opposition and falsely representing public expectations (Cheung, 2011; Cundy et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2000). In order to improve performance, PE is required to engage representative stakeholders in early stages of construction projects (Reed, 2008). However, engaging multiple stakeholders is timeconsuming and expensive (Brandt and Svendsen, 2013). More efficient planning and preparation of PE activities save additional resources and engage appropriate stakeholders (Roberts, 2004). Although the preparation of PE activities is crucial for specifying project issues, identifying stakeholders, and ensuring projects' success, relevant studies focusing on the preparation of PE in large-scale construction projects are still rare (Elton Consulting, 2003). In order to explore critical factors for the preparation of PE activities, focus groups were recruited, by inviting various kinds of stakeholders who engaged in different PE activities. In the current paper we address the opinions of multiple stakeholders

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015 0263-7863/00/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

2

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

and recommend several practical implications for future preparation of PE in construction projects. 2. Public engagement PE is a team decision-making process that involves representative stakeholders participating in different stages of the project in an effort to solve common issues, fulfill their needs, improve final project outcomes, and promote social cohesion (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Leung et al., 2012; Williams, 2003). In recent years, the general public has expressed concern with sensitive issues, such as democracy, quality of life, and sustainable development (Chiu, 2005). The requirements of different stakeholders might be contradictory (e.g., economic benefits of development projects versus environmental impact and historical value). To strike a balance between conflicting public views, the government pledged to apply PE in the construction industry, especially in large-scale development projects, such as the major infrastructure projects in Hong Kong (Li et al., 2012), the transportation projects in the United States (Stave, 2002) and the urban planning projects in Switzerland (Joerin et al., 2009). PE refers to a high level and long period of public involvement in decision making processes in order to achieve greater recognition and legitimacy of project outcomes (Lim et al., 2005; Rowe et al., 2008). In practice, construction projects with PE are normally of high sensitivity and complexity. PE organizers for construction projects, thus, need to divide the whole PE process into several continuous stages (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Stave, 2002). Diverse activities (e.g., exhibitions, online forums, surveys, workshops, focus groups, public forums, and even Facebook) can be applied in different stages (Aaltonen, 2011; Lim et al., 2005). With so many activities involved, it is crucial to develop a PE program for organizing PE activities and encouraging active engagement (Chappel, 2008). PE assists stakeholders' exchanges of viewpoints and information. Background information for construction projects, including project environment, constraints, and issues, needs to be specific and clear (Elton Consulting, 2003; Picazo-Vela et al., 2012). Information presented in a concise, thoughtful manner is useful, but too much information can be overwhelming and misleading (Renn, 2001). It is critical to decide what information should be published and how it will be distributed (Lee and Kwak, 2012). In theory, PE provides an opportunity for multiple stakeholders to not only deepen their mutual understanding of project issues, but also to collectively explore and integrate ideas, thereby generating solutions (Leung and Olomolaiye, 2010). Before PE activities, stakeholders should be identified based on several attributes, including statutory requirements, exiting rights, unique knowledge and skills, degree of influence and interests, and potential impact (Olander and Landin, 2005; Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). PE organizers, through stakeholder identification, determine who to engage in the decision making process, stakeholders' roles, and when and how to effectively engage different stakeholders (Chappel, 2008). Due to the

complex characteristics of construction projects, it is extremely challenging to prepare PE activities and identify appropriate stakeholders in the whole project life cycle (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010). This paper, in an effort to improve the efficacy of PE for large-scale construction projects, uses focus group discussions to explore current practices. 3. Research methodology 3.1. Focus group method Focus group refers to an exploratory group discussion to obtain perceptions on specific topics in a defined environment (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Originating in sociology, it has been increasingly used as a research tool in the social sciences (Merton and Kendall, 1946). Although we were specifically interested in studying PE, as they relate to construction projects, this topic still involves examining social behaviors of multiple stakeholders. Therefore, in the current study, we opted for focus group consisting of a group of participants. Focus groups may involve two (dyad), three (triad), four to six (mini-group), seven to ten (small), or eleven-twenty (super-group) participants (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). In focus groups, individual participant's perceptions, feelings, and experiences are shared and stimulated, so as to widen the range of opinions on specific topics and avoid the drawbacks of individual bias (Fisher, 2011; Morgen and Krueger, 1998). When conducting focus groups, procedural problems, such as moderator bias and dominant voices, need to be minimized (Krueger and Casey, 2009; Smithson, 2000). To minimize the moderator bias, the moderator should encourage participants to share opinions and facilitate the discussion in a non-directive manner (Myers, 1998). It is expected that the moderator is familiar with the topics of group discussion, sets the style and tone of the focus group, indicates the scope and topics of the discussion and ensures that the same issues were addressed (Hurd and McIntyre, 1996; Kidd and Parshall, 2000; Sim, 1998). In the study, the four focus groups were relatively homogenous in terms of representative organizations to prevent dominant voices (Smithson, 2000), as participants with relatively homogeneous backgrounds normally have similar perceptions and experiences related to the same topic. Despite its common pitfalls, focus groups provide natural and comfortable atmospheres for participants to discuss specific issues, such as the preparation of PE activities and identification of stakeholders before PE activities (Tracy et al., 2006). Also, focus groups encourage participants to collectively develop ideas and explore specific issues based on their actual experiences related to controlled topics (Du Bois, 1983). 3.2. Samples To ensure the reliability of data collected, participants were purposively selected if: (1) they had experience engaging in PE activities for construction projects (e.g., focus groups, workshops, and public forums); and (2) they had affected or been

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

affected by the projects (Adams and Schvaneveldt, 1985). Four focus groups were conducted in the study, including the PE organizer (PO) group (representatives of governmental departments), construction professional (CP) group (representatives of private construction companies), interest group (IG) group (nongovernmental organizations, environmentalists, social workers, and district council members), and local resident (LR) group. There were 34 participants in total, including eight participants in the PO group, seven in the CP group, seven in the IG group, and 12 in the LR group. All group sizes were in accord with suggested optimum group sizes (6–12 participants; Krueger and Casey, 2009). Chinese participants in each group were relatively homogeneous with similar organizations (e.g., public, private, and nongovernmental organizations and local residents), but included a combination of different PE projects (e.g., urban planning, residential buildings, highway construction, subway construction, and drainage projects), number of PE activities (e.g., only 1, 1–4, 5–9, and above 10 PE activities), and working experience (e.g., less than 1 year, 1–4 years, 5–9 years, 10– 20 years, and more than 20 years). Participants' detailed background information is summarized in Table 1. 3.3. Data collection The authors taking a role as the moderator first presented the purpose of the study, explained the ground rules (e.g., equality in discussion, no hierarchy, and allowance to freely provide any suggestions, objections, and doubts), and ensured that the discussion would remain confidential. The ground rules and confidentiality arrangements were included to mitigate potential pitfalls in the discussion process (Beasley and Jenkins, 2003). Discussions within the four focus groups were organized according to the same semi-structured framework, thereby enabling systematic data collection and analysis. The discussion followed a predetermined schedule and allowed new ideas to be brought up (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Participants were invited to make a brief self-introduction about their organizations, roles and previous experiences of PE activities. They were then asked about actual experiences and perceptions pertaining to preparing PE activities. The moderator generated participants' interest and encouraged discussions on about specific topics (Sim, 1998). At the conclusion of the focus group discussion, participants were asked whether they had other comments regarding the preparation of PE activities. The focus group ended when no other advice was offered. Qualitative data was collected by audiotapes, worksheets, and immediate note taking in the discussion to ensure reliability (Leung and Chan, 2012). Audiotaping enabled researchers to review discussions in detail from time to time to ensure the validity of the data. On a worksheet, participants reported personal views about preparation activities for PE. The moderator took notes and identified keywords by explicitly writing them clearly in the flip charts when participants freely discussed their opinions. The adoption of immediate note taking on a viewable board allowed participants to review all ideas, stimulate new views and crosscheck the moderator's understanding, in turn

3

Table 1 Background information of participants in focus groups. Background information

Groups

Frequency

Percentage

1 2 3 4 (34 participants) (8) (7) (7) (12) Type of organizations Governmental departments Semi-public organizations Private organizations NGOs Others (retirement)

6 2 0 0 0

0 0 7 0 0

0 0 2 5 0

0 0 5 2 5

6 2 14 7 5⁎

17.6 5.9 41.2 20.6 14.7

Position Planners Project managers Architects Engineers Surveyors Environmentalist Social workers District council members Teachers Small retailers Others (retirement)

2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 5

3 3 3 5 4 3 3 1 1 3 5⁎

8.8 8.8 8.8 14.7 11.8 8.8 8.8 3.0 3.0 8.8 14.7

Working experiences b1 year 1–4 years 5–9 years 10–20 years N20 years

0 1 2 5 0

1 2 2 1 1

0 3 2 1 1

0 0 2 5 5

1 6 8 12 7

2.9 17.6 23.5 35.4 20.6

PE experiences 1 project 1–4 projects 5–9 projects ≥10 projects

1 2 3 2

2 4 1 0

0 2 4 1

2 8 2 0

5 16 10 3

14.7 47.1 29.4 8.8

Project types Urban planning Urban renew Civil engineering Highway Subway Residential building Drainage Others

2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

1 0 3 0 0 2 1 0

1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0

1 1 1 3 6 0 0 0

5 3 6 5 8 4 2 1

14.7 8.8 17.6 14.7 23.5 11.8 5.9 3.0

Gender Male Female

7 1

7 0

6 1

6 6

26 8

76.5 23.5

Note: ⁎ Refers to participants who are already retired.

minimizing the possibility of data misinterpretations. All data were entered into contextual analysis in order to explore critical factors of PE. As a result of the substantial quantity of data generated, only items identified as critical factors for preparing PE activities were discussed.

4. Contextual analysis, results and discussion To explore the current situation, qualitative contextual analysis was employed to code and summarize data by identification of keyword(s) and critical phrase(s) on the basis

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

4

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

of the grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Morgan, 1996). A grounded theory aims to discover a phenomenon and build a systematic explanation for specific topics with representative sampling (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). It has been widely applied in the data analysis process for focus group studies, for example, public engagement (Leung et al., 2014), knowledge management (O'Conner, 2012) and health care (Webb and Kevern, 2001). Based on the grounded theory, contextual analysis began with close examination of the individual responses and identified common keywords which interpreted actual phenomena (Timlin-Scalera et al., 2003). Keywords identified in the current study were summarized in Table 2. Keywords were then classified into different groups and meaningful factors in the study (Glaser, 1978). Critical factors were integrated and synthesized into different dimensions. With the systematic contextual data analysis process, seven critical factors for preparing PE activities were explored and

Table 2 Summary of keywords and factors of preparing PE activities identified by the focus group. PE preparation factors

Social F: Governmental support K: Supportive policies K: PE guidelines K: Administrative system K: Resource support F: Bottom-up approach K: Bottom-up K: Top-down Project F: Project characteristics K: Project complexity/impact/sensitivity K: Preliminary design F: Project program K: PE stages K: PE activities K: Agenda/duration K: Venue F: Project publicity K: Project information K: Distribution K: Multiple media Stakeholder F: Stakeholder identification K: Identify stakeholder K: Power/influence K: Be affected K: Be interested in F: Representative sampling K: Stakeholder sampling K: Representative stakeholders K: Selective stakeholders

Groups PO

CP

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

IG

✓ ✓

LR

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

Note: ‘PO’ — the PE organizer group; ‘CP’ — the construction professional group; ‘IG’ — the interest group group; ‘LR’ — the local resident group; ‘F’ refers to critical factors for preparing PE activities; ‘K’ refers to keywords identified in the data analysis process.

classified into three dimensions: social (including governmental support and bottom-up approach), project (including project characteristics, project program, and project publicity), and stakeholder (including stakeholder identification and representative sampling) (Table 2). To avoid the impact of dominant voices, the analysis process collectively considered opinions within the unit of focus group, rather than individual participant (Smithson, 2000). In order to double check specific characteristics of the data and avoid misinterpretation, researchers re-listened the record taken after the meeting (Morgan, 1993) and also reviewed the keywords and factors identified in the contextual data analysis process. The following subsections offer discussion related to seven critical factors for preparing PE activities. 4.1. Critical factors for preparing PE: social dimension Governmental support and bottom-up consultation approaches were grouped into social dimensions (see Table 3). PE activities required a supportive environment, including governmental policies, relevant guidelines, and sufficient resources (Rowe et al., 2008). In line with previous literature, focus group participants pointed out that the concept of PE had been brought out and was widely adopted in large-scale projects with the government's policy support since 2007 (PO and CP groups; see Table 3). However, results also revealed that current governmental support was problematic, with no PE guidelines, a complicated administrative system, and insufficient inputting of resources (CP, IG, and LR groups). Although a few internal guidelines were developed by different governmental departments (PO group), “there are still no standard guidelines to advise how to facilitate PE step by step” (IG group). The complicated administrative system was divided into multiple layers, which might alienate relationships between local residents and authorities (IG group). Furthermore, a participant in the PO group pointed out that “current tender documents with no clear project scope were obviously unsuitable for PE development.” From the aspect of resource support, participants noted that there was “limited support for taking necessary actions to respond to the needs of local residents” (LR group). Consultants also “hesitated to change preliminary designs based on public opinions, because the increasing workload would not change the fixed consultancy fee” (CP group). Participants in IG and LR groups indicated that they expected to collect public opinions with the bottom-up approach. Although the bottom-up approach is more democratic than the top-down approach for the public to express their voices (Lowndes et al., 2001), the PO group indicated that current PE practices adopt top-down consultation approaches to collect public opinions (PO group). In fact, the functions of the current top-down approach are debated (e.g., PO group versus IG and LR groups), in consistent with previous studies (Fraser et al., 2006). PE organizers from the PO group stated that, “top-down PE approaches conducted by a powerful government might be more efficient” (see Table 3). However, other participants from the IG and LR groups considered top-down PE methods to be less than ideal when dealing with issues

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

5

Table 3 Social dimensions of PE preparation factors. PE preparation factors

Scripts

Social

Groups

Governmental support 1. Supportive policies

PO

2. PE guidelines

Groups

Current problems

The government put forward the concept of community engagement and PE since 2007. CP (PO) Currently, PE is widely used in large-scale governmental projects. PO PO

3. Administrative system PO

4. Resource support

Good practices

PO

CP Bottom-up approach 1. Bottom-up

IG

2. Top-down

PO

Different governmental departments developed a few internal guidelines, but the standard and practical PE guidelines are still missing. IG (CP) Guidelines facilitating PE step by step are not found. PO In practice, governmental tender documents do not include a clear scope of PE. IG (LR) The administrative system is divided into multiple layers, which alienates relationships between local residents and authorities. We contributed ample resources to conduct PE CP Consultants often hesitated to change drawings and activities. designs based on public opinion because the increased workload would not change their fixed consultant fee. LR The relevant departments provided limited support for taking the necessary actions to respond to our needs.

I had visited an incinerator project in Taiwan. The PO project organizers collected public opinions from bottom, which results in that the final project satisfied local residents and maintained community interest. PE is currently a top-down approach, which is more IG efficient. LR

The bottom-up method is laborious and time consuming.

The top-down approach of PE cannot resolve fundamental conflicts among stakeholders' needs. The government often hesitated to collect our opinions from the bottom.

Note: ‘PO’ — the PE organizer group; ‘CP’ — the construction professional group; ‘IG’ — the interest group group; ‘LR’ — the local resident group; (XX) refers to participants in the XX group(s) who mentioned similar statements.

related to stakeholders' vital interests. The top-down PE method “fails to capture the needs of local residents and resolves fundamental conflicts of different stakeholders” (IG group). “The opinions collected by the top-down approach were discrepant from opinions gathered from the bottom” (LR group). Participants from the IG group also mentioned an incinerator case from Taiwan and pointed out the feasibility of the bottom-up approach. “With the collection of the opinions from the bottom, the final incinerator project reflected public opinions and ensured the community interest” (IG group). 4.2. Critical factors for preparing PE: project dimension Project dimension factors included project characteristics, project program, and project publicity (see Table 4). Since not all construction projects were appropriate for PE, PE organizers not only classified project characteristics with respect to project size and its impact, but also determined how to conduct PE processes (PO and CP groups; see Table 4). Aligning with previous studies (O'Faircheallaigh, 2010), PE organizers “often conducted sensitivity analysis and impact assessments to analyze potential impact (environmental, social, and political) and to determine whether or not to use PE in the construction

projects” (PO group). Based on specific project characteristics, preliminary design or schemes were often proposed in the preparation stage (PO and CP groups). To ensure the efficiency of PE, consultants were normally invited to design proposed drawings or preliminary schemes at first, and then later engaged with the public to collect their opinions on the drawings (PO and CP groups). The preliminary design provided the public with a direction when they engaged in the PE decision-making process and helped to avoid infeasible ideas (CP group). However, as indicated by the IG group, the government “often hesitated to revise predetermined proposals, which might restrict the creativities of interest groups and local residents.” They [the government] “pretended to integrate public views because they already had preliminary proposals” (LR group). PE program development was one of the major activities for the preparation of PE, impacting how many PE stages would be involved, what PE activities would be adopted, and where and when PE activities would be conducted (Lim et al., 2005). Three PE stages were often used in this process: envisioning; realization; and detailed planning (PO and CP groups; see Table 4). Diverse PE activities were used, including surveys, briefings, workshops, focus groups, and community meetings (all groups). The dates of PE activities were “arranged on

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

6

PE preparation factors

Scripts

Project

Groups

Good practices

Project characteristics 1. Project complexity/impact/ sensitivity 2. Preliminary design

PO CP CP

We conducted sensitivity analysis to decide PE levels. We considered project size, complexity, and impact. The government is expected to prepare some design scheme for the public and allow the public to observe it and offer comments. We invited consultants to design the preliminary drawings and consider constraints and characteristics of the project.

PE program 1. PE stages 2. PE activities

CP LR CP

3. Agenda/duration

IG PO

4. Venue

CP PO

Project publicity 1. Project information

PO

(PO)

(PO) (PO) (LR)

(CP)

We chose the PE date to avoid the election. We used classrooms to avoid disturbances. The PE venue is selected near the project. We prepared leaflets and websites to inform the public about the project background. Information in the workshop was well-prepared and sufficient (e.g., project objectives, benefits, constraints). We did well in publicizing the PE event and published project information in a transparent manner.

CP 2. Distribution

PE stages (envisioning, realization, consensus building) are feasible. I participated in stages II & III of the tunnel project. We collected opinions from different channels, including surveys, workshops, forums, and meetings. I participated in different PE activities. The date was arranged for the public's convenience (e.g., Saturday).

PO

Groups

Current problems

IG

The government may not change predetermined proposals based on our views. The government pretended to integrate our views or change the initial proposals.

LR

CP

CP:

CP IG CP IG LR

3. Multiple media

PO

(CP)

(IG) (LR)

The timescale for PE processes was too tight — between two and three hours. The venue limited the number of participants.

(LR)

The format and content of the information were inaccessible to nonexperts. The government intended to deliver selective information. The government sometimes kept the PE in a low profile by not publicizing it. The government published PE information 2 days before the forum. Sometimes PE information was only delivered on the internet.

We distributed information through multiple channels, such as newspapers, broadcasts, websites, and online forums.

Note: ‘PO’ — the PE organizer group; ‘CP’ — the construction professional group; ‘IG’ — the interest group group; ‘LR’ — the local resident group; ‘gov.’ — ‘government’; (XX) refers to participants in the XX group(s) who mentioned similar statements.

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

Table 4 Project dimensions of PE preparation factors.

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

7

Table 5 Stakeholder dimensions of PE preparation factors. PE preparation factors

Scripts

Stakeholder

Groups

Good practices

Identification 1. Identify stakeholders

PO

We identified stakeholders based on project characteristics. Depth and width of stakeholders were considered (e.g., geographical positions, social status, and disciplines). PE uses different language/approaches for different stakeholders. We initiated the PE activities and provided resource support. PE activities were requested for the approval of the LegCo. We integrated public opinions in the design and ensured technical feasibility. Prestigious and respectable persons were invited. Social workers could maintain a better relationship with the local community. Our projects could increase property prices. We cared about the vibration impact of the project. I thought the officers cared more about their supporting rate. We engaged in projects related to environmental impact. I, as a social worker, cared more about social fairness.

CP

IG 2. Power/influence

PO (IG) CP

PO IG 3. Be affected

PO (CP) LR (IG)

4. Be interested in

IG (LR)

Representative sampling 1. Stakeholder sampling

PO

2. Representative stakeholders

3. Selective stakeholders

Groups

Current problems

We often controlled the number of participants, i.e., in CP (IG) PE organizers need to expand sample size, workshops (50–70), forums (150), and community which is insufficient. meetings (≤400). PO (LR) We invited representatives of local residents, engineers CP Stakeholders are not representative. I met the and architects, researchers, and District Council members. same persons at different projects. IG The government only invited nongovernmental organizations, with which they had good relationships. LR District council members often could not represent our opinions. CP (PO) Before the project, we consulted with representatives concerning land compensation and environmental issues.

Note: ‘PO’ — the PE organizer group; ‘CP’ — the construction professional group; ‘IG’ — the interest group group; ‘LR’ — the local resident group; ‘gov.’ — government; (XX) refers to participants in the XX group(s) who mentioned similar statements.

Saturday or Sunday for the convenience of the general public” (PO group) and “intended to avoid politically sensitive periods, such as the election of the legislative assembly” (CP group). Based on some participants' personal experiences “workshops took only two to three hours, which was seriously insufficient for team discussion” (CP group). Moreover, venues were often arranged near PE activities, allowing interested stakeholders to visit project sites (PO and CP group). Participants in the PO group mentioned that they “used classrooms of primary schools to avoid intense disturbances.” However, participants mentioned that venues for PE activities were used to intentionally limit the number of participants (CP group). Participants also mentioned the importance of project publicity for well preparing PE activities, which aligns with previous researches (Renn, 2001). First, project information including project site, constraints, potential impact and advantages/ disadvantages of each proposed solution was prepared (PO and CP groups; see Table 4). As construction projects involved too many technical problems, the information should be prepared to

help stakeholders understand the whole project situation (Lowndes et al., 2001). However, other groups expressed current problems such as too many technical construction terms for the general public with limited knowledge (CP and LR groups) and selective information which caused misunderstandings among the public (IG group). Project information pertaining to the PE program was disseminated to the public in a transparent manner, so they can be informed about the PE and attend PE activities (PO group). Multiple media channels were adopted for PE activities, including newspapers, leaflets, advertisements, broadcasts, websites, street surveys, and online forums (PO and CP groups). However, according to an IG group participant, the venue and agenda “were released only 2 days before the public forum.” “The public often did not know the arrangement of PE activities. … Some PE news was only available on official websites, which the public would not routinely view” (LR group). If the public did not know about PE activities, then they could not participate and convey their requirements.

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

8

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

4.3. Critical factors for preparing PE: stakeholder dimension The stakeholder dimension of critical factors for preparing PE activities involved stakeholder identification and representative sampling (see Table 5). All focus groups agreed on the importance of stakeholder identification during PE activities (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010). Due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders, it was vital for PE organizers to “identify appropriate stakeholders and analyze stakeholder characteristics in terms of different projects” (PO group; Table 5). Stakeholder identification in PE activities is required to consider the depth and width of the project's impact and the power and interest of stakeholders (Olander, 2007). Stakeholder power rose from their ability to influence project objectives (PO group), secure resources (CP group), impart technical knowledge (CP and IG groups) and maintain social relationships (IG group) (Table 5). Apart from the power, interests such as political influence (LR group), financial benefits (PO group), living environment (IG and LR groups), education value and fairness to society (IG group) are directly affected by PE activities. For example,

stakeholders might want to “increase their property prices and land compensation” (PO group) and “decrease the vibration impact of the project” (LR group; Table 5). “Different political parties considered their votes and intended to increase their exposure rate and rate of support through PE activities” (LR group). Therefore, stakeholders should be selected from different levels (e.g., grassroots, middle class, and upper class), professions (construction, business, manufacturing, transportation, and education) and types of experiences (e.g., living around, working in or passing by the project area) (PO and CP groups). Different opinions on representative sampling emerged between PE organizers (PO group) and other stakeholders (CP, IG, and LR groups). Aligning with previous studies (Cheung, 2011), all group participants, except those in the PO group, indicated that stakeholders were inappropriately representative with insufficient sample. PE organizers intended to limit the number of participants. For example, workshop participants ranged from 50 to 70, public forums involved a maximum 150 participants, and hall meetings involved less than 400 participants (PO group; see Table 5). However, the current “stakeholder

Table 6 Comparison of critical factors for preparing PE activities. PE preparation factors Good practices

Groups Current problems

PO

CP

– Lack standardized PE guidelines – Administrative system too complicated – Insufficient resource input

+ − − +

+ −

– Fail to collect opinions from bottom

+

– Hesitate to change predetermined proposal

+ +

+ +

– Duration too short for PE activities – Small venue limits no. of participants

+ + + +

+ + +/− +/−

+ +

+/− −

+

+

− − − +

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + +

− − +

− − +

Social Governmental support + Form supportive policies

+ Provide sufficient resource support Bottom-up approach + Conduct PE from top to bottom Project Project characteristics + Consider project complexity/impact/sensitivity + Prepare preliminary design PE program + Adopt multiple PE stages + Use diverse PE activities + Determine agenda for PE activities + Determine venue of PE activities Project publicity + Prepare project information + Widely distribute project information

– Insufficient and unclear information – Inadequate PE publicity – Only available online

+ Apply multiple media channels Stakeholder Stakeholder identification + Identify appropriate stakeholder to engage + Influence PE activities + Be affected by the project + Be interested in engaging in PE Representative sampling + Involve representative stakeholders + Involve stakeholders + Meet relevant stakeholders in advance

– False representation of public opinions – Insufficient sampling of stakeholders

−

IG

− −

LR

− −

−

−

+/−

−

+ −

+ + − − − −

+ + +/−

Note: ‘PO’ — the PE organizer group; ‘CP’ — the construction professional group; ‘IG’ — the interest group group; ‘LR’ — the local resident group; ‘+’ refers to the good practices of PE factors in Tables 3, 4, and 5; ‘−’ refers to the current problems of PE factors in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

sampling was inadequate” (CP group) and should be “more inclusive towards grassroots participants” (IG group). In fact, PE organizers consulted with relevant stakeholders, such as district council members and non-governmental organizations those had friendly relationship with the PE organizers, for some sensitive issues before PE activities, such as land compensation, private land concerns, and environmental issues (PO and CP groups; see Table 5). However, participants in the LR group believed that “district council members and government-friendly interest groups often do not represent the opinions of the local community.” The government should not ignore stakeholder representativeness, with the acquisition of local residents' input important (IG group). In general, participants in focus groups brought out both current practices and problems in PE activities. To critically explore key factors of PE project preparation, the results of both good practices and negative problems were compared (Table 6). In the social dimension, the PO group mentioned statements which were considered as effective practices. Participants in the IG and LR groups mainly stated current problems of strategic factors, including insufficient input, lack of PE guidelines and failure to collect opinions from the bottom. In the project dimension, participants in the LR group found out several problems in the current situation, such as hesitation to change predetermined proposal, insufficient and unclear information, and inadequate PE publicity. Participants in all groups mentioned

9

the importance of stakeholder identification and representativeness, while false representation and insufficient sampling of stakeholders were pointed out by participants in the CP, IG and LR groups. 5. Recommendations 5.1. Practical implication Although critical factors for the preparation of PE activities were explored in the current focus group study, participants still mentioned problems related to current PE practices. Thus, we suggest that PE organizers be made aware of these practical problems and different opinions indicated by other stakeholders. In sum, we offer several practical recommendations to be considered for PE preparation activities (refer to Table 7). Although the government encourages the development of PE, there are still barriers, such as a lack of PE guidelines, a complicated administration system, and insufficient resources. Standardized and detailed PE guidelines are urgently needed to overcome these practical problems, as they aid in the step-by-step facilitation of PE activities, determining who should be engaged, how and when PE should be implemented, and what forms should be applied (PO group). As the current scope of PE is vague, PE organizers should amend rigid tender documents and clarify the specific scope and objectives of PE activities. They should also increase the resources devoted to PE activities,

Table 7 Scripts for practical recommendations for preparing PE activities. PE preparation factors

Groups

Scripts for recommendation

PO PO CP IG (PO)

The government is expected to set up a PE standard. The government should amend the current tender and add a specific clause for PE activities. The government needs to provide resources (time, human, and financial resources) for PE. PE is expected to adopt a bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach might influence the efficiency of PE activities.

Project – Project characteristics

PO

– PE program – Project publicity

IG CP IG

We [the organizers] need to conduct different impact assessments and sensitivity analyses (environmental, social, and political). The government is expected to be open to revising initial designs. The duration of PE activities need to be extended. Project information needs to be prepared in language suitable for lay people. The organizers are expected to use multiple forms of media. Information should be released in advance (e.g., 2 weeks).

Social – Governmental support – Bottom-up approach

LR Stakeholder – Stakeholder identification

PO CP IG

– Stakeholder sample

– CP IG (PO)

The government needs to standardize stakeholder identification methods. Prestigious and respectable persons could be invited as cofacilitators. Stakeholders are expected to pay attention to long-term and overall interests. PE organizers are recommended to use different approaches for different stakeholders. Treat social workers seriously, as they help maintain relationships with local communities. Identify stakeholders based on their unique power and interests. The government needs to seriously take our opinions and engage stakeholders from different disciplines. Stakeholders could be more inclusive and include grassroots participants. Engage representative stakeholders from different disciplines. The total number of the participants in PE activities needs to be controlled to ensure everyone has the opportunity to speak out.

Note: ‘PO’ — the PE organizer group; ‘CP’ — the construction professional group; ‘IG’ — the interest group group; ‘LR’ — the local resident group; (PO) refers to participants in the PO group who mentioned adverse statements; XX refers to the adverse comments raised in the focus group discussion. Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

10

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

including resources of the time, human, and finance varieties (PO group). Two contradictory views were raised about the adoption of a bottom-up approach (PO and IG groups; also refer to Table 3). Thus, since the bottom-up approach remains a debatable topic, further study of its application to PE activities is needed. To better prepare PE activities for large-scale construction projects, it is better to conduct impact assessments and sensitivity analyses, which help PE organizers understand project characteristics and determine PE strategies (PO group). Impact assessments need to cover a range of potential impacts, such as environmental, social, and political impacts. Also, PE organizers should extend the duration of PE activities (CP group) and prepare project information in a language and format accessible to lay people instead of technical terms used by construction professionals (IG group). To better inform the public, we recommend distributing information before PE activities using multiple media channels, such as leaflets, roadshows, exhibitions and websites, online forums, Facebook, and Twitter (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Lee and Kwak, 2012; Raynes-Goldie and Walker, 2008). Despite the preparation of specific issues, organizers are urged to be more open-minded, making the necessary revision(s) to preliminary proposals according to reasonable and feasible public opinions (IG group). The focus group results indicated the importance of stakeholder identification and some practical barriers for stakeholder sampling and representativeness (refer to Table 5). We suggest standardizing stakeholder identification methods and enlarging the sampling scope (PO group). PE activities should be more inclusive, involving more stakeholders, including those classified as grassroots (IG group). However, the total number of participants in PE activities needs to be controlled (PO group). Hence, further research on the determination of stakeholder sampling must be conducted. We recommend that PE organizers identify stakeholders according to stakeholder power (influence) and interests on different projects (Olander, 2007) and also consider different phases during the project lifecycle (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010). To utilize different stakeholder power, prestigious stakeholders should be invited as cofacilitators or moderators of PE activities (PO group). PE organizers should treat social workers as important stakeholders in order to maintain good relationships with local residents. Finally, stakeholders involved in PE activities should weigh the project and overall interests of the community (CP group).

data: (1) only participants who had direct PE experiences were selected; (2) participants with different backgrounds and practical experiences were combined; (3) multiple sources of evidence were collected, including audiotapes, worksheets, and note taking, and appropriate group-based analyses were conducted (matched research questions and design); (4) discussions adhered to an interview schedule (for both participants and the moderator, so as to ensure that all points were discussed and to prevent researcher-induced bias); and (5) sufficient evidence was offered in the results and discussion sections (i.e., direct quotes from participants in different groups; Leung and Chan, 2012). Therefore, we are confident that the study explores general practices and problems in PE activities and that it can also be used to map out a direction for further studies on PE. Although we recommend adopting a bottom-up approach, just how one should go about doing this is still difficult to identify. Since bottom-up approaches might take abundant time and resources, and risk nonuniform public opinions further studies are needed to identify effective and efficient PE approaches that integrate top-down and bottom-up methods (Fraser et al., 2006). Moreover, we explored the importance of stakeholder identification and sampling, but standard criteria to aid in the identification of stakeholders and the determination of stakeholder sampling do not exist. In fact, too many stakeholders can create administrative and resource allocation problems, as well as increase the difficulty of achieving common ground. In contrast, too few stakeholders might cause some key stakeholders to be ignored, leading to problems in the long run (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). It is important to establish a systematic method to determine the number of stakeholders involved in projects. Considering the complexity of construction projects and the diversity of stakeholder attributes, decision-making techniques that account for multiple criteria should be used in stakeholder identification and sampling methods. The current study is the first qualitative study aimed at understanding how best to prepare PE activities for construction projects. The current study results serve as a foundation to design questionnaires for use in further quantitative studies. Future researchers should quantitatively investigate the relationship between identified critical factors for preparing PE activities and final PE outcomes in order to generalize the results revealed in this study. As PE is a resource consuming process, it is also suggested to compare the efforts of implementing an effective PE preparation and the positive results caused.

5.2. Further research 6. Conclusions The current focus group study had a relatively small sample size of 34 Chinese participants, which might have affected the representativeness of our results. However, focus groups, as a qualitative research method aimed at sharing and deeply discussing intimate experiences among participants, do not require large samples (Jones and Forshaw, 2012). In addition, this study adopted a number of credible data collection and analysis procedures to ensure the validity and reliability of its

PE has become a formal means to gauge the public's opinion on complicated construction projects in many developed countries. For PE to succeed, preparation activities are critical. In the current paper, we explored preparation factors of current PE activities through four focus groups, which involved different stakeholders: PE organizers, construction professionals, interest parties, and local residents.

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Through context analysis of the qualitative data, 12 critical factors for preparing PE were identified and classified into three dimensions: social, project, and stakeholder. Social preparation factors focus on the whole environment of the PE application, which include governmental support and a bottom-up consultation approach. Although previous studies indicated that the bottom-up approach is appropriate for PE, the study also found out the controversial opinions on the bottom-up and top-down approaches. With regard to project preparation aspects, the decision of the PE program depends on the project characteristics (i.e., project complexity, project impact, and constraints), and PE organizers need to not only sufficiently prepare project background information and preliminary designs, but also disseminate the relevant information through multiple channels. The stakeholder dimension of preparation factors consists of concerns regarding stakeholder identification and representative sampling. Based on the identified critical factors for the preparation of PE activities and current problems, we proposed several practical recommendations to prepare PE well and improve the efficiency of PE activities: establishing PE standards and guidelines; further studying the function of a bottom-up approach; providing information in a format accessible to lay people; extending the duration of PE workshops; expanding stakeholder sampling; and identifying representative stakeholders based on their power and interests. The results of the current study are expected to play a basis in further quantitative studies formally investigating the relationship between PE preparation and outcomes and comparing the efforts of effective PE preparation and the involved outcomes. Conflict of interest None. Acknowledgment The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (Planning and Development Division, Project no.: NP022075-02). References Aaltonen, K., 2011. Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental interpretation process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 165–183. Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2010. A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scand. J. Manag. 26, 381–397. Adams, G.R., Schvaneveldt, J.D., 1985. Understanding Research Methods. Longman, NY. Beasley, M.S., Jenkins, J.G., 2003. A primer for brainstorming fraud risks. J. Account. 196, 32–38. Brandt, U.S., Svendsen, G.T., 2013. Is local participation always optimal for sustainable action? The costs of consensus-building in Local Agenda 21. J. Environ. Manag. 129, 266–273. Chappel, B., 2008. Community Engagement Handbook: A Model Framework for Leading Practice in Local Government in South Australia. Retrieved at, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Community_ Engagement_Handbook_March_2008_-_PDF.pdf (Viewed on 15th October, 2012).

11

Cheung, P.T.Y., 2011. Civic engagement in the policy process in Hong Kong: change and continuity. Public Adm. Dev. 31, 113–121. Chiu, C., 2005. Cynicism about community engagement in Hong Kong. Sociol. Spectr. 25 (4), 447–467. Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S., 2006. Business Research Methods. McGrawHill/Irwin, New York. Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 1990. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13 (1), 3–21. Cundy, A.B., Bardos, R.P., Church, A., Puschenreiter, M., Co, 2013. Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for ‘gentle’ remediation approaches: the European context. J. Environ. Manag. 129, 283–291. Du Bois, B., 1983. Passionate scholarship: notes on values, knowing and method in feminist social science. In: Bowles, G., Klein, R.D. (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies. Routledge, London. El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H., El-Diraby, T.E., 2006. Stakeholder management for public private partnerships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 595–604. Elton Consulting, 2003. Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System. Department of Planning, Sydney. Fisher, E., 2011. What practitioners consider to be the skills and behaviors of an effective people project manager. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 994–1002. Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W.E., Reed, M., McAlpine, P., 2006. Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 78, 114–127. Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, pp. 75–98. Glaser, B., 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA. Hajer, M., Kesselring, S., 1999. Democracy in the risk society: learning from the new politics of mobility in Munich. Environ. Polit. 8, 1–23. Hurd, T.L., McIntyre, A., 1996. The seduction of sameness: similarity and representing the other. In: Wilkinson, S., Kitzinger, C. (Eds.), Representing the Other. SAGE, London. Irvin, R.A., Stansbury, J., 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm. Rev. 64 (1), 55–65. Joerin, F., Desthieux, G., Beuze, S.B., Nembrini, A., 2009. Participatory diagnosis in urban planning: proposal for a learning process based on geographical information. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (6), 2002–2011. Jones, S., Forshaw, M., 2012. Research Methods in Psychology. Pearson/ Prentice Hall, New York. Kidd, P.S., Parshall, M.B., 2000. Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual. Health Res. 10 (3), 293–308. Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A., 2009. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lee, G., Kwak, Y.H., 2012. An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 492–503. Leung, M.Y., Chan, I.Y.S., 2012. Exploring stressors of Hong Kong expatriate construction professionals in Mainland China: focus group study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (1), 78–88. Leung, M.Y., Olomolaiye, P., 2010. Risk and construction stakeholders. In: Chinyio, E. (Ed.), Construction Stakeholder Management. Blackwell Publishing, U.K., pp. 75–98. Leung, M.Y., Yu, J.Y., Wang, L., Zhou, W.T., 2012. Improvement of Public Engagement Performance for Planning and Development Projects via a Value Management Approach. Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (Planning and Development Division) and City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Leung, M.Y., Yu, J.Y., Chan, Y.S., 2014. A focus group study to explore critical factors of public engagement process for mega development projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (3), 04013061. Li, T.H.Y., Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M., 2012. Conflict or consensus: an investigation of stakeholder concerns during the participation process of major infrastructure and construction projects in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 36, 333–342. Lim, B.V., Kan, K., Wong, A., 2005. Practitioners' Guide to Design and Implementation of Participatory Projects. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015

12

J. Yu, M. Leung / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx

Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., Stoker, G., 2001. Trends in public participation: part 2 – citizens’ perspective. Public Adm. 79 (1), 205–222. Merton, R.K., Kendall, P.L., 1946. The focused interview. Am. J. Sociol. 51, 541–557. Morgan, D.L., 1993. Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths not taken. Qual. Health Res. 3 (1), 112–121. Morgan, D.L., 1996. Focus groups. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 22, 129–152. Morgen, D.L., Krueger, R.A., 1998. The Focus Group Kit. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA. Myers, G., 1998. Displaying opinions: topics and disagreement in focus groups. Lang. Soc. 27, 85–111. O'Connor, R.V., 2012. Using grouded theory coding mechanisms to analyze case study and focus group data in the context of software process research. In: Mora, M., Gelman, O., Steenkamp, A., Raisinghani, M.S. (Eds.), Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems. Hershey, IGI Global, pp. 256–270. O'Faircheallaigh, C., 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30, 19–27. Ogunlana, S., Yotsinsak, T., Yisa, S., 2001. An assessment of people's satisfaction with the public hearing on the Yadana Natural Gas Pipeline project. Environ. Monit. Assess. 72, 207–225. Olander, S., 2007. Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 25, 277–287. Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 321–328. Petts, J., 2007. Learning about learning: lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration. Geogr. J. 173 (4), 300–311. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutierrez-Martinez, I., Luna-Reyes, L.F., 2012. Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 504–511. Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 32, 816–822.

Raynes-Goldie, K., Walker, L., 2008. Our space: online civic engagement tools for youth. In: Bennett, W.L. (Ed.), Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431. Renn, O., 2001. The need for integration: risk policies require the input from experts, stakeholders and the public at large. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 72, 131–135. Roberts, N., 2004. Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 34 (4), 315–353. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N.F., 2008. Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 419–441. Sim, J., 1998. Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group. J. Adv. Nurs. 28 (2), 345–352. Smithson, J., 2000. Using and analyzing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 3 (2), 103–119. Stave, K.A., 2002. Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18 (2), 139–167. Timlin-Scalera, R.M., Ponterotto, J.G., Blumberg, F.C., Jackson, M.A., 2003. A grounded theory study of help-seeking behaviors among white male high school students. J. Couns. Psychol. 50 (3), 339–350. Tracy, S.J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Alberts, J.K., 2006. Nightmares, demons and slaves: exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Manag. Commun. Q. 20 (2), 148–185. Walters, L.C., Aydelotte, J., Miller, J., 2000. Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Adm. Rev. 60 (4), 349–359. Webb, C., Kevern, J., 2001. Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research 33 (6), 798–805. Williams, C.C., 2003. Developing community involvement: contrasting local and regional participatory cultures in Britain and their implications for policy. Reg. Stud. 37, 531–541.

Please cite this article as: J. Yu, M. Leung, 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.015