Independent Evaluation

Report
QUEENS WHARF BRISBANE

Sinead Liu (s2760399)

LECTURER: NATALIE OSBORNE | 4047ENV PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Contents Page
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Queens Wharf Brisbane (QBA) ........................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Key Planning Arrangements and Issues .............................................................................................. 4
2.2 Triple Bottom Line ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.1 Social Context .................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 Economic Context ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3 Environmental Context..................................................................................................... 6
3.0 Opportunities and Challenges .............................................................................................................................. 6
4.0 The Rationale for Engaging the Public ................................................................................................................ 7
5.0 Description of Event ............................................................................................................................................. 7
6.0 Framework Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 7
7.0 Event Analysis.................................................................................................................................................... 10
7.1 Diversity and Representation of Participants ......................................................................................... 10
7.2 Content of Knowledge Provided ............................................................................................................ 10
7.3 Communication ...................................................................................................................................... 10
7.4 Event Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 10
7.5 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................ 11
7.6 Early Participation and Public Awareness ............................................................................................. 11
8.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 11
9.0 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Reference List .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
List of Tables
Table 1: Opportunities and Challenges that QWB Poses for the Community ........................................................ 6-7
Table 2: Assessment Results .................................................................................................................................... 9
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: The Boundary of the Proposed Development .................................................................................... 15
Appendix 2: Environmental Impacts and Their Consequences .............................................................................. 16
List of Acronyms
BCC:

Brisbane City Council

CBD:

Central Business District

1|P a g e

EIS:

Environmental Impact Statement

PDA:

Priority Development Area

PDS:

Priority Development Scheme

QWB:

Queens Wharf Brisbane

2|P a g e

Executive Summary
Extensive evidence has proven that in order to be successful, planning must incorporate the community into their
decision-making process. The following report will assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of a public
involvement event against an extensive framework based on a variety of literature. The public involvement event
that was attended is an informing session regarding the Queens Wharf Brisbane (QWB) held on the 14th of
September. A development as big as QWB will no doubt bring many social, economic and environmental impacts
that will affect the community. The main social impact that will be caused by QWB will be the use of open space for
privatisation and massive advancement. Increases in the number and kind of organisations that QWB will offer will
increase the different local jobs available for community members, with 2000 new occupations during construction
and an extra 8000 after completion. Furthermore, the proposed project will contain significant land clearing, which
will impact on the biodiversity of fauna and flora as well as increase the pollution produced (air, noise and waste).
Based on extensive literature, the public involvement event has been assessed by a set of best practice principles
in order to determine if it is effective or efficient for the community. It was decided that this community consultation
event was not effective in terms of public participation and as such, there need to be significant improvements that
should be made for future events, such as more signs guiding participants to the event, and providing appetizers.

3|P a g e

1.0

Introduction

Traditional forms of top-down planning and decision-making have become more popular since the past fifty years.
Planners and decision-makers have recognised that including the community and stakeholders in making decisions
can consider different strategies, decrease opposing opinions, and finally make better choices for further
maintainable types of management (Jackson, 2001). Therefore, public involvement approaches and procedures
need consistent assessing so as to guarantee that they are recent, reliable and viable. The event that was
observed was the third and final information session regarding the development planning scheme for the
Queensland Governments Queens Wharf Brisbane (QWB). This report will assess the effectiveness and
appropriateness of this public involvement event against an extensive framework based on a variety of literature.
The QWB development is also portrayed in connection to key planning legislation, before it is shadowed by the
social, economic and environmental effects that it will pose to the community. Consequently, observations of the
event are defined and analysed against an extensive framework founded by a variety of literature, therefore
determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of the event.
2.0

Queens Wharf Brisbane (QBA)

The public involvement event that was attended was an informing session regarding the Queens Wharf Brisbane
(QWB) held on the 14th of September. The Queens Wharf Brisbane is a proposed development by the Queensland
Government that aims to reinvigorate an under-utilised part of the Brisbane Central Business District (CBD)
through the delivery of an integrated resort development and a significant amount of high-quality public realm
(Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015, p. 2). Furthermore, the proposed
development is roughly 26.8 ha and is surrounded by the Brisbane River to the south, west and northwest, Queen
Street to the north, George Street to the east and northeast, and Alice Street and the Riverside Expressway to the
southwest (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015, p. 2). For a map that outlines the
boundary of the proposed development, see Appendix One.
2.1

Key Planning Arrangements and Issues

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed to be conducted for a development of QWBs size, which falls
under Section 26(2) of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (State Development and
Public Works Organisation Act, 1971) and aims to make sure that the possible environmental, social and economic
impacts of the development are considered and acknowledged (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993). This will
therefore ensure that costs and benefits are identified in order to make sure that the negative aspects of this
development are decreased and alleviated. Furthermore, in agreement with EIS implementation, there were a few
stages of public notification that involved the Brisbane community, the local government, and the Queensland
Government as well as the different stakeholders and interest groups (Department of Infrastructure, Local
Government and Planning, 2015).
The Queens Wharf Brisbane Priority Development Scheme (QWB PDS) will also follow closely with the Economic
Development Act 2012, which provides for a streamlined planning and development framework that will allow for
the facilitation of economic development, and the development of community purposes (Department of
Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015, p. 1). Similarly, the Economic Development Department will
collaborate with the Brisbane City Council (BCC), other federal government associations, the general public and the
participants involved in order to set up a future development strategy which will be used to lead upcoming
transformation resulting from inside the QWB Priority Development Area (PDA). This plan will furthermore try to
bolster the conveyance of a world class resort that is dependent on the PDA Vision and Land Use results
(Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015). The development of QWB being in the
jurisdiction of the state is therefore a key planning issue. This poses a significant challenge for the general
population due to the fact that the size and powers of this government make it hard for the smaller community

4|P a g e

groups to be included when making decisions. However, the capital support of these governments can help with
producing further economic wealth for the region, and generate a better feeling of belonging if the expansion is to
happen (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015). Furthermore, the ideal objective of
the Queensland Government is to come to an agreement that provides the greatest financial advantages
(Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015).
2.2

Triple Bottom Line

A development as big as QWB will pose significant social, economic and environmental impacts for the community,
known as the triple bottom line. These impacts are all interconnected in some way, as seen in Appendix 2, which
shows a diagram that lists all of the social, economic and environmental impacts that the proposed development
could offer. Furthermore, investors may be interested in the QWB PDA for different reasons as some might be
more socially, environmentally, or economically oriented than others. For example, the facilitators from the public
involvement event was more concerned about the economic wealth to be gained while the community was mainly
focused on the possible social impacts that might occur such as loss of open space.
2.2.1

Social Context

The Brisbane CBD is a vast area of open space that is accessible to the residents of Brisbane. One of the key
social issues regarding this public involvement event is that the Queensland Government wants to develop a new
and vibrant new world city development that attracts visitors and investment, reconnects the activity of the Brisbane
City Centre to the river, preserves and celebrates Brisbanes heritage, and delivers high quality public spaces
(Department of State Development, 2015, p. 3).
The use of open space for privatisation and massive advancement represents a significant social planning issue.
Traffic congestion related to the development could be a noteworthy concern. It is for the most recognised that the
development region is already encountering significant traffic problems as it is at the heart of Brisbane and if traffic
congestion is increased as a consequence, this would be an undesirable issue (Silva, 2015). Traffic congestion
could be brought on by street and road closures as an aftereffect of construction, which would therefore bring
changes to public transport routes. Furthermore, increases of housing prices will be a crucial issue later on for the
proposed development, causing individuals with low wages to find it hard to obtain affordable housing as an
outcome of rising property estimations. Finally, redevelopment inside the proposed area can cause the loss of
distinctive historic value and locations with local heritage value might be demolished.
2.2.2

Economic Context

There will be significant monetary effects and advantages that will be introduced by the development of QWB.
Expanded construction that this development will bring could cause increased employment in the development
business. Increases in the number and kind of organisations that QWB will offer will likewise achieve an increment
of the different local jobs available for inhabitants. QWB will make around 2000 new occupations amid development
and an extra 8000 after its finish. Openings for work in the midst of development could contain a possibility of
planning, design and engineering professions, property and project managers, and a full suite of construction jobs
including form-workers, electricians, plumbers and tilers (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and
Planning, 2015, p. 7). Other jobs that could be offered by QWB after its culmination include tourism, entertainment,
hospitality, local providers and food and drink manufacturers as well (Department of Infrastructure, Local
Government and Planning, 2015, p. 7). Moreover, there will be a constant need for tradespeople in addition to the
various careers incorporated into the organisation and into the diverse facilities that QWB aims to deliver
(Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015). However, this increase of job opportunities
could be a problem because there might be not enough workers to provide appropriate training and support, which
would mean that increased employment opportunities will not benefit the local community and unemployment rates

5|P a g e

will not change. Thus, an increase in the demand for education, training and employment services in order to
provide support to a growing community might be required.
2.2.3

Environmental Context

Because of the nature and area of the development, most of the negative concerns will mainly happen in the
development stage, and in the proposed region. This project will contain significant land clearing, which will thus
generally effect the biodiversity of fauna and vegetation (Department of the Environment, 2010). This land clearing
could also lead to the degradation of soils, which will allow for the spreading of harmful weeds. Furthermore, there
will be an incrementation of noise level because of a significant rise in human action inside of the proposed
development, which will therefore increase traffic congestion. However, this increase in traffic will not only increase
noise impacts but will also add to air pollution. There is also a possibility for transient effects on environmental
health concerns, for example, noise, light, dust and air emissions due to development. Dust could be a major
concern for many businesses and residents in relation to the proposed development, which might relate to impacts
principally on human health, in particular on children and those with respiratory illnesses, allergies, irritations,
asthma and other health impacts as well as the elderly. Furthermore, an increase in tourism will result in heavier
traffic through the proposed area by tourists driving to and around the development, hence creating more domestic
noise and air pollution over peak travel hours.
3.0

Opportunities and Challenges

This public involvement event is classified under Arnstein (1996)s ladder of participation as informing, which is
the most important step toward successful citizen participation (Arnstein, 1996, p. 5). Townsend (2003) classifies
this event as both a formal and informal one, where the community is allowed to participate and communicate at
the same time. The advantages and disadvantages for successful community participation in this public
involvement event are various. The main advantage of this event is that it can instruct and advise the community on
issues of importance. This is upheld by Beierle (1999) who states that this guides the community as an absence of
data will influence how well the general society can control and add to issues of importance and helps the general
population to apply weight. However, this public involvement event also presents numerous difficulties that must be
succeeded. The most significant problem that must be overcome is the casual structure of the occasion. Numerous
participants may discover themselves losing intrigue and thus missing parts of the event that may be of noteworthy
importance to them. This may then diminish participation in other events and individuals may be left exhausted or
disappointed by past events (Renn et al. 2013). Furthermore, another challenge of public involvement is the
difference in interests among participants and among stakeholders. In spite of the fact that it is not possible to
satisfy all stakeholders, this type of public involvement event allows for profitable understanding into a stakeholders
perspective and supposition, and the involvement process becomes ineffective or insignificant when a community is
ignored in the decision-making process (Abelson et al. 2003). Table 1 below lists some other advantages and
disadvantages that this public involvement may pose to the community.
TABLE 1: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES THAT QWB POSES FOR THE COMMUNITY
Opportunities
Facilitators very knowledgeable
Enlightens and teaches the public
Public has a chance to take an
interest and make inquiries
Community concerns are
acknowledged and considered
All individuals from the general

6|P a g e

Challenges
Information more inclined to be one-sided
Community may not fully comprehend the material given
Very few possibilities for community to impact decision-making process
Facilitators may be unable to answer questions
Participants may interrupt the facilitators when they are talking
Facilitators may be unable to answer questions

Times may not work for everyone

population are invited

4.0

Location may not have enough space for everyone to attend

Event may be difficult for the community to be aware of

The Rationale for Engaging the Public

Community consultation for the Queens Wharf Brisbane development was conducted from the 7th of August 2015
to the 21st of September 2015, where all stakeholders were invited to view the proposed development scheme and
make a written submission for consideration by the Minister for Economic Development in Queensland
(Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015, p. 1). The justification of the Queensland
Government in arranging this event is therefore to give an understanding of the social, monetary and ecological
issues preceding the development of QWB to the community.
5.0

Description of Event

The public involvement event aimed to inform the public about the QWB PDA and was conducted on the 14 th of
September 2014 from 11 am to 1 pm at the Harris Terrace Building in the Brisbane CBD. This event was the last
round of the consultation program where the future scheme suggested by the Queensland Government for the
QWB development was formally shown for community suggestions. The motivation behind this last round is to
inform the public of the QWB, and plans to raise overall understanding for the development, as well as emphasise
on the effects that this development will have on the nearby community in order to help them give input. Other
engagement methods included online surveys, community reference groups, submissions and Talk to a Team
Member community displays (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015, p. 1).
Facilitators involved in this public involvement event included the following individuals:

Tom Leach;
Claire Hayward;
Mick Moran; and
Liz Clinton.

Throughout the event, these facilitators were accessible to communicate with the community in response to
questions about the advancement and any effects that may be displayed for the public.
6.0

Framework Evaluation

Public participation contains various procedures that can collaborate and work with the public so that all the
participants involved can have a say in the decision-making process, and is regularly perceived to be a crucial part
in the entire planning procedure. It is likewise imperative to evaluate the adequacy and nature of public participation
strategies and procedures so as to acquire, adjust and enhance the planning standards for the future (Smith, 1993).
On the other hand, assessing public participation usefulness can be difficult to understand, which means that a list
of suitable criteria is consequently needed (Rowe and Frewer 2000). Based on literature presented by Beierle
(1999), Rowe and Frewer (2000), Ng and Hamby (1997), Nelkin and Pollak (1979), Moffet (1996), Abelson et al.
(2003), Crosby et al. (1986), Renn et al. (2013), Frewer (1999) and Rahl (1996), a set of best practice principles
was developed keeping in mind the end goal of effectively assessing the communication engagement event in
relation to QWBs growth. These best practice principles are listed below.
Criteria One: Diversity/Representation of Participants
The event should comprise a broad representative sample of the population of the affected public (Rowe and
Frewer, 2000, p. 12). This characterisation is reinforced by Beierle (1999), which expresses that every one of the
stakeholders included in the decision-making process ought to have a say in the decision-making procedure so that

7|P a g e

the community can be better represented. Furthermore, the participants should be widely represented by different
disciplines with a clear opportunity for community involvement (Webler, 1995). These participants should be a
broad representation of managers, professionals, technicians and trades workers, community and personal service
workers, clerical and administrative workers, sales workers, machinery operators and labourers as well as families
with or without children, and the elderly (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011, p. 1).
Criteria Two: Content of Knowledge Provided
In order for an event to be effective, the community needs to be given access to suitable and accurate information
by skilled and knowledgeable facilitators regarding the development (Ng and Hamby, 1997) and should have the
opportunity to understand different viewpoints (Nelkin and Pollak, 1979). This information should include brochures,
maps and pictures of the proposed development in addition to a copy of the QWB Priority Development Scheme
(PDS) (Department of State Development, 2015).
Criteria Three: Communication between Facilitators and Participants
In order for a public involvement event to be effective and successful, communication between stakeholders and
community members must be encouraged throughout the entire evaluation event (Rowe and Frewer, 2000).
Furthermore, clear communication regarding the development should be given through different ways with the
objectives clearly identified and acknowledged and participants addressed directly (Moffet, 1996).
Criteria Four: Event Structure
How a public involvement event is structured is a crucial part of any evaluation (Abelson et al. 2003; Crosby et al.
1986; Renn et al. 1993). The public involvement event should have knowledgeable facilitators available, make their
goals clear, and have sufficient resources (time and information) provided (Kramer et al. 2008).
Criteria Five: Accessibility for Participants
There should be easy access by the public to the development (including more than one mode of transport
available and easy access for the handicapped) (Nelkin and Pollak, 1979) and signs guiding participants on where
to go should be easily read and understood (Kramer et al. 2008).
Criteria Six: Early Participation and Public Awareness
The community should be involved as early as possible in the process (Rowe and Fewer, 2000, p. 14), and
should also have a say in how decisions are being made (Frewer, 1999; Rahl, 1996). The community consultation
sessions should be held between February and March 2014 because that was the time when an Expression of
Interest (EOI) for the QWB was first lodged (Queensland Government: Department of State Development, 2015).

8|P a g e

Table 2 details the general score allocated to each criteria based on the assessment used.
TABLE 2: ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Criteria

Justification

Measures Used

Score

Diversity and Representation

of Participants

Broad representation and diversity of participants

Broad representation and diversity of facilitators

Observation
Personal participation

Content of Knowledge
Provided

Clarity and adequacy of project information

Sufficient resources (time and money) provided

Observation
Personal participation

Communication

Response time to inquiries from the public

Communication before the event
Communication during the event
Presence of strong chairperson/facilitator
Goals of the event are clear
Enough information (maps, posters and pictures) delivered
Community consultation takes part early in the decision-making process
Reliability/validity of event
Cognitive experience
Access to event by disabled individuals
Accessibility of event to more than one mode of transport
Geographical distribution of chances for participation
Suitability of when the event is conducted
Suitability of where the event is conducted
Community is aware of how decisions are made
Participants feel that enough time is allocated for community consultation
Community members are included through different ways
Participants are involved using multiple techniques

Desktop analysis
Email
Personal participation

1
3
3
3

Event Structure

Accessibility

Early Participation and Public

Awareness

5 Excellent; 4 Good; 3 Average; 2 Below Average; 1 Poor

9|P a g e

Desktop analysis
Government report
Official website
Observation
Personal participation
Desktop analysis
Translink
Observation
Personal participation

Desktop analysis
Government report
Official website
Personal participation
Observation

7.0

Event Analysis

In order for the event to be more effective on planning grounds, significant improvements must be made including
more signage guiding participants to the location of the event, and providing drinks and snacks, which will be
discussed in the following evaluation.
7.1

Diversity and Representation of Participants

Due to the fact that there were very few individuals who attended the information session there was a significantly
narrow representation of participants; those who did attend were mainly middle-aged experts. Furthermore, the
facilitators who led the event was from the planning side of the proposed development and as such there were no
facilitators there who were an expert in, say, the environment or engineering side of things (Department of
Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015). Also, I felt that the participants who attended the event all
had similar interests. This meant that citizens against the development could possibly have felt that their
attendance was not welcome. In addition, this public involvement event was held during work hours, which meant
that working citizens were unable to come and so the only people who went to the event were planners who were
involved in the development in some way or students. In order to solve this problem, I felt that the Queensland
Government could have conducted a community consultation session that was after working hours, maybe at
night or on the weekends (Department of State Development, 2015). This will therefore increase the participation
rate.
7.2

Content of Knowledge Provided

The facilitators involved in this evaluation event were confident, approachable and knowledgeable and presented
information that were accurate, factual or well-researched (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). They were also very willing
to explain and answer questions, often encouraging public participation between the participants and the
facilitators. Full copies of the QWB proposed development scheme were available for participants to look at,
however, these were purely promotional and were not an alternative way of gaining further information
(Department of State Development, 2015). Also, no information was provided prior to the event, which means that
people who are not familiar with the Destination Brisbane Consortium would be unaware of the event, and
therefore being ignored in the decision-making process (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and
Planning, 2015). .
7.3

Communication

During the event, open discussion and communication between the facilitators and participants was greatly
encouraged. However, prior to the event, communication was significantly lacking. No advertisements were given
regarding the event except on the website, which could mean that people who are not familiar with the Destination
Brisbane Consortium might be ignored in the decision-making process (Department of Infrastructure, Local
Government and Planning), as mentioned in the section above. Furthermore, personal participation found that
there was a long time in responding to public inquiries. I wrote them an email asking for some further information
regarding the Queens Wharf Brisbane but they still have not yet replied. This could determine that the community
consultation sessions conducted was just a farce and they did not really care about public opinions.
7.4

Event Structure

As previously mentioned, the facilitator was self-confident, friendly and well-informed (Rowe and Frewer, 2015).
The goals of the event were also made clear (Kramer et al. 2008). As soon as I walked into the room, I

10 | P a g e

understand that the aim of the event was to inform the community about the QWB. Maps, posters and pictures
were put up around the room and full copies of the QWB proposed development scheme were available for
participants to look at. However, these were mainly promotional and were not an alternative way of gaining
information (Department of State Development). Furthermore, because the event was conducted by an
organisation as big as the Queensland Government, the whole public involvement process was reliable and
authentic (Kramer et al. 2008). If the organisation involved was a small company however, the story might have
been different. In addition, through personal participation, I found that the informing session for Queens Wharf
Brisbane required me to undertake intellectual thinking (Kramer et al. 2008). It was needed for me to really think
about the proposed development and what would be the potential social, environmental and economic impacts
that this would pose for the community.
7.5

Accessibility

There was easy access by different modes of transport (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). There was on-site parking at
the location and a bus stop was less than 100 m away. However, there was no ramps for the disabled and had
little to no signage telling participants where to go. A map of the location could also have been provided as an
alternative way of directing participants to the location where the public involvement event was held. However,
through Translink, I discovered that the community consultation sessions were only held within one location (State
of Development, 2015). Thus, I believe that because the QWB spans across Brisbane River to the south, west
and northwest, Queen Street to the north, George Street to the east and northeast, and Alice Street and the
Riverside Expressway to the southwest (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015, p.
2), there could have been community consultation sessions held in all of the areas mentioned above. This could
therefore increase the participation rate.
7.6

Early Participation and Public Awareness

This was the third and last round of the public notification sessions for QWB. Throughout all three of these
sessions, the public was encouraged to make a written submission for consideration by the Minister for
Economic Development in Queensland (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2005, p.
1), and had ample chances of being included in the decision-making process. However, I believe that the
community consultation sessions should have been held between February and March 2014 because that was
the time when an Expression of Interest (EOI) for the QWB was first lodged (Department of State Development,
2015) instead of in September 2015. I felt that even if the community was against the development, it wouldnt
matter as by that time, preparation for development construction had already been completed (Department of
State Development, 2015). In addition, I also believe that another public notification session could have been held
after office hours as the sessions that have occurred have all been held during the day when most people are at
work. This will therefore increase the participation of employed individuals as well as increase the representation
of different community members.
8.0

Recommendations

This was not an effective public involvement event conducted by the Queensland Government in relation to the
Queens Wharf Brisbane and as such, there need to be many improvements that should be made in the future.
Broaden the Diversity of Participants
Although the attendance of participants on the actual day could not have been controlled, publicity,
encouragement and advertising can all attempt to increase participation rate (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). Through

11 | P a g e

achieving a bigger variety of participants, the material and information portrayed by the Queensland Government
would therefore have a greater influence (Department of State Development, 2015; Department of Infrastructure,
Local Government and Planning, 2015).
More Signage and Direction Guiding Participants to the Location of the Event
I found that the location was hard to find without proper guidance or direction. This issue could certainly be solved
by providing more signage along the way or providing a map of the location on the website that highlights the
route taken (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015; Department of State
Development, 2015).
Be More Aware of Room Temperature
Throughout the event, I felt warm, sweaty and uncomfortable. It might be important to remember that Destination
Brisbane Consortium hold any future events in air conditioned rooms.
Provide More Direct Links to Further Attention
As stated in an above section, flyers were provided but they merely served marketing purposes (Department of
Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2015). Clearly, it is expected that the participants who came to
the event already either support the development or are aware of it. Therefore, it was not required for any more
promotional material to be given to participants. This concern could have been improved by informing participants
of ways in which they could gain additional information regarding the development.
Provide Basic Refreshments
It would be nice if there were drinks or snacks on offer, because the event lasted from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm,
which could have been some peoples lunch time.
9.0

Conclusion

Close collaboration between the stakeholders and the participants are essential for the support, trust and
participation of the community throughout the entire planning process. However, this can become problematic
when the community are against the development. During these circumstances, community-based associations
regularly take it upon themselves to incorporate and advise the public to keep up data exchange, transparency
and clarity in regards to the planning scheme (Jackson, 2001). This paper has examined whether a public
involvement event was effective in terms of various criteria and has listed the social, environment and economic
impacts of this event in regards to its planning issues. Furthermore, an evaluation framework was developed that
aims to determine whether or not it was effective for the community through the use of extensive literature, and
some recommendations were offered on how to improve future events. The event was ultimately found to be
ineffective and fails to deliver to the community its goals and objectives. In order to solve this problem, it has been
suggested that the Queensland Government try to broaden the diversity of participants, have more signs guiding
participants to the location, be more aware of room temperature, provide more direct links to additional
information and provide basic snacks and drinks to participants.

12 | P a g e

Reference List
Abelson, J., Forest, P., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., and Gauvin, F. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative
methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and
Medicine, 57(2), 239-251.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-24.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Brisbane City. Retrieved from
http://stat.abs.gov.au/itt/r.jsp?RegionSummary&region=305011105&dataset=ABS_REGIONAL_ASGS&g
eoconcept=REGION&datasetASGS=ABS_REGIONAL_ASGS&datasetLGA=ABS_REGIONAL_LGA&regi
onLGA=REGION&regionASGS=REGION, on 29th October 2015.
Australian Government: Department of the Environment (2010). Estimated loss of biodiversity resulting from land
clearing. Retrieved from
http://secure.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/13/index.html, on 20th October 2015.
Beierle, T. (1999). Public participation in environmental decisions: an evaluation framework using social goals.
Washington DC: Resources for the Future, pp. 99-106.
Convention on Biological Diversity (1993). What is impact assessment? Retrieved from
https://www.cbd.int/impact/whatis.shtml, on 4th October 2015.
Crosby, N., Kelly, J., and Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public
Administration Review, 46(1), 170-178.
Department of Environment (2 010). Annual Report 2010-2011. Retrieved from
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/0a65c1f7-e738-4624-9de63e67de8dbc48/files/sewpacar1011.pdf, on 15th October 2015.
Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning. (2015). Queens Wharf Brisbane PDA. Retrieved
from http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning/priority-development-areas/queens-wharf-brisbane.html, on 9th
October 2015.
Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning. (2015). Queens Wharf Brisbane Priority
Development Area Proposed Development Scheme. Retrieved from
http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/pda/qwb-proposed-development-scheme.pdf, on 14th October
2015.
Department of State Development. (2015). Queens Wharf Brisbane. Retrieved from
http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/major-projects/queens-wharf-brisbane.html, on 16th October 2015.
Frewer, L. (1999). Public risk perceptions and risk communication. In P, Bennett and K. Calman (Eds.), In risk
communication and public health (pp. 20-32). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, S. (2011). Contemporary public involvement: toward a strategic approach. Local Environment, 6(2), 135147.

13 | P a g e

Kramer, J., Williams, K., Hopes, C., and Bond, A. (2008). Performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of
public involvement activities in Florida . South Florida, America: University of South Florida. Retrieved
from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/public_involvement/PIPMFinalReport06-26.pdf, on 29th October
2015.
Moffet, J. (1996). Environmental priority setting based on comparative risk and public input. Canadian Public
Administration, 39(3), 362-385.
Nelkin, D., and Pollak, M. (1979). Public participation in technological decisions: Reality or grand illusion?
Technology Review, 9(1), 55-64.
Ng, K. L., and D. M. Hamby. 1997. Fundamentals for establishing a risk communication program. Health Physics,
73 (3): 473-82.
Rahl, G.M. (2996). Risk reduction through public participation in environmental decisions. Naval Engineers
Journal, 108(4), 53-57.
Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., and Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision-making: A 3step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189-214.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology
and Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
Silva, K. (2015, March 18). Brisbane traffic increasing, report shows. The Brisbane Times. Retrieved from
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-traffic-increasing-report-shows-201503171m1kgq.html, on 29th October 2015.
Smith, L. (1993). Impact assessment and sustainable resource management. England: Longman.
State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, section 26.2.
Townsend, K. (2006). Filling the gaps: patterns of formal and informal participation. Economic and Industrial
Democracy, 34(1), 337-354.
Webler, T. (1995). Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler and P.
Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating methods for
environmental discourse (pp. 35-86). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

14 | P a g e

Appendices
Appendix 1: The Boundary of the Proposed Development (Source: Department of State Development, 2015)

15 | P a g e

Appendix Two: Environmental Impacts and Their Consequences (Liu, 2015)

16 | P a g e