Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009

Structured Public Involvement™
Workshop
Helsinki City Auditorium
Kansakoulukatu 3
Helsinki, Finland
May 18, 2009
9 am-12 noon
Dr. Ted Grossardt
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
Dr. Keiron Bailey
Tucson, Arizona, USA
Mr. John Ripy
Lexington, KY, USA

Today
1. SPI as a Response to Public Participation Problems
– Large groups and complex questions
– John Rawls and the ‘Veil of Ignorance’
– Translating Justice/Fairness to Process Rules
2. SPI Session Planning, Design, and Implementation
– What is SPI? Performance of SPI
– Group Process Design: Questions and Polling
– Representation Strategies
– Decision Support Tools
– Comparison to Some Current Practices
3. Case Studies (Your choice)
– Large Bridge Design
– Small Area Design for Light Rail Station
– Land Development Planning
– Highway/Electric Transmission Line Corridor Planning
– Nuclear Industrial Site Cleanup and Future Uses

Press the Number That Best
Describes You
60%
40%
0%0%
Transporta... Electric U...
Elected Of... None of th...
1. Transportation
Professional
2. Electric Utility
Professional
3. Elected Official
4. None of the above

Years of Experience in Your Field
20%
0%
60%
20% 1. 1-5
2. 5-10
3. 10-15
4. More than 15

My Familiarity with ARS (Keypads)
N
everH
eard
ofIt
Seen,butNeverUsed
Participated
in
a
M
eeting
H
ave
U
sed
Ita
Little
H
ave
O
urO
w
n
System
0% 0% 0%0%0%
1. Never Heard of It
2. Seen, but Never Used
3. Participated in a
Meeting
4. Have Used It a Little
5. Have Our Own System

SPI as a Response to Public Participation Problems

85% of Kentucky citizens believe the public should be
more involved in the project development process.
(Meeting Kentucky’s Transportation Needs and Priorities: Citizen’s Perceptions and
Recommendations. KTC-05-23/TA12-04-1F, p. 72)

The Arnstein Ladder: Degrees of Citizen Participation in Planning
(Arnstein 1969)
Manipulation
Therapy
Informing
Consultation
Placation
Partnership
Delegated Power
Citizen Control Degrees of citizen power
Degrees of tokenism
Nonparticipation
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

The Arnstein Ladder: Degrees of Citizen Participation in Planning
(Arnstein 1969)
1. Where are we now?
2. Where should we be?

Where are we now?
M
anipulation
Therapy
Inform
ingConsultation
PlacationPartnership
Delegated
Pow
erCitizen
Control
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
Mean =
1. Manipulation
2. Therapy
3. Informing
4. Consultation
5. Placation
6. Partnership
7. Delegated Power
8. Citizen Control

Where should we be?
M
anipulation
Therapy
Inform
ingConsultation
PlacationPartnership
Delegated
Pow
erCitizen
Control
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. Manipulation
2. Therapy
3. Informing
4. Consultation
5. Placation
6. Partnership
7. Delegated Power
8. Citizen Control
Mean =

Manipulation
Therapy
Informing
Consultation
Placation
Partnership
Citizen Control
Delegated Power
Mean score ~3.7
Desired level ~6.1
Arnstein Gap
The Arnstein Gap
N > 1000, various public and professional forums in the U.S.

3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Actual level
Desired level
The Professionals’ Conceit…
“We’re doing OK”

Breakdown of the Arnstein Gap for Professionals
3 4 5 6 7
American Planning
Association (2007)
Professional
Engineers (2007)
Local
planners/professionals
in KY (2006)
Transportation
Research Board
(2006)

Some observations on the Arnstein Gap
The public recognizes and wants expert domain
Professionals and public want the same level of
participation
BUT
A Gap exists. The public would like a greater degree of
participation.
HOW can we close the Arnstein Gap?

• Professional skepticism of the justification for,
and the practicality of, including large
numbers of people in planning and design
• Bad experiences on the part of the public
cause hostility and suspicion. This causes
professionals to fear public engagement.
• Professionals seek to limit public involvement
Factors that Contribute to the Arnstein Gap

Partition the Decision Domain: current situation
Input from professionals
Input from public
Problem domain:
financial, technical,
legal, aesthetic
Degrees of citizen
power
Degrees of
tokenism
Nonparticipation
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Partition the Decision Domain: SPI model
Input from professionals
Input from public
Problem domain:
financial, technical,
legal, aesthetic
Degrees of citizen
power
Degrees of
tokenism
Nonparticipation
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

• “D.A.D.” Method……. (O’Connor et. al. 2000)
• Disagreement Within Design Authority About Goals and
Priorities (Comeau et. al. 2000)
• Vague Charge to Consultant (Behroozi 2000)
• Limited Range of Design Options (Unsworth 1994)
• Public Distrust of Motives (Bailey and Grossardt 2005)
• Difficult to Gather Relevant Information (Ewing 2001)
• Public Unhappiness with Results (Booth and Richardson
2001)
• Awkward Methods for Response (Lidskog et. al. 1999)
• Public Embarrassment for Agencies (popular press)
• Recurring Questions about Legitimacy (Maier 2001)
Classic Problems with Unstructured Public Involvement

Structured Public Involvement: Foundational Assumptions
We work in a democratic polity and we are dealing with public
goods i.e. infrastructure, using public money ($88 billion in
2001, Bureau of Transportation Statistics).
Principles of justice apply (Rawls 1971: A Theory of Justice;
derived from Von Neumann 1947: A Theory of Games)

Rawls and the ‘Veil of Ignorance’
John Rawls’ principles of justice
Rawls argues that self-interested rational persons behind the “Veil of
Ignorance” would choose two general principles of justice to
structure society in the real world:
1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the
most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.
(Egalitarian.)
2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be
arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

John Rawls’ Principles of Justice/Fairness
Everyone has the same minimum set of liberties that do not invalidate
anyone else’s same right.
Inequalities must meet two conditions: everyone is equally likely to be
subject to them, and they must provide the greatest benefit to the least
advantaged. (Maximin)
Distributive Aspect
Ratio of positive and negative impacts
Inherent property of public infrastructure and design
Environmental Justice
Procedural Aspect
Methods by which decisions are made.
Access Aspect
Who is included in decision-making process.

Justice Problem
• Distributive Justice is inherently unattainable
in transportation (and many other)
infrastructure projects.
• SPI seeks to deliver Procedural and Access
Justice to mitigate Distributive Injustice.

Methodological Implications
This means in the context of Structured Public Involvement
1. Soliciting participation from all representative stakeholder groups
and public.
2. Identifying and including all criteria of significance to all parties.
3. Establishing an agreed-upon weighting scheme for criteria among
stakeholder groups.
4. Using geovisual/geospatial methods as part of a participatory
decision support system
5. Facilitating participation of disadvantaged groups through
distributed outreach.
6. Revisiting all groups with interim conclusions to allow iterative
evaluation.

Functional Process
• Accommodate large numbers of participants.
• Give each equal voice.
• Make them anonymous, independent, and diverse.
• Explain general problem clearly.
• Solicit their input efficiently, transparently.
• Have a process that fits the input into decision
process.
• Do it rapidly.
– (Send them home in 2 hours or less.)

Unit 2: Session Planning, Design and Implementation
• What is SPI™? SPI™ performance
• Group Process Design: Questions and Polling
• Representation Strategies
• Decision Support Tools

Representation Decision Modeling
Group Dialogic
Methods
Structured Public Involvement (SPI)

What is Structured Public Involvement or SPItm
SPItm delivers high performance evaluations from
stakeholders, project sponsors and professionals.
It streamlines public involvement, reduces process
irregularity and increases defensibility and
sustainability of decisions.
It does so because it is theoretically strong and it has
been improved over ten years of applications.
25-33% of performance of SPI is derived from the use
of the electronic polling system; what about the rest?

How do we achieve these goals?
Structured Public
Involvement:
preparation is
critical
The public sees this….

• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Planning, Environmental, Districts)
• Indiana DOT
• Arizona DOT (pilot study)
• FHWA : TCSP, FTA, NCHRP
• National Science Foundation
• National Academies of Science
• Michael Baker Jr. Inc.
• Wichita State U.
• LexTran (Lexington)
• Transit Authority of River City (Louisville)
• Bluegrass ADD
• Jeffersonville, IN
• Woodford County, KY
• Jessamine County, KY
• Parsons Transportation
• Lochner and Associates
• Wilbur Smith and Associates
• Lardner-Klein Landscape Architects
• Burns and McDonnell Engineering
Some SPI Partners

Project Manager, State Transportation Agency (Bridge project 2005-07)
“For the state of Kentucky, as owner of the bridge, the polling process proved to be an
efficient way to get the thoughts from the public that we were after.
Lead engineer (Bridge project, 2007)
“The polling process used in the Louisville Bridge project gave us more specific
feedback than ever before…This way, more vocal contingents at public meetings
can’t dominate the debate. People get excited about it, because they see that their
participation is real.”
Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)
“I’ve never seen this level of public involvement before”
Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)
“I wish my neighbors were here”
Resident of retirement community (Noisewall Design 2006)
“Thank you. Your team is doing a good job”
Evaluation and commentary from clients, partners, project managers
and citizens

Federal official (Bridge project 2005-07)
“I had never been through a process using this type of activity. This was very
transparent, very open, available to all stakeholders. There’s a lot more credibility
from the public’s perspective this way.”
Federal official (Bridge project 2005-07)
“We were very impressed. The polling process gave a true picture of what the public
liked and didn’t like and the final designed reflected that. We thought the process
was excellent.”
“I was amazed by how accurately this process predicted the public’s wishes.”
“When you see members of the public after they’ve seen their comments
incorporated, they’re excited. There’s a sense among them that, ‘I counted.’”
Evaluation and commentary from clients, partners, project managers
and citizens

SPI Stakeholder satisfaction evaluations
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rural Highw ay improvement (KY, 2000)
Transit Oriented Development (KY, 2002)
Noisew all Design (KY, 2004)
Noisew all Design (AZ, 2006)
Bridge AAT (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 1 (KY, 2005)
Land Use Planning (KY, 2005)
Bypass study (KY, 2008)
Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)
Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)
Mean satisfaction with SPI Processes

Structured Public Involvement Design Process
How to convert principles of SPI™ into action

Structured Public Involvement Design Process
Using Casewise Visual Evaluation

Vote For Your Favorite Bridge
Choice
One
Choice
Two
Choice
Three
Choice
Four
0% 0%0%0%
1. Choice One
2. Choice Two
3. Choice Three
4. Choice Four

How Suitable Is...
Bridge 1
Very
Unsuitable
...
...
...
So-So
...
...
...Very
Suitable
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. Very Unsuitable
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. So-So
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. Very Suitable
Mean =

How Suitable Is...
Bridge 2
Very
Unsuitable
...
...
...
So-So
...
...
...Very
Suitable
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. Very Unsuitable
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. So-So
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. Very Suitable
Mean =

How Suitable Is...
Bridge 3
Very
Unsuitable
...
...
...
So-So
...
...
...Very
Suitable
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. Very Unsuitable
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. So-So
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. Very Suitable
Mean =

How Suitable Is...
Bridge 4
Very
Unsuitable
...
...
...
So-So
...
...
...Very
Suitable
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%
1. Very Unsuitable
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. So-So
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. Very Suitable
Mean =

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
How Suitable Is...

Basics of Questions and Polling
• Nature of Question Should be Clear
– Cost versus Appeal versus Other Factors?
• Avoid “Yes-No” Questions
– Use Continuous Scale
– Use Multiple Criteria
• Input is Usually Evaluative, Not Decisional
– Contributes to Overall Project in Specific Way
– ‘Partnership’

Scoring Summary and Standard
Deviation by Groups

Representation Strategies
• Goal is to Assure Competent Responses from
Group
• May Use Data, Photos, Videos, GIS, etc.
• Use Minimum Necessary to Achieve Good
Feedback
• Save Sophisticated Expensive Material for
Proper Time: Detailed Work, Fine Distinctions

Item:
Image 1
Positives - Looks like Bardstown road, the openness, trees, plaza is neat with the commercial, mixed use,
it fits the neighborhood, the brickwork, Multi-Use, Green space, Pedestrian Friendly, Nice Blend of Old
& New
Negatives - Like to see more brick, narrow street, parking availability, traffic looks tight, Where is the
rail?
First Vote:
Second Vote:

Green Space
Single Family
Townhouses
Multi - Family
Commercial
Mixed - Use
Scenario 10

Decision Support Modeling
• How Does Data Become Incorporated Into
Project?
• Simple Comparative Scoring
• Multiple Criteria-Weighted Evaluations
• Used to Feed Spatial Analytic Tools to Answer
‘Where’ Questions
• Used to Feed/Generate Robust Models of
Group Preference

Innovative Decision Support Tools
• Analytic Hierarchy
– Allows Limited Preference Analysis Data to be
Comparatively Organized
– Useful for Ranking Large Sets of Complex Items
• Eg. Multiple data layers in GIS
• Fuzzy Set Analysis
– Allows Preference Data for a Small (5-10%) Subset to
Inform Preference for the Remainder of the Solution
Domain
– Adapted for Sparse Data and Non-Linear Multi-Variable
Problems
– Allows Complex Problems to be Covered by Analyzing
Small Portion of Hundreds of Possible Solutions

Dress This Man
2 Jackets x 3 pants x 2 shirts x 3 ties = 36 combinations

5 3 3 3 3
5 3 1 1 3
5 7 5 1 3
8 7 5 3 3
9 8 5 3 3
CAsewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE)
Decision Support
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH

Following Modules:
• Land Use
• TOD Design
• Routing Problem
• Major Bridge Design
• Nuclear Industrial Cleanup and Re-Use

Planning Problem
• How do people’s judgments articulate with different
“kinds” of developments?
• Distinguishing Properties of Developments?
– Housing Mix
– Land Use Mix
– Walkability
– Street Network Connectivity
– Greenspace

Green Space
Single Family
Townhouses
Multi - Family
Commercial
Mixed - Use
Scenario 1

Describing Development Patterns
Parameters Value and Meaning
Low Medium High
Mix of Housing Types 80-100% Single
Family Detached
70-80% SFD App. 50% SFD
Mix of Land Uses 0-10% Commercial/
Retail
10-20% C / R 20-30%+ C / R
Proportion of
Greenspace
0-4% Total Area,
excluding
pavement
5-10% of Total Area 11-15% + of Total Area
Non-Auto: Ratio of
Sidewalk Area to
Roadway
0-10% of Surface is
Sidewalk
11-20% of Surface
is Sidewalk
20-30% of Surface is
Sidewalk
Connectedness: Avg. #
of Intersection Spokes
(3-4)
3 - 3.1 3.1 – 3.3 3.3 – 3.6

Mix Housing Types Mix Building/Land Use Greenspace Walkability Street Connectivity
LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH
1 x x x x x
2 x x x x x
3 x x x x x
4 x x x x x
5 x x x x x
6 x x x x x
7 x x x x x
8 x x x x x
9 x x x x x
10 x x x x x
11 x x x x x
12 x x x x x
Some Possible Development Patterns

Housing Mix (HOU) = Var Land Use Mix (BLU) = Var
Greenspace (GRN) = Low
Sidewalk Ratio (ACT) = Low Street Connectivity (CON) =Low
1
Low
High
High
Low
High

Housing Mix (HOU) =Var Land Use Mix (BLU) = Var
Greenspace (GRN) = Low
Sidewalk Ratio (ACT) = High Street Connectivity (CON) =Med
9

Housing Mix (HOU) = Var Land Use Mix (BLU) = Var
Greenspace (GRN) = Med
Sidewalk Ratio (ACT) = High Street Connectivity (CON) =High
4

Architects’ Design Language
Height: (L, LM, M, MH, H) Low-rise,
low-medium, mid-rise,
medium-high, high-rise
Typology: (C, L, B, A) Courtyard, linear,
block, assembly of parts
Density: (L, M, H) Low, medium, high
Open space: (S, P, C) Sidewalk, public
plaza, central courtyard

Item:
Image 10
Positives - Playground (residential), Patios & Balconies
Negatives - Looks disposable, Parking detracts, Too plain, Lacks Arch detail
First Vote:
Second Vote:

Output Preference Surface: Height v Density

New Transmission Line:
Somerset to London

Landscape Features
Subject to Physical Damage
• Wildlife management area
• National Forest
• Wetland
• Archaeological feature
• Prime farmland
• Springs
• Streams
• Sinkholes
• Caves
• High poverty levels
• Indian tribe land
• National and State Park
• Cemetery

Significance for Physical Damage:
Power and Non-Power ProfessionalsSubject to Physical Damage
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
W
ildlife
m
anagem
entareaN
ationalForest
W
etland
ArchaeologicalfeaturePrim
e
farm
land
Springs
Stream
s
Sinkholes
C
aves
H
igh
poverty
levelsIndian
tribe
land
N
ationaland
State
Park
C
em
etery
Global Impedance Values Power Professionals' Impedance Values Non-Power Professionals' Impedance Values

Features Subject to
Visual and Proximity Impacts
• Human Habitation
• School
• National Properties Register
• Hospital
• Church
• Wild and scenic river
• Public campground
• Threatened and endangered
habitat
• Picnic area
• Golf course

Non-Point Features
• Electric Fields
• Magnetic Fields
• Radio Frequency
Interference
• Audible Noise
• Visual Impacts
300 200 100 0 100 200 300
0
2 10
4
4 10
4
6 10
4
8 10
4
0.001
0.0012
0.0014
Distance -Feet
Magnetic-Field(m-T)
BCP d 0( )
BCE d 0( )
BC d 0( )
d

Significance for Visual / Proximity Impacts: Power and
Non-Power Professionals
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Human
Habitation
School National
Properties
Register
Hospital Church Wild and
scenic river
Public
campground
Threatened
and
endangered
habitat
Picnic area Golf course
Global Impedance Value Power Professionals' Impedance Non-Power Professionals' Impedance

Features Affecting Constructability
• Strip or shaft mines
• Public water supply
• Airport
• Sewage treatment
• Pipeline
• Railroad
• Dams
• Powerline crossing
• Hazmat site
• Landfills
• Military installation
• 15 - 25% slope
• 10-15% slope
• 5 - 10% slope
• Rock base
• Water tower
• Oil and gas wells
• Water treatment station
• Mixed/unknown base
• Floodplain
• Soil resistance
• Forested
• High land cost
• Lightning risk
• Radio or TV tower
• Superfund or other EPA Project
Site
• Bodies of water e.g. river, lake

Construction Costs
Construction Feature Multiply base cost by
Angle of turn
16-30o 1.1
30-90o 1.2
Grade
5-30% 1.0 + grade(%)/100
Vegetation
Light forest
(accessible by truck)
1.05
Heavy forest
(not accessible by truck)
1.2

Most Important Landscape Features
Airport
Superfund or other EPA Project Site
Military installation
National and State Park
Hazmat site
Threatened and endangered habitat
Strip or shaft mines
Oil and gas wells
Wild and scenic river

Important Landscape Features
Archaeological feature
National Properties Register
High land cost
Bodies of water
Dams
National Forest
School
Wetland
Radio or TV tower
Landfills
Wildlife area
15 - 25% slope

Visualization
Source: DOE/EIS-0325, Jan. 2003

Impact of Color Value on Visual Impact

Nuclear Industrial Site Cleanup and Re-Use

TVA
WKWMA
DOE
DOE
leased to
WKWMA
DOE
Security
fence

PGDP Future Vision Process
Stakeholder
Interviews
CBPC SPI
Stakeholder
Community
Meeting (s)Stakeholder
Focus Groups
Future Vision Advisory Panel (Representatives Drawn from Stakeholders)
UK/KRCEE
Assessment
Protocol/
Scenario
Triggers
Scenario
Matrix
Community
Future
Vision
Community Based
Participatory
Communication
(CBPC)
Structured
Public Involvement
(SPI)
Community
Preference Model
Review
Refinement
Review
Refinement
Review
Refinement
Data/
Technical
Support
Data/
Technical
Support
Data/
Technical
Support
Input/Feedback Input/Feedback Input/Feedback
Case wise
Visual
Evaluation
(CAVE)

Example Scenario Matrix
Future Vision Categories Scenario
1
Scenario
2
Scenario
3
Scenario
4
Land Use
a. Nuclear Industry
:
z. Residential Apartments
Waste Disposal
a. On-site
b. Partial
c. Off-site
Groundwater
a. Water Policy & Active Treatment
:
z. Monitoring & Enhanced Inst. Controls
Surface Water
a. Monitoring
:
z. Sedimentation Basins/Removal

Example Scenario Fact Sheet
Impacts:
Health
Economic
Environmental
Trends:
Energy Needs
Economic
Environmental
Uncertainties:
Funding
Regulations
Demographics

Structured Public Involvement
Future Vision
Scenarios
Fact Sheets
Future Sate
Visualizations
Future State
Visualizations
Discussion
Vote on Scenarios

CAsewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE)
Fuzzy Knowledge Builder
Optimal Solution
5 3 3 3 3
5 3 1 1 3
5 7 5 1 3
8 7 5 3 3
9 8 5 3 3
Sampled Scenarios Modeled Scenarios Selected Scenario(s)

Myths of Public Involvement
1. “difficult to have consensus without leadership”
(CORP speaker, May 2007)
2. “without leadership participation is impossible”
(CORP speaker, May 2007)
3. “the public are uninformed” (CORP panelist, Feb
2004)
4. “in this environment, it is impossible to involve
people” (CORP speaker, May 2007)
5. “people will never be satisfied” (Planner, 2005)

Myths about Public Involvement in Planning
“in this environment, it is impossible to involve
people” (CORP speaker, May 2007).
It is only impossible if there is no analytic method or if
the will to include citizens is lacking. Citizen
preferences and professional design practice must
be brought into genuine dialog: even if it is
ideologically unpalatable to professionals.

“the public are uninformed” (CORP panelist, Feb 2004)
The public may not have expert knowledge of structural
properties, but they know their cultural, visual and
financial preferences. In democratic societies where
public money is being spent, this claim should not be
used to exclude their participation. Their opinion
should be respected to the greatest feasible extent.

“without leadership, participation is impossible”
(CORP speaker 2007)
Participation occurs without political or professional
leadership. However, tame participation, i.e.
participation that agrees with expert opinion, is
only possible through a certain kind of leadership.

“people don’t know what they want” (Planning
meeting participant, 2006)
People’s preferences appear opaque because they
aren’t being asked…..or because they’re not
participating because they’re not being listened
to….or because the professionals lack analytic
methods to help them understand what people
mean.

“difficult to have consensus without leadership” (CORP
speaker, May 2007)
Consensus is not a useful goal in large-scale planning
projects. Achievement of consensus is only
possible through deployment of power: silencing of
opposing views, exclusion of certain groups from
participation.
Does nonconsensual planning mean morally or
practically inferior planning?

• “..there has been little attempt to develop [more
general] theories within the context of
transportation projects, possibly because
systematic public involvement is a relatively
recent development in this field.” (Barnes and
Langworthy 2004:8-9)
Methodological Suggestions from Transportation Literature

Methodological Suggestions from Transportation Literature

Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009

Similar to Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009 (20)

More from keironbailey

More from keironbailey (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Structured Public Involvement™ workshop Helsinki May 2009