OUTPUT WP2A6.3 - Agreed VALUE Added position on the inclusion of
hard-to-reach groups.
Introduction
As partners in the VALUE+ project1, we place great importance on effective community and
stakeholder involvement, particularly - but not exclusively - regarding the planning, delivery
and management of improvements to the public realm and the creation of green
infrastructure networks. We are committed to public engagement and are keen to work
together to establish and improve procedures to give people a chance to both express their
views and to get involved in planning and delivery processes.
This document more specifically explores the issue of the engagement of traditionally ‘hardto-reach groups’ in preparing both local and strategic plans, as well as longer-term
processes for delivering, managing and caring for better places. This document represents
the agreed position of VALUE+ partners on how we can better involve these ‘hard-to-reach
groups’. This represents the second of three steps towards a shared statement of the
VALUE Added partners on community involvement and social inclusion. We refer to the
emerging agenda (output of action 1A2.1) for more general recommendations on
community and/or stakeholder engagement.
Implementing efforts to engage ‘hard-to-reach groups’ in participatory planning (and
especially green infrastructure planning) is important and valuable for several reasons.
First of all it is now well acknowledged that the offer and quality of green spaces tend to
vary across neighbourhoods, in relation to the socioeconomic status of their inhabitants.
The increasing correlation between social and ecological inequalities is a big issue to be
addressed if we want to achieve a genuinely inclusive smart growth.
These inequalities are partly due to the fact that certain groups of citizens are traditionally
less likely, or less able, to get involved in planning processes or to mobilize political leaders
to defend their interests. Whether they don’t participate through choice or because they
have somehow been excluded by the process implemented, the risk is that the outputs of
the participatory planning process are less representative of the community as a whole.
In response to this, our agreed position has fairness at its heart as well as our obligation to
help to create strong communities. We believe that everyone should get a fair chance to
succeed and we recognise that some people and communities need extra help to reach
their full potential. One aspect of this is the ability of all citizens to become involved in civic
society. As a partnership we are therefore very keen to share and develop our knowledge,
1
For background information on the VALUE+ project, its funders and the partners, please see www.valueand.com
Page 1 of 7
understanding and actions together, and specifically to develop clear principles of
community and stakeholder involvement, which we can then tailor to meet the specific
needs of our local places, and to incorporate these perspectives as we develop future
methods of consultation and engagement, especially regarding to Green Infrastructures.
In the rest of the document we try to gather information and lines for possible action. These
are based on VALUE+ partners’ experience and observations made during the VALUE+
project. The document is structured alongside the following questions in relation to ‘hard-toreach groups’: Who are they and why them? How to better engage them? What are the
direct and indirect benefits of their engagement?
Hard-to-reach groups: who are they and why are they ‘hard-to-reach’?
In the literature, there is a lack of clarity about what exactly is meant by ‘hard to reach
groups’ and to which groups of population it refers exactly. Our ambition is not to fill this
gap, notably because our observations confirm that ‘hard-to-reach groups’ can differ across
regions and countries. In the following, we thus consider ‘hard-to-reach groups’ as all
groups who are less likely, or less able, to get involved in planning processes, whether
through choice, lack of awareness or because they have somehow been excluded by the
process implemented.
As a result of our observations during the VALUE+ pilot projects and previous experiences,
they can be youngsters, migrants, deprived or less educated people, isolated people such
as older people / disable people but also people who simply lack the time to participate
(because they have young children, because they have a very demanding job,…).
The main reasons why some people may be ‘hard-to-reach’ are:
1. They don’t feel concerned (e.g. youngsters who think it is not interesting or relevant for
them, recent migrants who might not have integrated in to the communities that they have
moved to or have not lived there long enough to feel like this is their home).
2. They feel excluded (e.g. migrants who feel excluded from the local community,
youngsters who think they won’t be listened to by adults, deprived people who feel
excluded due to their personal situation).
3. The mainstream communication and engagement strategies and channels are not
appropriate to reach certain groups of population (e.g. migrant communities, youngsters,
deprived or less educated people, older people).
4. Some of the mainstream participation methods make people feel they are incompetent
and therefore contribute to exclude people in the course of the process. Engaging in a
traditional planning discussion indeed requires important hard and soft skills: selfconfidence, ability to speak in public, local language proficiency, mastery of the procedures,
etc. Migrants, but also youngsters, less-educated people might have different needs,
requiring other approaches.
Page 2 of 7
5. A bad personal experience with participation in the past discourages some people from
participating again (this is very difficult to reverse, also a reason why it is so important to
use appropriate participation approaches).
6. Some people have other urgent priorities (e.g. deprived people who have to make ends
meet every month).
7. Some people lack of time (busy workers, parents of young children, etc.).
8. The schedule of the participation activities is inappropriate to some people (e.g. meetings
end of the afternoon are often inappropriate for busy workers).
These are just examples of possible reasons why it can be difficult to reach and engage
with different minority groups. It certainly does not mean that e.g. all migrants or all
youngsters are the same and have the same difficulties or barriers for engaging in a
participatory planning process.
There might also be other types of hard-to-reach groups in certain contexts, where other
reasons make it difficult for them to be reached. So, most importantly, planners should take
the time in the early stages of the planning process to think about potential ‘hard-to-reach’
groups and design approaches to facilitate their engagement. There is also a need to work
with local service providers and third sector organisations to get a better understanding of
the different groups, their needs and how best to engage them. It is also important that
planners remain reflexive during the participatory planning process, e.g. to adapt their
engagement approach when they notice that specific groups are not represented in the
participants.
How to better engage hard-to-reach groups?
Two general principles from our emerging agenda on community engagement (action
1A2.1) may be helpful to remind in order to optimise engagement efforts:
• Reaching out: Methods used to encourage involvement should be appropriate to people’s
experience, needs and capabilities.
• Equitable and inclusive: none engagement technique fits for all. People have different
needs and some people may need more or different resources to have access to the
same outcomes as others. Some people face additional barriers and constraints, and we
may need to assist people to have the ability to become more involved, if they choose to
Page 3 of 7
do so. We can design processes to help eliminate discrimination2, advance equality of
opportunity and foster good relations between different people.
In the following, more specific approaches and recommendations to promote a better
engagement of ‘hard-to-reach groups’ in the different stages of the planning process are
suggested by the VALUE+ partners. Some were tested in the context of the VALUE+ pilot
investments or are suggested following lessons learned in this context, others result from
VALUE+ partners’ experience.
• At the project design stage:
For groups who are hard-to-reach because they are less able to engage in traditional
participatory approaches:
1. First engage key individuals or organisations that are representative or champion a
specific community or group (e.g. a cultural association, a mosque, etc.). In this case,
these individuals and organisations are mobilized for their ability to relay or pass on key
information to the targeted group.
2. Develop partnerships with existing organisations and integrate participation directly in the
programme of activities of these organisations (meeting people where they are rather
than asking them to come to meetings and places where they won’t feel comfortable, at
least as a first step). Examples of these organisations are: schools, sport clubs, scouts,
etc. to work with youngsters; social welfare organisations, medical centers, etc. to reach
deprived people; cultural associations, NPOs, language training centers, etc. to reach
migrant people; private companies for busy workers, schools or nurseries for parents of
young children, etc.
3. In general, organise specific participation activities for groups who might not feel
comfortable to express themselves in traditional, mainstream planning debates (e.g.
youngsters, migrants, older people, deprived people) and organise these specific
activities within their environment (their ‘comfort zone’).
4. Generally, use a vocabulary as simple as possible and take the time to explain more
complex concepts and terms, especially for groups who are not used to planning
approaches (e.g. youngsters, migrants, less educated people).
5. Use more sporting, active or funny approaches of participation, especially for some
groups who don’t feel comfortable in the mainstream planning debates because they
require a good understanding of technical / bureaucratic terminology (e.g. youngsters,
less educated people or migrant people). An example of such an approach is the use of
For instance, efforts to eliminate discrimination in terms of characteristics such as • Age; • Disability; •
Gender reassignment; • Marriage and civil partnership; • Pregnancy and maternity; • Race; • Religion and
belief; • Sex; • Sexual orientation.
2
Page 4 of 7
an orienteering exercise as a way to discover and appropriate a site, but also to
encourage participants to express their impressions of a site. The use of visualisation
approaches (see action 2A5.3) may also be helpful in this case.
6. Let the targeted people organise themselves the participation of their colleagues or the
members of their group and let them free to design the format for this participation (a way
to ensure that it better fits to the targeted audience): e.g. ask a class of youngsters to
consult their ‘youngsters’ community (e.g. through videotaped interviews, through the
use of social medias, etc.).
7. Call on participants’ memories and personal experience: ask them to tell about their own
experience with green spaces (if this is the issue), to call on their memories as a way to
express their needs and expectations in relation to the concerned green space or place.
8. Use more visual methods of participation (e.g. use pictures of various places to
encourage and help participants to express themselves on urban design options they
like/dislike and why). These methods are especially interesting for people who are not
used to planning discussions, who have language difficulties or are afraid of being
incompetent in the concerned matters (e.g. youngsters, recent migrants, less educated
people).
9. Always be clear on the scope for stakeholders to influence decisions, and which aspects
are open for negotiation. It is indeed counter-productive to let people dream about
unrealistic projects or features since this might contribute to discourage them to
participate in the future and become ‘hard-to-reach’.
For groups who are hard-to-reach because of a time issue:
10. Passing through web-based communication (e.g. mailing lists, websites) and
participation means (e.g. social media, online surveys and polls, forums, blogs, etc.)
11. Organise face-to-face participation activities in the evenings or during the weekends
(avoid activities during the working days)
For all groups for which specific approaches were mobilized:
12. Give feedback to people who have been involved, including information on responses to
their input (summary of the inputs, impact on the planning process).
13. Last but not least, present and integrate the results of these specific participation
initiatives into the mainstream participation approach, so that every participant is
informed of theses initiatives and of the inputs from other groups. This might be done
through a public information meeting integrating all inputs and participants, through and
exhibition presenting all the initiatives and their outputs, etc.
• At the project implementation stage:
14. Shorten the time as much as possible between the planning and participation process
and the start of the implementation stage. The longer time inbetween these two
Page 5 of 7
periods, the more people will loose their connection / enthusiasm with the project. This
is specially important for groups who are not used to participate to planning and project
implementation processes and who are thus not used to their time schedule.
15. Engage people in the concrete implementation of the project: depending on the nature
and characteristics of the project, citizens may take part to certain tasks, e.g. planting
trees, painting buildings or design elements, making some of the urban furniture, or
other elements that provide permanent recognition of their involvement. Especially
people who don’t feel comfortable in complex debates might feel better engaging
themselves in a more concrete way.
• After the project planning and implementation stages:
16. Invite people to evaluate the engagement process after the completion of the project
and assess how successful this has been. Community members, especially from hardto-reach groups, should be an integral part of the evaluation and the information
collected should be used to help improve engagement techniques for future projects.
• On the longer term:
17. Engage people in the management of the area: depending on the nature and
characteristics of the project, citizens may also take part in the long term maintenance
and management of the site, e.g. by cultivating a part of it, by organising activities and
events on the site, or still by simply keeping an eye on the site. Various possible models
of area management partnerships are suggested in the report of action 4A10.3.
Benefits from a better engagement of ‘hard-to-reach groups’
The direct and valuable benefits of a better engagement of hard-to-reach groups are points
of view that are complementary to the ones obtained through the mainstream participation
approaches, which potentially leads to projects and designs that are more adapted to the
needs of different groups of population, and therefore potentially more sustainable and
resilient.
Various indirect benefits of the engagement of hard-to-reach groups may also be
highlighted:
- Higher sense of citizenship
- Higher pride and concern for the place – which will reduce the likelihood of neglect or
vandalism
- Higher confidence in public authorities
- Inclusion effects (higher social cohesion)
- Capacity building effects: improvement of hard and soft skills for participants
Page 6 of 7
- Happiness and feeling of satisfaction for participants (offering a possibility of expressing
themselves)
Forthcoming report of action 5A15.2 will demonstrate some of these indirect benefits.
Conclusion
The VALUE+ partners share the belief that the engagement of hard-to-reach groups should
always be a consideration in the design of participatory planning approaches, and that
various methods and recommendations can be used to this.
The VALUE+ partners share the belief that engaging hard-to-reach groups provides
multiple benefits. Firstly, giving a wider range of people the opportunity to influence
decision-making will lead to outcomes that better reflect the views, aspirations and needs of
that wider community of stakeholders, at any scale. Second, efforts to involve ‘hard-toreach groups’ can generate benefits that go well beyond the process under consideration,
and can flow into other aspects of people’s lives, their work, their decisions and their
choices, as well as a wider sense of community / citizenship and opportunity within society.
Additional resources
Further information and ideas on how to organise the engagement of hard-to-reach groups
but also information on the benefits of these engagement approaches can be found in other
VALUE+ outputs:
• WP1: Emerging agenda on community engagement (1A2.1), report on social media
platform (1A1.5), report on stakeholders engagement (1A1.6);
• WP2: report of the charettes workshop (2A4.1), report on transnational design charettes
(2A4.5), report on urban design workshop (2A5.1), report on use of visualisation tools
(2A5.3), report of the community participation workshop (2A6.1);
• WP3: overall WP3 report, report on local workshops to broaden participation in strategic
planning for green growth and resilience (3A7.5), report of the workshop on smart green
growth (combination of actions 3A9.3 and 3A9.4);
• WP4: report on model agreements for long-term management involving partnerships
(4A10.3), report on training events for community participants (4A11.1), report on
communities workshop (4A11.2);
• WP5: report on supporting participation and reducing transaction costs (5A14.3),
forthcoming report on workshop on transformative, group learning resulting from top-down bottom-up approaches (action 5A15.2), forthcoming NWE Convention on the inclusion of
hard-to-reach groups (5A15.4).
Page 7 of 7