Next generation engagement: Setting a research agenda for community engagement in Australia's infrastructure sector

Abstract

The global infrastructure sector is thriving. But community opposition to major projects is also rising. Australian examples demonstrate the policy backflips, reputational pitfalls, and financial costs of project delays and cancellations. Failures to engage communities are surprising, given the widespread adoption of community engagement (CE) principles and the increasing professionalization of CE roles. If acceptance of the need for CE in infrastructure is more widespread than ever, why are we not seeing smoother project delivery, reduced protest, and cost savings? This paradox is the driving force behind the Next Generation Engagement project. This article offers a practitioners’ perspective to introduce the project and present key findings from its 12‐month pilot study aiming to establish a transdisciplinary, industry‐led research agenda for CE in Australia's infrastructure sector. The article contributes to our understanding of CE literature and research codesign. It maps out the top five priority themes for future research to support infrastructure selection, planning and delivery. The research agenda provides guidance for policy, and practice, offering consolidated, research‐based insights for policymakers and practitioners.

Research for impact: three keys for research implementation

“…Kothari and Wathen 2017) and research impact (Greenhalgh et al 2004). It also advances knowledge concerning the role of community engagement in major infrastructure delivery (Bice, Neely, and Einfeld 2019;Cowell and Devine-Wright 2018;EL-Gohary, Osman, and EL-Diraby 2006;Innes and Booher 2003a) by providing research-derived tools to assess the quality of that engagement and its influence on project outcomes.…”

“…Recent examples from around Australia show that many communities are unhappy with the way certain projects have been proposed or delivered (DE Martinis and Moyan 2017). From the industry perspective, social opposition contributes to increased costs and barriers to infrastructure delivery, including substantial delays and cancelations (Bice, Neely, and Einfeld 2019;Harris, Hodges, and Schur 2003). This is not to mention the stresses and difficulties placed upon infrastructure project staff.…”

“…Social data on the impact of infrastructure delivery is also limited. Yet research demonstrates that poor engagement contributes to billions in lost investments and poor social outcomes (Bice, Neely, and Einfeld 2019). The connections between responsible industry behaviors and community wellbeing are widely recognized (Bice 2015b;Bice 2015a;Bice and Moffat 2014), as are connections between poor engagement, lost social license, and community opposition (Moffat and Zhang 2014).…”

Participatory network mapping of an emergent social network for a regional transition to a low-carbon and just society on the Dingle Peninsula

“…Community engagement centres on the involvement of community members in policy and project planning, delivery, or evaluation processes (Bice, Neely, and Einfeld 2019). The implementation of such an approach conflicts with established institutional structures which create divisions between lay citizens and policymakers or scientific experts.…”

Impact assessment for the 21st century – what future?

“…Impact assessment today operates within incredibly complex environments, rife with messiness and uncertainty. Recent research specifies dynamic contexts characterised by changing demographics and urbanisation (Retief et al 2016), intensive project delivery (Bice et al 2019), rapidly developing technologies (Dusik et al 2018;Sinclair et al 2017), increasingly interconnected geographies and political uncertainties (Banhalmi-Zakar et al 2018). The outlook for IA depends on our understanding and engaging with a complicated range of issues and trends.…”