SDF Working Group 3

1
SDF Working Group 3 Social Action
Communication Meeting 6 Public vote for a
water management project Lake Lippe / Urban
Water Anke Schüler, Emschergenossenschaft Rees-H
affen 21. November 2006
2
Contributions Winfried Geisel,
Emschergenossenschaft, project leader for Lake
Lippe Thomas Quast, Markus Gabriel,
ComX,evaluation of the communication process
Lake Lippe Anke Schüler, Emschergenossenschaft,le
ad partner of Urban Water
3
Agenda 1. Urban Water pilot project Lake
Lippe, Hamm 2. Double strategy of communicating
Lake Lippe 3. Evaluation of communication
process 4. Selected communication activities
assessment 5. Public vote for Lake Lippe NO 6.
Lessons learned
4
Urban Water Lake Lippe

5

• Urban Water sustainable water management
  in urban space
• Overall aim Integration of sustainable water
  management spatial planning
• Seeks for pilot projects with integrated
  approaches How to improve urban attractiveness
  with water management measures
• Important link between spatial development,
  ecological improvement, flood protection,
  increasing water quality
• Double approach two working groups open water
  systems and urban water chains for
  transnational know-how-exchange PLUS
  implementation of pilot projects to realize
  test new findings

6

• Pilot project Lake Lippe, Hamm
• Planning of a 43 ha lake on farmland
• Development of floodplains and banks for the
  ecological improvement of the river Lippe
• Integration in the Lippe meadow programme
• Creating of 1 mio. m3 retention volume for the
  Lippe
• Cooperation with spatial planning Planning of
  150 ha new settlements in greenbelts
• Realisation of fish way for ecological patency
• Participation of the public
• ? merging water management, ecology, recreation
  and increase of urban attractiveness

7
Visions of a lake for Hamm
Lake planning 1967
Lake Lippe 1977 Zweischlössersee
Masterplan towards Water 2001
Feasibility study 2002
Lake Lippe 2005 approved 2006
8
Agenda 1. Urban Water pilot project Lake
Lippe, Hamm 2. Double strategy of communicating
Lake Lippe 3. Evaluation of communication
process 4. Selected communication activities
assessment 5. Public vote for Lake Lippe NO 6.
Lessons learned
9
Double strategy of communicating Lake Lippe Two
main objectives I. All activities to get the
approval, in limited time, high quality planning
and acceptable costs II. All communication
activities to reach a wide support by the public
and politics. Within strategy II the goal has
been changed towards a public vote (decision of
the mayor of Hamm during municipal elections
September 2004).

10
Planning approval
Realization
Planning Lake Lippe
Masterplan
Scoping
Pre-planning
Draft
-gt2010
2001-2003
25.5.2005-28.4.2006
28.1.2004 25.5.2005
Vote18.6.06
Kick-off
1. Presen-tation
Opening planning documents
Hearing
Urban Water
Financial plan 24.4.06
Lake talks
Mobilization phase
Preparation phase
Time linepublic communication and participation
11

• Objective I planning for approval
• Clearing up different interests within
  Lippeverband, Municipality, (permission)
  authorities, stakeholders, owners of real estate,
  
• Monthly (steering)meetings with main planners,
  experts, partners
• Early involving the permission authority and
  expert authorities
• Early presentation of the final planning towards
  the authorities and stakeholders
• Analog and digital planning
• Optimizing the Lake Lippe by internal experts

12

• Objective II public communication
• Time table activities, events -gt schedule
• Action motto Towards new banks (double sence)
• Corporate Design (logo, brochures, )
• Internet presentation (www.hamm.de/lippesee and
  www.lippeverband.de)
• Information material, brochures, continued
  information to local press (Hamm Magazin,
  Newspaper )
• Presentations for several specialized groups
  (clubs, society, political parties,)
• Invitation of the new ministers of NRW
• Sponsoring (Pro Lippesee)

13

• Objective II public participation events
• Information evening in the Kurhaus 20.12.2004,
  with open exhibition and options to talk to
  responsibles
• Lake talks 3 evenings with selected topics
  water management, ecology and urban
  development in summer 2005
• Workshops for urban use and design of the
  northern bank (since 09.2005), with directly
  affected residents
• Integrating Lake Lippe project in other
  department measurements (school projects, events,
  2005 2006)
• Public vote summer 2006

14
Agenda 1. Urban Water pilot project Lake
Lippe, Hamm 2. Double strategy of communicating
Lake Lippe 3. Evaluation of communication
process 4. Selected communication activities
assessment 5. Public vote for Lake Lippe NO 6.
Lessons learned
15

• Evaluation of communication process
• Target To deliver insight in order to optimize
  participation and communication strategies and
  processes for projects with an integrated
  approach
• Questions to be answered
• When is it best to give what information in
  which way to the (general) public?
• Which action should be taken when in order to
  let citizens participate in the purpose of the
  project?
• How shall water boards (water experts)
  cooperate with communities (in charge of urban
  development)?
• What should be done when a project fails?

16

• Evaluation of communication process
• Stepping stones of evaluation
• Analysis of communication and participation
  concepts/ measures in Hamm (incl. communication
  of organized opponents), in comparison with one
  other pilot project (here Stadsblokken, in
  Arnhem)
• Analysis of media coverage and letters to the
  editors (as one expression of citizens opinion)
  in Hamm
• In-depth interviews with actors/players involved
  in Hamm (10) and Arnhem (5)
• In-depth interviews with citizens of Hamm
  (16-18) selected by criteria like age, position
  of domicile (in relation to the lake area),
  supporter/opponent, voter/nonvoter, technical
  level of education etc.

17
Agenda 1. Urban Water pilot project Lake
Lippe, Hamm 2. Double strategy of communicating
Lake Lippe 3. Evaluation of communication
process 4. Selected communication activities
assessment 5. Public vote for Lake Lippe NO 6.
Lessons learned
18

• Public Event, Presentation Kurhaus 20.12.04
• Open exhibition Input and ideas for the
  communication by the communication process in
  Arnheim presentation and Posters, guided event
  by experts, close to the public, open discussion
• Information press information, talks by the
  heads of municipality of Hamm and Lippeverband,
  personal invitation important inhabitants, expert
  presentations, poster exhibition, experts close
  to the public for discussion
• Animation3-D Computer-Animation of Lake Lippe
  (7 Minutes)

19
Assessment

• high and (very) positive media coverage of the
  event
• 3D-animation labelled impressive
• Hunsteger-Petermann and Stemplewski recognized as
  main forces behind the project
• the initial public event had a high potential
  to reach the citizenship
• high attendance of the target audience (more than
  400 citizens)
• brings together institutions/politicians in
  charge of the project with members of local
  associations and the general public
• members of associations and organisations
  familiar with participation in public projects
  and processes are overrepresented
• communication tries to be vivid, but in many
  cases remains close to the technical language of
  water management and urban planning

20
Approval phase public participation
25.5.2005-28.4.2006
Opening application form 15.7.-15.8.2005 in Hamm
21
Assessment

• press focuses on submission of the planning
  documents and successful authorisation personal
  hand-over (staged as a media event) of planning
  documents to the regional authority (June 2005)
  underlines engagement of town mayor and EGLV
• approval of the plans (July 2006) never seemed
  to be relevant to the media nor something the
  responsible partners wanted to point to actively
• the information brochure accompanying the
  submission of the planning documents found higher
  public interest (first edition was followed by
  another 5.000 copies)
• the brochure is based on the technical planning
  documents technical language
• 3D animation allows emotional approach to the
  project

22
Lake talks
Technical information about the Lake Lippe plan,
focus on water management, ecological subjects,
urban development -gt correct the mistakes in
the public discussion about not solved
problems -gt better understanding, minimized
concerns -gt discussion of problems, comments,
results to each participant

23
Assessment

• intention similar to the information evening in
  the Kurhaus, but with only a moderate attendance
  by citizens / no media coverage
• technical-oriented / each talk dealt with one
  main topic
• the main contributions to the discussions should
  be reported and summarized in a handout for all
  participators

24
Workshops for urban design, 14.09.2005 Participato
ry planning with the neighborhoods of the
northern planning fields -gt Moderation by urban
planners, introduction, open discussions,
personal interviews, (process 3 month)

25

• Assessment
• within the same period of the Lake talks
  (7./13./14.09.2005) workshops were held to
  substantiate the plans and sketches for the
  overall planning concerning the urban design of
  the northern bank
• this activity seems to allow the highest level
  of participation by citizens/residents (of
  Hamm-Heessen, the quarter at the northern bank)
  besides saying YES or NO to a preplanned project

26
Agenda 1. Urban Water pilot project Lake
Lippe, Hamm 2. Double strategy of communicating
Lake Lippe 3. Evaluation of communication
process 4. Selected communication activities
assessment 5. Public vote for Lake Lippe NO 6.
Lessons learned
27

• Public vote 18.06.2006
• high attendance 42,2
• PRO Lake Lippe 43,1
• AGAINST Lake Lippe 56,9

28

• Publishing of financial plan
• 24.4.2006 Invitation by the Mayor of Hamm to
  all relevant persons of the Hamm region, mains
  actors of all political parties, businesses,
  social organisations, press
• Special guest Minister of Urban affairs (NRW)
• 30,8 Mio. (39 ) will be public money by NRW and
  EU, 79,2 Mio. complete costs
• Financial plan for 100 years, a need of 1,23
  Mio. /a 2,8 Mio. until 2010 2,4 Mio. after
  10 years, maintenance 200T/a
• costs include Lake, airfield, urban design,
  landscape, ecological measures
• -gt no problem for municipality finances, no
  decrease of the engagement towards education and
  infrastructure

29

• Mobilisation phase Public vote 18.6.06
• Presentations
• Press
• Special articles in monthly magazine
• Pro Lippesee activities with accepted and famous
  persons in Hamm
• Elections phase with posters towards and against
  Lake Lippe (3 weeks)
• Television and radio and newspaper interviews

30
First reactions on financial plan
69
30
1
31
Mobilization hot phase June 2006
32
Assessment

• (communication) activities culminate the
  process of participation seems to be reduced to
  campaigning
• while arguments of the supporters are rather
  detailed, opponents concentrate on high costs
• the supporters association again uses the
  official virtual visuals ? this matches one
  argumentation of the opponents, the vision of the
  town major and supporters is an unrealistic dream
  (anyway, the term vision may not be suitable
  for the broad public)
• moreover, ProLippesee might be seen as a
  helpmate of the city and not an association of
  citizens
• the visuals of the opponents seem simple and
  somewhat dowdy (e.g. happy family on bicycles)
  but may reach (parts) of the broad public more
  effectively

33
Assessment

• culmination of the whole process high media
  coverage
• since nobody expected the NO, it is considered
  a sensation
• doubts on the financing comes out as the main
  reason for saying NO in the media
• high involvement of citizens controversy
  continued for weeks (see letters to the editor)
• supporters complain about opponents low
  willingness to take a risk and missed EU and NRW
  grant whereas opponents understand the NO as
  the expressed will of the ordinary Joe
• still some people think that the saved costs
  now can be used for other purposes

34
Number of articles and letters to the editor
Basis 194 editorial articles and 92 letters to
the editor (with identifiable date)
editorial articles
letters to the editor
total number
Public vote 18. June 06
Quarter
3/04
4/04
3/06
2/06
1/06
4/05
3/05
2/05
1/05
Public information evening in the Kurhaus 20. Dec
04
Beginning of planning approval procedure 25. Mai
05
Announcement of financing plan and date of public
vote 24. Apr 06
35
Topics and tendencies
editorial articles
letters to the editor
negative
positive
positive
neutral
neutral
negative
Cumulative tendency of all topics
mentioned topics in percent
mentioned topics in percent
tendency
tendency
Cost
Lake Lippe as a contribution to
attractiveness/life quality of Hamm
Ecological impact (flora and fauna) of Lake Lippe
Potentials for leisure and local recreation at
Lake Lippe
Lake Lippe as an place for creation of new
workstations
Lake Lippe as a location for invest-ment
Lake Lippe as an individual project of local
politicians
Basis 197 editorial articles and 102 letters to
the editor
36
Assessment

• during the whole process (esp. the last weeks)
  financing has been one of the core issues in the
  public discussion
• the main argument for neglecting the project for
  reasons of economy is that the investment should
  be better used for other purposes (e.g. street
  repairs, refurbishment of public schools)
• this may be due to the misunderstanding that
  financing is based on yet existing and therefore
  freely available funds
• calculating the financing over a period of 100
  years including interest and write-offs may have
  affected the discussion in a negative way as
  after the announcement of financing
• more people find the costs (123 Millions)
  inadequately high and
• some people began to argue that the burden is too
  high for future generations

37

• 6. Lessons learned
• Early participation of public important! Do not
  work too hard and long on the technical perfect
  solution and ask then for enthusiasm
• Participation of public is more than
  information the workshops on urban development
  were the most successful, because here the ideas
  of the inhabitants were taken into account
• Information is still important the strategy of
  the open exhibition worked very well
• A public vote is not neccessary the best sign
  for democracy The participatory aspect of the
  public vote was in fact very small people could
  only say YES or NO to the project. Better ask for
  alternatives!

38

• 6. Lessons learned
• While communicating to the public, language is
  most important. Do not use planner/engineer
  language! see the example of the opponents
  simple pictures with simple messages come across
• Finances are always a critical point a time
  span of 100 years cannot be overseen by people.
• Instead of explaining again and again the costs
  (which is a never ending story) make sure that
  people want the product they pay for talk about
  the benefits, not only the costs

39
auf zu neuen Ufern
Vielen Dank hartelijk bedankt!