Cities 31 (2013) 370–381

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

A public private people partnerships (P4) process framework

for infrastructure development in Hong Kong
S. Thomas Ng, James M.W. Wong ⇑, Kelwin K.W. Wong
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Public private partnerships (PPPs) have been widely adopted to provide essential social and economic
Received 27 March 2012 infrastructure and services. However, there is currently no systematic mechanism governing how social
Received in revised form 21 August 2012 concerns should be captured at different stages of a PPP project. This paper, therefore, advocates a
Accepted 2 December 2012
rethinking of the pragmatic issues underpinning public engagement and suggests a process framework
Available online 28 December 2012
that puts people as a major stakeholder for implementing PPP schemes. This public private people part-
nerships (P4) process framework embraces the bottom-up participative strategies which bring the public
Keywords:
engagement clearly visible for infrastructure planning and policy making. With this newly developed
Public private partnership
Public participation
framework and associated engagement strategies, decision-making power can deviate from policy mak-
Social–economic concerns ers, who are traditionally holding the ultimate decision authority, towards the citizens through proactive
Infrastructure development engagement. Such strategy can help improve the development process by moderating the risk of unfore-
Hong Kong seen oppositions, building clear responsibilities and rights, and creating opportunities for public inputs. It
is anticipated that formulating such effective and genuine public engagement framework for PPP projects
would assist government bodies, not only in Hong Kong but also other parts of the world, to better realise
the changing public aspirations and demands for infrastructure planning and policy formulation.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
The adoption of public private partnerships (PPPs) for the deliv-
ery of public infrastructure facilities such as roads, hospitals,
schools, power plants and sewers has been a worldwide trend.
However, various challenges have been encountered in some PPPs
initiatives causing undesirable project failure. Of the challenges
identified, stakeholder opposition was found to be the main cause
for failure (El-Gohary, Osman, & El-Diraby, 2006; Siemiatycki,
2009). For some PPP developments such as schools and health care
projects, the public’s expectation for information and participation
may not be very demanding. When it comes to projects of highly
controversial nature such as railway or heritage conservation
schemes, the engagement process is considered inadequate for
the sake of governing democratically (Krawchenko & Stoney,
2011; Lui, 2008). The interests and views of the general public
are often overlooked in the delivery framework of PPP (Akintoye,
Hardcastle, Beck, Chinyio, & Asenova, 2003; Majamaa, Junnila, Do-
loi, & Niemistö, 2008).
In anticipation that the private sector, with its efficiency and
flexibility, may fit well in partnering with the public sector, the
involvement of the private sector in public works might inevitably
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 9075 7072; fax: +852 2559 5337.
E-mail addresses: tstng@hkucc.hku.hk (S.T. Ng), jmwwong@hkucc.hku.hk
(J.M.W. Wong), kelwinw@hkucc.hku.hk (K.K.W. Wong).
raise public concerns of rate hikes, social welfare, quality assur-
ance, and dispute over transfer agreement (El-Gohary et al.,
2006; Reijniers, 1994). Scholars (e.g. Bennett, Seldon, & Grohmann,
2000; Mumtaz & Wegelin, 2001) expressed the importance of
involving people in PPPs scheme, i.e. public private people partner-
ships (P4) rather than a two-way partnership between the public
and private sectors (Fig. 1).
Public engagement is interpreted as getting the affected and/or
interested stakeholders fully involved in the decision-making pro-
cess (Renn, Webler, & Wiedemann, 1995; Tang, Zhao, & Coleman,
2005). In Arnstein’s (1969) well-known ladder of citizen participa-
tion, she emphasised that a real engagement is a full partnership
with citizens. In other words, public engagement is a redistribution
of power to a certain extent (Bloomfield, Collins, Fry, & Munton,
1998; Burgess, 1998). This notion aims to facilitate an information
flow among different parties, balances their interests, and allows
citizens to express their concerns (Booth & Richardson, 2001;
Creighton, 2005). Their input is essential to ensure that all critical
issues are carefully deliberated and the decisions made have strong
support from the community (Bagaeen, 2006; Goven & Langer,
2009; Treatmann, 2007).
Although the context of infrastructure development planning
has intended to be transparent and a consensus-based decision,
Hong Kong lacks an effective and robust framework for engaging
the public during the development planning process so as to better
safeguard the interests of all stakeholders (Anex & Focht, 2002; Li,

0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.12.002
 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381
Fig. 1. Public private people partnerships (P4).
Ng, & Wong, 2009). Local government remains keen on maintain-
ing conventional top-down decision-making approach which has
led to poor accountability and even political impasse (Lo, 2002).
The recent debates surrounding a multi-functional development
as well as an express rail link project have exposed the weaknesses
in the public engagement strategies in Hong Kong (Tsang, Burnett,
Hills, & Welford, 2009). If inputs from the community are to be suc-
cessfully integrated into infrastructure development projects, a
public engagement framework is needed to promote a more col-
laborative approach.
The aim of this paper is, therefore, to establish a holistic public
engagement process framework for PPP projects. The proposed
framework was developed based on an extensive literature review
and case study, and verified rigorously by an expert panel. A novel
P4 model is established where the public participation is clearly
visible for infrastructure planning and policy making. The current
public participation practice in Hong Kong is first portrayed, which
is followed by the research design. The development of the P4 pro-
cess framework and its features are then discussed. Concluding re-
marks are drawn in the last section.
Public engagement practices in Hong Kong
Infrastructure planning and development is a complex regime
because it covers multifaceted policy issues, such as regulations,
land acquisition, as well as resource extraction and allocation
(Kumaraswamy & Zhang, 2001). For any infrastructure planning
in Hong Kong, the responsible authority is statutorily required to
undertake public consultations and hearings, as the decisions
Fig. 2. Public Engagement of the Kai Tak Development Process.
371
made will have short to long-term impacts on the community at
large. Formulating a ‘draft’ development plan, therefore, entails
the input from the community for its legitimacy. The local govern-
ment employed various forms of public engagement approaches
including exhibitions, public forums, focus meetings, community
workshops, etc. in order to capture the views of the community
and to gain legitimacy under the political system. About 300 advi-
sory and statutory bodies (ASBs) have been set up in the territory
to acquire advice on government’s policies, resolve any quarrel be-
tween the government and influenced parties, and deliver the pub-
lic facilities or services.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the public engagement process of a redevel-
opment project of the old airport site in Hong Kong – the Kai Tak
Development. The original draft Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) at-
tracted strong opposition on a large scale to land reclamation in-
volved in the development. A new feasibility study was then re-
launched in November 1999 to develop a master development
plan, followed by engaging the public in the preliminary layout
plan. Subsequently, a set of revised zoning plans was amended
by the Town Planning Board in 2001 and later gazetted in July
2002.
The area of land reclamation was substantially reduced in the
revised OZPs. The plans were therefore generally accepted by the
public in late 2002. During this phase of public consultation, a
number of issues concerning the plan, including the links between
the development and basic community facilities, heritage preser-
vation, and economic contributions were discussed. However, the
ruling by the Court of Final Appeal in early 2004 asked the govern-
ment to amend the development plan in the harbour-front area.
Subsequently, another series of development planning featuring a
three-stage consultation process was implemented in September
2004 and was concluded by late 2006.
The first stage of the public engagement for this development
included public forums involving the general public, commenta-
tors, as well as representatives from different ASBs, local commu-
nity groups, to deliberate on the project scope and approach
(PlanD, 2005). The envisioning acquired in the first stage public
consultation was critically examined and synthesised into three
alternative Outline Concept Plans (OCPs). District forums and open
forums were held in the second stage to formulate and improve the
OCPs (PlanD, 2006a). Eventually, a preliminary outline develop-
ment plan was developed through the third-round consultations.
Altogether 15 forums and workshops, along with 60 briefings were
372 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381
organised, and about 650 written submissions were collected
(PlanD, 2006b). The three stages of public consultation have con-
solidated widely accepted planning scenarios and thereby devel-
oped the statutory OZP.
The Kai Tak project demonstrates the typical weaknesses of the
public engagement practice in a development process not only lo-
cally but also in the wider international context. The concept plan
should have been formulated and approved by various stakehold-
ers much earlier if the public were to be involved in the deci-
sion-making process. However, the subsequent series of public
engagement exercise was productive since the government and
the general public were able to deliberate the planning issues in
an open and transparent manner. However, Tsang et al. (2009) ar-
gue that executive-led system of government in Hong Kong may
still impede the public from contributing to policy-making and
infrastructure planning. Expressed concerns and views from the
general public, regarding other infrastructure developments, are
often neither accepted nor imperative to the outcome (Lo, 2002).
The public, typically not entitled to partake in formulating the
development plans, can only express their opinions and concerns
at certain milestones or merely ‘notified’ of the work progress in
some projects. Limited information is released to the public, mak-
ing it difficult, if not impossible, to facilitate an informed discus-
sion among the community (Chan et al., 2007). Another
problematic issue is that public engagement in Hong Kong usually
occurs at the later stages of project development, when it is too
late to shape the project outcomes (Tsang et al., 2009). In the case
of West Kowloon Cultural District multi-billion dollar develop-
ment, fierce debate was originated from insufficient consultation
with the arts sector, the inclusion of a giant canopy, and the adop-
tion of ‘single-developer’ approach in the early stage (Brewer &
Hayllar, 2005).
Public engagement in infrastructure planning has traditionally
been partial, implemented nominally to fulfil legal requirements.
It lacks the recognition of the importance of early and ongoing
public participation, and many critical decisions are made without
Fig. 3. Research framework.
engaging the public. The lack of effective public participation to
question and challenge has undermined infrastructure develop-
ments and has led to public opposition. While such resistance to
development is often conceived as regressive and reactionary
(Booth & Richardson, 2001), these campaigns reflect the marginal-
isation of the affected public.
Research design
To establish a holistic and pragmatic public engagement pro-
cess framework for PPP projects, this study was undertaken in
three main phases, which include (i) reviewing the existing public
engagement practice and PPP concepts from the literature; (ii) for-
mulating the process framework based on case study and a series
of semi-structured interviews; and (iii) enhancing and validating
the framework via a focus group meeting and a two-round Delphi
survey (Fig. 3). The triangulation of data enables an understanding
of the current state of the public engagement for infrastructure
development and contributes to the formulation of a practical
framework for this process.
Initially the publicly available documents related to public
engagement and PPP projects in Hong Kong such as regulations,
policy guidelines, brochures were collected and reviewed. The out-
comes formed a crucial basis for the development of the public
engagement process framework. This was followed by case studies
from Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, and the U.S. The last three were
chosen due to their extensive experience with PPPs. Cases exam-
ined included the Kai Tak Planning Review as discussed earlier,
the Canada Line railway project, Canada; the City Link Melbourne,
Australia; and the Portland Plan from the City of Portland Bureau of
Planning, United States. The Kai Tak development is a representa-
tive case of how public engagement is conducted locally for infra-
structure planning. The overseas cases were chosen due to their
success and their ability to serve as good benchmarks for major
infrastructure projects involving public engagement.
 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381
A total of 15 semi-structured interviews were held with the se-
nior staff of key public and private organisations. The interviewees
were invited based on their extensive experiences and knowledge
in carrying out PPP projects and public engagement. The elected
public representatives from the district councils, involved in public
engagement exercise for infrastructure development, were also in-
vited for the interviews. The profiles of the interviewees are shown
in Table 1. While a variety of public engagement issues were dis-
cussed, the interviewees were asked explicitly to identify areas
for enhancing the existing public engagement process. A draft pro-
cess framework was thus formulated based on the Introductory
Guide to PPP issued by the Efficiency Unit of the HKSAR Govern-
ment along with the information collected in the first and second
phases. The framework consists of three key elements: (i) ‘what’
– the critical steps and expected outcomes for the development;
(ii) ‘how’– the methods for each step; and (iii) ‘when’ – the
timeframe.
In the third phase, an expert panel was established to enhance
and validate the draft process framework via a Delphi study. Fol-
lowing Morgan’s Focus Group Guidebook (1998), a group of ex-
perts were selected to solicit in-depth knowledge of public
engagement for PPP projects based on the following three criteria:
Criterion 1: Extensive working experience in PPP projects.
Criterion 2: Direct involvement in public engagement exercise
for major infrastructure projects.
Criterion 3: Sound knowledge of the local public engagement
system and practice.
Altogether 40 practitioners and academics were invited to serve
as the expert panel for this study. They were initially invited to at-
tend a focus group meeting to analyse the draft process framework.
The focus group meeting was held to stimulate discussions within
a predefined group environment to obtain experts’ perceptions
about the draft process framework in a permissive, non-judgmen-
tal environment (Krueger, 1994). The meeting was designed to pro-
mote interaction and self-disclosure among participants who can
share their perspectives on topics provided by the researchers.
Eventually 29 practitioners and academics participated in the
focus group meeting and formed the expert panel. The panel com-
prised of a wide spectrum of local construction professionals, with
8 from the public sector and quasi-government organisations, 10
from the private sector, 6 from the academic sector, 3 from the Dis-
trict Councils, and 2 from professional institutes. Academics and
District Council members were designated to be representatives
of the general public for commenting on the process framework.
The focus group meeting was led by the research team and lasted
for 3 h to primarily discuss the procedures, methods, timeframe of
Table 1
Details of interviewees.
ID Stakeholder Position of interviewees
1 Government Deputy Director (Development and Construction)
2 Government Project Engineer
3 Government Chief Architect and Senior Architect
4 Government Assistant Director
5 Quasi-government Deputy Projects Director
6 Quasi-government Executive Director
7 Private Managing Director
8 Private Director and Vice President
9 Private Two Associate Directors
10 Private Director
11 Private Director
12 Professional Institute Chairman
13 Professional Institute Regional Director
14 Public community District Councillor
15 Public community District Councillor
Notes: Names of the interviewees are not shown for the sake of privacy.
373
the draft public engagement process framework for PPP projects.
The revised framework was then further enhanced and validated
through the first and second rounds of the Delphi survey respec-
tively, by engaging the identical expert panel. Instructions for tak-
ing part in the Delphi survey were fully explained during the focus
group meeting.
The Delphi approach was adopted for evaluating the specific
subject area in a quantitative manner (Manoliadis, Tsolas, & Nakou,
2006). By its key features (i) anonymity; (ii) iteration with con-
trolled feedback; and (iii) statistical response, the Delphi study
helps structure a group communication effectively and allows
the expert panel to tackle complicated problems (Dickey & Watts,
1978). The desired result is that, by using the iterative procedure,
the experts will reach unanimity on the examined issues (Manoli-
adis et al., 2006). However, the major challenges of the Delphi ap-
proach lie in securing high response rate and in reaching a
consensus among respondents (Robinson, 1991).
The first round of the Delphi survey asked the expert panel to
rate the appropriateness of the proposed procedures and expected
outcome, methods and timeframe of the draft process framework
to guide the feasibility, tendering and operation stages of PPP
schemes. The sample survey instrument is attached in Appendix
I. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
being very inappropriate and 5 being very appropriate. The experts
were also asked to provide qualitative comments to improve the
framework. Key adjustments included a refinement of sequence
and duration of specific development stages, clarification on some
implementation strategies like how to assess the sensitivity of a
project, consultation techniques, and targeted groups to be
consulted.
Subsequent to the revisions made based on the comments re-
ceived, the experts were requested to rate the amended framework
using the same assessment method. The Delphi study ended at the
second-round since only minor adjustments are required. The
developed process framework was thereby validated as a practical
guideline to ensure successful implementation of a PPP scheme by
better balancing the interests amongst the government, investor
and society.
The validated P4 framework
Table 2 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of the
three framework elements; i.e. actions, methods and timeframe
in various development stages, obtained from the two-round Del-
phi survey. Significant improvements in the mean scores and stan-
dard deviations were recorded in the second round for most of the
framework essentials, indicating that the developed P4 process
Organisation
Public sector housing developer
Public sector housing developer
A major cultural development authority
Public sector efficiency unit
Quasi-government railway service provider
Construction Industry Council
Leading architect firm
Leading engineering consultant firm
Leading engineering consultant firm
Economic and management consultant firm
Major construction company
Association of Landscape Consultants
Institution of Civil Engineers
Central and Western District Council
Eastern District Council
374 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381

Table 2
Results of the two-round Delphi survey.

Procedure Method Timeframe

1st round 2nd round 1st round 2nd round 1st round 2nd round
Stage 1: Mobilisation and business case Mean 4.21 4.36 3.79 4.00 3.68 3.91
s.d. 0.74 0.66 0.57 0.62 0.94 0.61
Stage 2: Funding Mean 3.93 4.05 3.71 3.95 3.79 4.00
s.d. 0.9 0.79 0.85 0.65 0.92 0.69
Stage 3: Assessment and consultation Mean 4.04 4.23 3.82 4.18 3.36 3.73
s.d. 0.92 0.75 0.82 0.50 1.06 0.77
Stages 4 and 5: Expression of interest; Policy and funding approval Mean N.A. 4.00 N.A. 3.89 N.A. 3.93
s.d. 0.77 0.62 0.59
Stage 6: Procurement and selection Mean 4.18 4.41 4.04 4.18 3.81 4.00
s.d. 0.77 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.92 0.69
Stage 7: Service commencement Mean 4.07 4.32 4.00 4.18 4.11 4.45
s.d. 0.77 0.65 0.77 0.73 0.97 0.51
Stage 8: Payment and contract management Mean 3.79 4.27 3.79 4.14 4.00 4.36
s.d. 1.07 0.63 1.07 0.56 1.07 0.66

Note: Details of public engagement process in Stages 4 and 5 were inserted in the second-round survey as recommended by the expert panel, the mean scores for the first-
round survey are therefore not available.

framework is robust and valid to integrate the views from the pub-
lic over the PPP development process. It should be noted that
Stages 4 and 5 were inserted after considering the expert panel’s
comments obtained from the results of the first round of surveys.
Fig. 4 shows the validated flowchart of the public engagement pro-
cess framework. The details of the process framework can be found
in Appendix II. Qualitative findings from the interviews and Delphi
survey are discussed in this section.
As mirrored, in the ‘ladder of citizen participation’ by Arnstein
(1969), public engagement can be differentiated by the levels of
power and knowledge possessed by different stakeholders from
passive information provision to consultation, involvement and
eventually delegation (Burns, Hamilton, & Hogged, 1994). Analo-
gous to the Arnstein’s principle, the developed framework at-
tempts to delegate the power to the general public by having a
genuine influence on the decision-making instead of just executing
consultation exercise on a routine basis. The framework is an
organised process which helps decision-makers address the dis-
agreement and complexities over public engagement process.
The developed framework, echoing the principles of public engage-
ment set by Bickerstaff, Tolley, and Walker (2002), is characterised
by four key features towards the development of infrastructure
projects in PPP schemes – inclusiveness, transparency, interactive-
ness and continuity.
Inclusiveness
Within the context of PPP infrastructure development, two key
facets related to ‘‘inclusiveness’’ are identified under the public
engagement framework. The first associates with the capacity of
a planning process to involve all affected and interested citizens.
This should include general citizens, socially excluded groups such
as the disabled, children, and any organised interest groups
(Barnes, 2000). The concerns and interests of both the public and
private sectors are also considered. The second dimension refers
to the flexibility of the framework for different project scales and
levels of sensitivity.
Public engagement under the PPP approach is crucial for incor-
porating public needs, concerns, and values into governmental and
corporate decision-making process (Alexander, 2008; Creighton,
2005). Insufficient openings for public involvement may be linked
to manipulation of the proceedings by a few parties (Alexander,
1999; Sinclair & Diduck, 2001). Hence, as advocated by the Interna-
tional Association for Public Participation (IAP2, 2009), the frame-
work was designed to give the public certain levels of influence on
the decision-making process. One interviewee believed that ‘‘every
opinion collected counts’’. Through the process of identifying
stakeholders and negotiating the appropriate level of participation,
the public engagement events are presumed to involve all the
influenced and interested parties, instead of restricting to merely
a small group of representatives and specific committees or organ-
isations. However, voices are predominantly from those facing an
‘‘exogenous shock’’, i.e. when a development poses a significant
new threat to their interests, proactive approaches such as tele-
phone interviews or questionnaires should be adopted to assess
the overall tendency of the general public.
In contrast with the conventional ‘decide-announce-defend’
practice, this framework demonstrates an inclusive approach by
incorporating a wide range of representative interests for infra-
structure planning. As advocated by the expert panel, it attempts
to fully encapsulate the views of the ‘general public’ so that the
infrastructures to be developed are ‘end-user-oriented’ as pro-
moted by Majamaa et al. (2008) and Bickerstaff et al. (2002). It
stresses the implementation of a bottom-up approach in infra-
structure planning and consultation as a new way of public
engagement to aid information sharing and deliberations. Voices
of all identified groups have to be heard over the development pro-
cess as emphasised by the expert panel. Even though public con-
sultations consume considerable time and resources, engaging
the public helps build an understanding between the parties, re-
duces political controversy, and gives legitimacy to government
decisions. An interviewed expert expressed that the factors critical
to the success of public engagement are to target the right people
at the right time, ask the right questions and meet their require-
ments by striking a balance among different stakeholders through
the process of consultation. However, one interviewee from the
private sector indicated that the opinions of the general public
should never be over-emphasised. The public authority or the pri-
vate sector should take the lead and drive the development by
incorporating constructive views from the community.
On the other dimension, while the framework was formulated
for major infrastructure projects, it could be applied to projects
of different scales and levels of sensitivity. The recommended
timeframe was set with a range based on various scales of
 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381 375

(a) Start Key: Engagement events

Process
(1.1) Identify project goals and objectives
Decision
(1.2) Establish broad overview of facilities of services required Loop back

Consider whether to accept proposals for enhanced or

(1.3) Formulate Statement of Requirements (1.4)
other additional commercial facilities/services on the site
Mobilisation and development of business case

(1.5) Establish whether a site is available

STAGE 1

(1.6) Formulate Public Engagement Programme (PEP)

(1.7) Pre-consult major stakeholders

(1.8) Assess risks

Conduct public consultation on

(1.9)
Statement of Requirement

Sufficient
No
(1.10) support for project to
proceed ?

Yes
ST A G E 2

(2.2)
Funding

No Use conventional project for

(2.1) Value for money ?
delivery approaches

Yes
(2.3) Determine PPP type

(3.1) Establish project scope and approach

(3.2) How sensitive is the project ?

High sensitivity Low sensitivity

Conduct public consultation on project

(3.3)
scope and approach
Technical assessment, consultation and land requirements

(3.4) Derive Outline Concept Plan (OCP) Derive Outline Concept Plan (OCP)

Conduct public consultation on Outline Conduct public consultation on project scope

(3.5) (3.6)
Concept Plan (OCP) and approach & Outline Concept Plan (OCP)
STAGE 3

(3.7) Develop draft development plan

(3.9) (3.10) Conduct technical

Seek necessary authorities’ Conduct public consultation on
(3.8) assessments, EIA and
agreement on land use draft development plan
social-economic studies

(3.11) Derive recommended development plan

(3.12) Notify OZP in Gazette

Yes
(3.13) Objection?

No
Develop project brief, determine deliverables,
(3.14)
prioritise social concerns

Go to Stage 4

Fig. 4. (a) The P4 process framework (Stages 1–3). (b) The P4 process framework (Stages 4–8).
376 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381

(b)

Fig. 4. (continued)
 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381
infrastructure projects in the past and subsequently adjusted by
the expert panel for adoption. Furthermore, the extent of public
engagement exercise will also be largely determined by the project
sensitivity via a sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity of a project can
be decided based on various factors such as: strategic importance;
territorial/regional significance; preservation/re-location/re-instal-
lation of monuments, structures, trees, and other buildings, that
are of significant historical, cultural, environmental, or civic values
(CEDD, 2009). High sensitivity projects, according to the views and
suggestions from the consulted experts, are recommended to un-
dergo five rounds of public consultation before the tendering stage,
as compared to the three-rounds of consultation for low sensitivity
projects to accommodate more alternatives. The aim and scope of
each round of consultation have to be clearly defined as stressed by
the consulted experts. However, the strategy on the public engage-
ment programme should be tailor-made sensibly to suit a specific
project for the development.
Transparency
One of the most critical issues in the public engagement pro-
gramme is information in terms of who controls it and whether
it is trustworthy (Hanna, 2000). A number of scholars (e.g. Frideres,
Fleishing, Goldenberg, & DiSanto, 1992; Gallagher & Jacobson,
1993; Petts, 1999) argued how deficient information will constrain
the effectiveness of active and broad participation, making the dif-
ference between a successful or otherwise an unsuccessful public
engagement (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Rowe, Horlick-Jones, Walls,
& Pidgeon, 2005). Bickerstaff et al. (2002) consider transparency
as the extent to which the results and impacts arising from the
public engagement are clearly fed back to the participants. The
public authority should not merely supply adequate information
to the general public and affected parties, but also make sure that
the public can fully understand the implications of the different
planning options (Chan et al., 2007). The way to achieve and main-
tain legitimacy, particularly when controversial decisions must be
made, is to follow a visible and credible decision-making process
(Creighton, 2005).
PUBLIC:
Local Government Authorities
Urban Planning Office
PUBLIC
Shareholders
PARTNERSHIPS
equity dividends
PRIVATE
debt
costs services
loans/debt
Financial
Institutions
Contractors &
Service Providers
PRIVATE:
Land owners /Developers
Architects and Other Consultants
Fig. 5. The P4 generic model.
377
Engaging the general public makes the decision-making process
more transparent and the decision-makers more accountable to
the final decision (Higgs, Berry, Kidner, & Langford, 2008; Stewart,
2006). In the first form of the framework, a decision-making pro-
cess was proposed to determine if there is any ‘‘strategically
important’’ component of a development project which should be
exempted from public consultations. However, concerning the size
of capital investment in PPP projects, most of the expert panel
members agreed on eradicating such process to ensure the trans-
parency and openness of the development process. Learned from
the case of the Canada Line railway project, a wide range of docu-
ments, from public consultation and survey reports to technical
and environmental reports, were made available online. Even
board meeting minutes were posted on the project website so that
everyone can follow the decision-making process. A similar
engagement strategy was adopted for the Portland Development
Plan. A list of past and upcoming events was clearly shown on a
calendar for citizens’ information. The developed process frame-
work should help decision-makers of the public sector authority
develop the project, from envisioning to establishing the detailed
design recommendations, through a transparent and proactive ap-
proach. In other words, a clear direction should be provided by the
government authority throughout the engagement process as
articulated by an expert panel member.
One important feature of the developed 4P development pro-
cess lies in the relations and partnerships among the people, and
public and private sectors, as shown in Fig. 5. The public and pri-
vate sectors still have the formal and re-active relation along the
development process, i.e. the contractual relation for financing
and risk allocation, but the focus should shift to the interface with
the general public, via informal but pro-active connections in order
to ensure that the PPP project meets the social needs. An experi-
enced and independent third-party facilitator is crucial so as to re-
tain the partnership as well as to ensure accountability and
creditability as advised by the consulted experts. From a consum-
erist point of view, this interface under the process framework of-
fers new kinds of actions based on innovativeness, customer
satisfaction and shared information. The market drivers of tradi-
tional PPP-based services are not necessarily looking for new and
Formal and re-active relation regulated by
contract
Informal and pro-active relation facilitated by
an independent party
PEOPLE
PEOPLE:
Facility Users
Affected / Interested Parties
General Public
378 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381
innovative ways to produce value-for-money public services to the
community. By creating a transparent development process, the P4
framework offers new opportunities to observe and account for the
needs of the general public. Besides, several interviewees considered
that the public engagement events should leave the public more in-
formed of the reasoning behind any decision. For example, once the
public consultation on project scope and approach are conducted,
the concept plan will be established based on the social concerns fed
back from the engagement exercises. In the public engagement on
the concept plan, the authority should clearly present the planning
principles, development constraints, and detailed feasibility of the
development. The reasons for any inputs or requests that cannot be ful-
filled and how the outputs of public consultations influenced the deci-
sion-making process have to be addressed and justified. With different
alternatives and voices, expert panel members indicated that public
opinions have to be collected and consolidated by integrating with
inputs from professional groups and narrowing down the disparity
among stakeholders.
Instead of persuading the public, the goal of the public engage-
ment exercise is to provide fair, transparent and accountable pro-
cess that engages the public in decision-making and facilitates
information exchange as is concerned by most of the consulted ex-
perts. Under the proposed process framework, the general public
can openly reflect their views through various channels, while at
the same time accessing the project information; meeting docu-
ments; and evaluation reports viz. responses to the public opinions
promptly and effectively via notices, forums, project website and
public media. Learning form the case of City Link Melbourne, the
transparency of the procurement and selection of consortia can
be enhanced by setting up a ‘project panel’. A specialist group
was introduced in the City Link project to provide a proper channel
for users to express their comments, dissatisfaction and com-
plaints, with a formal resolution process. Cases are reviewed by
this panel and this mechanism can increase accountability and
transparency, which in turn builds greater public trust. Comprising
of technical experts, social group representatives, and District
Xouncillors, this ‘project panel’ under the process framework shall
help ensure that public interests are incorporated into the evalua-
tion of proposals as well as the design and construction. However,
achieving transparent project development requires a substantial
commitment by the authority to keeping the public informed
(Tsang et al., 2009).
The framework also adopts the conventional Public Sector Com-
parator (PSC) to reveal the merits of PPP and to verify the adoption
of the PPP scheme. From the general public’s standpoint, whether
better ‘value-for-money’’ can be achieved by adopting PPP should
first be proved using PSC before it enters into contractual commit-
ments (Grimsey & Lewis, 2005). However, this new framework
suggests developing a risk-adjusted PSC to the incorporation of so-
cial risk factors related to the possible rejection of the project be-
cause of its potential impacts on the quality of life in those
affected area. In addition, to retain interest from the private sector
under the PPP procurement approach, the consulted experts sug-
gested incorporating financial incentives or subsidies into con-
tracts when social benefits goals are met or exceeded. The above-
mentioned features contribute to the risk management elements
of a PPP scheme in a more open and transparent manner.
Interactiveness
Public engagement does consume time. While unilateral deci-
sions are always the quickest to make, it could be very costly to
implement and may become tied up in controversies, delays or lit-
igation (Creighton, 2005). Thus, there should be a multi-way inter-
action between the public sector authority and the engaged people
using different ‘types’ and ‘levels’ of public engagement techniques
appropriately (Bickerstaff et al., 2002). Various opportunities are
provided for the interested parties to express their needs and con-
cerns constructively under the developed process framework as
advocated by the expert panel members. It consists of a succession
of activities, each appropriate for the task being completed and the
audience of interested parties. These include (i) techniques used to
provide information to the public such as media advertisement,
exhibitions, consultation documents, websites and so on; (ii) tech-
niques adopted to seek the views of end-users and the affected
parties who may not be able to directly participate in the deci-
sion-making process and these techniques are commonly useful
in facilitating a one-way information flow, namely from the partic-
ipants to the decision-makers. These involve public hearings, sur-
veys, written responses, and telephone survey; and (iii)
techniques used to promote the two-way information flow includ-
ing public forums, focus group meetings, web forums, key person
interviews and charrettes. During the consultation forum, partici-
pants can be divided into several small groups for discussion and
to rate different issues. The results of the discussion and/or rating
are then analysed to acquire consensus and to identify feasible
solutions for further deliberation and implementation.
Traditional public engagement methods such as the ones men-
tioned above are put forward in the process framework. However,
the purpose should focus on the provision of planning information
and opportunity for public input into the decision-making pro-
cesses. Additionally, a range of innovative methods are proposed
for consultation with the general public on the infrastructure
development policy and planning issues. For instance, the forma-
tion of project panel is a way to safeguard the public interest at
the procurement and construction stages. In addition, developing
project websites and web forums are proposed for both informa-
tion dissemination and interaction between the authority and the
community. Several expert panel members from the private sector
further emphasised the importance of the media, which might
drastically affect the perception of the community. Disseminating
project information and allowing the public to express opinions
through television and radio phone-in programmes are also practi-
cal and effective means for public consultation. Modern technolo-
gies such as 3-D imaging and simulation should also be utilised to
facilitate interactive consultations.
As suggested by a number of experts interviewed, the consulta-
tion methods proposed in the early stages of project development
attempt to bring together various groups of people for the purpose
of generalised consideration of infrastructure development plan-
ning issues. Public hearings, district forums and written responses
are introduced to gain an initial public feedback for consensus build-
ing and to help determine the project direction and to obviate poten-
tial conflicts in the first place. Whilst the development plan or
designs are established, roving exhibitions and surveys could be
conducted for quantitative and empirical analyses so as to make a
convincing decision to proceed with the project. Public forums and
interviews with the concerned parties are also incorporated for in-
depth discussion on the detailed design of development. Undoubt-
edly, the development plan and design have to comply with the legal
requirements, technical assessments, environment impact assess-
ment, social–economic evaluations, as well as the interests of the
private sector. While interactive public consultations are promoted,
consensus building is the core element within the process frame-
work as emphasised by Susskind (1999). The consensus decision is
the ultimate objective of the public engagement process for the pub-
lic authority to proceed with reasonable confidence.
Continuity
Effective engagement requires continuous communication with
the public involved in the project development process (Sterne,
 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381
1997). Continuity under the process framework is concerned with
the degree to which public engagement is fit into the entire project
development and delivery cycle. It depends on sufficient opportu-
nities being available for public engagement from objective devel-
opment to strategy formulation and subsequent implementation
(Bickerstaff et al., 2002). Three sub-features relevant to infrastruc-
ture development planning were therefore promoted under the
process framework: (i) early engagement in project planning; (ii)
regular opportunities for engagement throughout the develop-
ment; and (iii) monitoring and evaluation of the planned
outcomes.
Timing for launching the public engagement exercise is impor-
tant in affecting the quality and consequences of planning deci-
sions (Alexander, 2008). Most of the interviewees and expert
panel members stressed that early engagement of the general pub-
lic and stakeholders can help prevent subsequent costly conflicts.
Thus, the framework is featured by the solicitation of public input
early in fine-tuning the project overall vision and direction during
the initial stage of project development. One expert panel member
pointed out that early engagement does not mean starting from
scratch but to involve the public in decision-making with informa-
tion on objectives, opportunities and constraints. After establishing
a broad overview of facilities and services required, the public
engagement programme should be initially formulated. This re-
lates to the overall strategy for public engagement including deci-
sions on major issues such as identification and profiling of
stakeholders that shall be engaged; exploring information to be
disseminated to and consulted with the stakeholders; defining
the scope and extent of public engagement; and identifying suit-
able techniques throughout the programme execution. In Stage 1
of PPP project development, i.e. ‘‘Mobilisation and Development
of Business Case’’, major stakeholders are urged to be pre-con-
sulted to evaluate possible impacts and intangible costs of the pro-
ject as advocated by the consulted experts in the focus group
meeting. Overall vision and direction are then determined by gain-
ing public feedback through public hearings, survey, invitations for
written responses, etc. The engagement events should be organ-
ised in a way whereby the special interest and affected groups
are involved early in the project planning process for objective set-
ting and strategy development.
Regular opportunities for engagement are available under the
proposed process framework throughout the ongoing engagement
exercises. These include consultations on project direction as well
as project scope and approach in the envisioning stage; develop-
ment of the concept plan, draft development plan and design rec-
ommendations in the planning stage. Serving as the project panel,
professional groups (i.e. those representing the planners, archi-
tects, and engineers) and representatives from the community
(i.e. District Councillors, social groups, and the property owners’
corporations (OCs) representatives of the affected parties) would
be able to participate in the procurement, design and construction
processes. The panel could monitor the negotiation process to en-
sure that the concession items are in the best interest of the soci-
ety. During the construction stage and through the operational
stage, stakeholders could monitor and evaluate the project impacts
related to their particular field to ensure that the impact complies
with what was considered at the planning stage.
As suggested by the expert panel members in the first round of
the Delphi survey, the engagement exercise should be extended to
the post construction stage for monitoring and evaluating the ef-
fects of participation on the infrastructure planning process. This
helps assess the performance of public engagement and how fu-
ture programmes of this kind can be improved. Hence, the devel-
oped process framework incorporates a critical step in Stage 8
‘‘Payment and Contract Management’’ to acquire public feedback
and identify areas for improvement regarding the public engage-
379
ment programmes and strategies as well as the services provided.
The monitoring and evaluation allow for a continuous process of
adjustment and enhancement to service provision during the oper-
ation stage. A lack of attention of engaging the public at this stage
may impede the efforts made earlier and deteriorate the support of
the project development (Bickerstaff et al., 2002). Hence, the devel-
oped framework has the capability of monitoring the whole project
development process and keeping track of all processes based on
the inputs and supports from the general public.
Conclusions
One key critical success factor of PPPs is the collaboration
among the public sector, politicians, the private sector as well as
the general public (Ahmed & Ali, 2006). However, a purchaser–pro-
vider model, i.e. by contracting out of a government service to the
private sector with limited inputs from the general public, is tradi-
tionally adopted in PPPs projects. There has been a fundamental
lack of concern about the general public’s perspectives in the pro-
ject development process, especially for decision-making during
the early stage of project planning. The current practice empha-
sises excessively on value-for-money from a financial perspective
which may result in public oppositions.
As there has been a noticeable lack of the crucial end-users’ per-
spective in the infrastructure planning and delivery, this study thus
aims to fill the research gap by establishing a public engagement
process framework for PPP projects, based on an extensive litera-
ture review and case study. The findings are subsequently verified
by an expert panel. Consolidating the knowledge and experiences
from local experts, this public private people partnerships (P4) pro-
cess framework embraces the bottom-up participative strategies
for each of the PPP stages and makes the public participation
clearly visible for infrastructure planning and policy making. This
improved framework is the vision and foundation to create tangi-
ble implementation of local economic and social infrastructure by
involving the end-users’ perspective. It helps clarify, at a detailed
level, how the elements of public views and needs can be identified
and managed throughout the project development process. The
elements put forward within the framework serve to tackle the
complexity of public engagement in infrastructure development.
Promoting the four principles: inclusiveness; transparency; inter-
activeness; and continuity, the process framework offers a check-
list of the key issues to be considered and implemented for
integrating the public engagement into the entire life cycle of
PPP-based infrastructure projects.
All findings from this study indicate that the public–private–
people partnerships based development process gives flexibility
and benefits to all stakeholders and helps create desirable infra-
structure facilities. The P4 based development process framework
has created possibilities for engaging new proactive and positive
engagement methods and solutions, not only for the early stages
of infrastructure planning and design, but also for construction,
operation and management of economic and social infrastructure.
Although this framework is not a panacea, it can be used to estab-
lish better risk allocation between political, administrative, devel-
opers, and the general public, and to create innovative and cost-
beneficial ways to produce local community services.
By applying this newly developed framework, the decision-
making power will shift from the policy makers traditionally sit-
ting at the centre, towards a shared-powered network of the gen-
eral community. Such a paradigm shift is needed to reduce the risk
of unilateral decisions by creating clear rights and responsibilities
and offering openings for public inputs. A more constructive envi-
ronment can thereby be generated where groups with diverse
interests can join forces to define an integrated infrastructure plan-
380 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381
ning. The P4 process framework can therefore be valuable to the
public sector authority and private sector providers to effectively
implement PPP practices by moving towards a more community-
oriented service production. Since the framework is a conceptual
model, further research should be conducted to establish whether
those activities are appropriate and adequate. However, where a
sea change in the traditional approach is required, we see a need
for the developed process framework to be a prerequisite for effec-
tive public engagement in infrastructure planning and develop-
ment process.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the Research Grant
Council of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region Government for financially supporting this research study
through the Public Policy Research Grant (Grant No.: 7010-PPR-4).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.
12.002.
References
Ahmed, S. A., & Ali, S. M. (2006). People as partners: Facilitating people’s
participation in public–private partnerships for solid waste management.
Habitat International, 30(4), 781–796.
Akintoye, A., Hardcastle, C., Beck, M., Chinyio, E., & Asenova, D. (2003). Achieving
best value in private finance initiative project procurement. Construction
Management and Economics, 21(5), 461–470.
Alexander, D. (1999). Planning as learning: Sustainability and the education of
citizen activists. Environments, 27(2), 79–87.
Alexander, E. (2008). Public participation in planning – A multidimensional model:
The case of Israel. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(1), 57–80.
Anex, R. P., & Focht, W. (2002). Public participation in life cycle assessment and risk
assessment: A shared need. Risk Analysis, 22(5), 861–877.
Arnstein, S. (1969). The ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the Institute of
American Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Bagaeen, S. G. (2006). Redeveloping former military sites: Competitiveness, urban
sustainability and public participation. Cities, 23(5), 339–352.
Barnes, M. (2000). Researching public participation. Local Government Studies, 25(4),
60–75.
Bennett, E., Seldon, J., & Grohmann, P. (2000). Joint venture public–private
partnerships for urban environmental services. Report on UNDP/PPPUE’s project
development facility, PPPUE working paper series (Vol. II). New York: UNDP and
Yale University.
Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., & Walker, G. (2002). Transport planning and participation
the rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography,
10(1), 61–73.
Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C., & Munton, R. (1998). Deliberative and inclusionary
processes: Their contribution to environmental governance. In Environmental
governance: Responding to the challenge of deliberative democracy, Seminar.
University College London. <www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/esruvvv/dip/pub/
dipfrm.htm>.
Booth, C., & Richardson, T. (2001). Placing the public in integrated transport
planning. Transport Policy, 8(2), 141–149.
Brewer, B., & Hayllar, M. R. (2005). CAPAM symposium on networked government:
Building public trust through public–private partnerships. International Review
of Administrative Sciences, 71(3), 475–492.
Burgess, J. A. (1998). The application of stakeholder decision analysis to local
environment agency plans. Technical report W114. Swindon, UK: Environment
Agency.
Burns, D., Hamilton, R., & Hogged, P. (1994). The politics of decentralisation:
Revitalising local democracy. London: MacMillan.
CEDD (2009). Public consultation/engagement guidelines. Technical circular no. 02/
2009. Hong Kong: Civil Engineering and Development Department, Hong Kong
SAR Government.
Chan, C. W., Cheung, P. T. Y., Chan, E. Y. M., Lam, W. F., Lam, W. M., Lee, E. W. Y., et al.
(2007). From consultation to civic engagement: The road to better policy-making
and governance in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre.
Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions
through citizen involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dickey, J., & Watts, T. (1978). Analytic techniques in urban and regional planning. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
El-Gohary, N. M., Osman, H., & El-Diraby, T. E. (2006). Stakeholder management for
public private partnerships. Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 595–604.
Frideres, J. S., Fleishing, U., Goldenberg, S., & DiSanto, J. (1992). Community
participation: Natural resource development in rural Alberta. In J. S. Frideres
(Ed.), A world of communities: Participatory research perspectives (pp. 191–203).
Toronto: Captus University Publications.
Gallagher, T. J., & Jacobson, W. S. (1993). The typography of environmental impact
statements: Criteria, evaluation, and public participation. Environmental
Management, 17(1), 99–109.
Goven, J., & Langer, E. R. (2009). The potential of public engagement in sustainable
waste management: Designing the future for biosolids in New Zealand. Journal
of Environmental Management, 90(2), 921–930.
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2005). Are public private partnerships value for money?
Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner
views. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 345–378.
Hanna, K. S. (2000). The paradox of participation and the hidden role of
information: A case study. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(4),
398–410.
Higgs, G., Berry, R., Kidner, D., & Langford, M. (2008). Using IT approaches to
promote public participation in renewable energy planning: Prospects and
challenges. Land Use Policy, 25(4), 596–607.
IAP2 (2009). Code of ethics for public participation practitioners. International
Association for Public Participation. <http://iap2.affiniscape.com/
displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=8> Accessed 07.08.09.
Krawchenko, T., & Stoney, C. (2011). Public private partnerships and the public
interest: A case study of Ottawa’s Lansdowne Park development. Canadian
Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 2(2), 74–90.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Zhang, X. Q. (2001). Governmental role in BOT-led
infrastructure development. International Journal of Project Management, 19(4),
195–205.
Li, T. H. Y., Ng, S. T., & Wong, K. K. W. (2009). A framework of public engagement for
PPP projects in China. In Proceedings of global innovation in construction
conference 2009, Holywell Park, Loughborough University, UK.
Lo, W. C. W. (2002). Public participation in transport planning in Hong Kong – How
well does the road infrastructure planning in Hong Kong encourage public
participation? M.Sc. Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Lui, T. L. (2008). City-branding without content: Hong Kong’s aborted West
Kowloon mega-project, 1998–2006. International Development Planning
Review, 30(3), 215–226.
Majamaa, W., Junnila, S., Doloi, H., & Niemistö, E. (2008). End-user oriented public–
private partnerships in real estate industry. International Journal of Strategic
Property Management, 12(1), 1–17.
Manoliadis, O., Tsolas, O., & Nakou, A. (2006). Sustainable construction and drivers
of change in Greece: A Delphi study. Construction Management and Economics,
24(2), 113–120.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook, focus group kit 1. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Mumtaz, B., & Wegelin, E. (2001). Guiding cities. London: UNDP/UNCHS/World Bank/
DPU/HIS.
Petts, J. (1999). Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In J.
Petts (Ed.), Handbook of environmental impact assessment (pp. 145–177). Oxford:
Blackwell Science.
Planning Department (2005). Report of stage 1 public participation: Community’s
vision for Kai Tak. <http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/prog_s/sek_09/
website_chib5_eng/english/Stage_1_PP_report_Final_ENG.pdf> Accessed
09.02.10.
Planning Department (2006a). Report of stage 2 public participation: Outline concept
plans. <http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/prog_s/sek_09/
website_chib5_eng/english/Stage2_PP_Report_Eng.pdf> Accessed 09.02.10.
Planning Department (2006b). Report of stage 3 public participation: Preliminary
outline development plan. <http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/prog_s/
sek_09/website_chib5_eng/english/pp_stage3_e.html> Accessed 09.02.10.
Reijniers, J. J. A. M. (1994). Organization of public–private partnership projects: The
timely prevention of pitfalls. International Journal of Project Management, 12(3),
137–142.
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen
participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. London: Klewer
Academic Publishers.
Robinson, J. B. L. (1991). Delphi technology for economic impact assessment. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 117(3), 531–549.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating
public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM
Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science,
14(4), 331–352.
Siemiatycki, M. (2009). Delivering transportation infrastructure through public–
private partnerships: Planning concerns. Journal of American Planning
Association, 76(1), 43–58.
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2001). Public involvement in EA in Canada: A
transformative learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
21(2), 113–136.
Sterne, P. (1997). Public consultation guide: Changing the relationship between
Government and Canadians. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre for Management
Development.
Stewart, K. (2006). Designing good urban governance indicators: The importance of
citizen participation and its evaluation in Greater Vancouver. Cities, 23(3),
196–204.
 S.T. Ng et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 370–381 381

Susskind, L. (1999). An alternative to Robert’s rules of order for groups,
organizations, and ad hoc assemblies that want to operate by consensus. In L.
Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building
handbook. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Tang, T., Zhao, J., & Coleman, D. J. (2005). Design of a GIS-enabled online discussion
forum for participatory planning. In Proceedings of the 4th annual public
participation GIS conference, Cleveland, Ohio.
Treatmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture,
7(2), 147–158.
Tsang, S., Burnett, M., Hills, P., & Welford, R. (2009). Trust, public participation and
environmental governance in Hong Kong. Environmental Policy and Governance,
19(2), 99–114.