Trust: Power and Engagement

Trust: Power and Engagement Participatory Water Planning on the Gold Coast, Australia

Peter Edwards B.Sc. M.Sc.

Planning Discipline, Griffith School of Environment Science, Environment, Engineering and Technology Griffith University

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2009

~ i ~

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... III DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................... IV DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................... IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... V ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... VII CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.0 MY JOURNEY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 THE RESEARCH SETTING .................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 Research Aims and Questions ............................................................................................. 4 1.2 PUTTING THE STORY IN CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 7 1.2.1 A Global View ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Australia.............................................................................................................................. 9 1.2.3 Queensland ....................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 THESIS OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY AND CASE STUDY ........................................................................ 14 2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 14 2.1 CASE STUDY SELECTION .................................................................................................................. 16 2.2 INTERVIEWS AND DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................. 18 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 21 2.4 THE CASE‐STUDY – GOLD COAST WATERFUTURE STRATEGY 2006‐2056 .................................................. 24 CHAPTER THREE: PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES ........................................................ 33 3.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 33 3.1 WHAT ARE PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES? ......................................................................... 35 3.1.1 Key Elements of Participatory Engagement Processes ....................................................... 37 3.1.2 Participatory Engagement Process Design ........................................................................ 38 3.1.3 Inclusion – The Breadth and Opportunity for Participation ................................................ 40 3.1.4 Knowledge and Understanding ......................................................................................... 45 3.1.5 Communication, Discussion and Dialogue ......................................................................... 47 3.1.6 Consensus – Is it Possible or Desirable? ............................................................................. 51 3.1.7 Legitimacy of the Process .................................................................................................. 52 3.1.7.1 Legitimacy and Power .................................................................................................... 54 3.1.7.2 Legitimacy and Trust ...................................................................................................... 55 3.1.8 Is Trust a Key Initial Element of Participatory Engagement Processes? ............................. 55 3.1.9 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 56 3.2 DEBATE ONE: ARE PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES REALLY PARTICIPATORY? ............................... 56 3.3 TWO UNDERSTANDINGS OF PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES ..................................................... 59 3.3.1 Jürgen Habermas and Communicative Action Theory ........................................................ 60 3.3.2 Iris Marion Young and Communicative Democracy ........................................................... 62 3.4 DEBATE TWO: COMMUNICATIVE ACTION AND COMMUNICATIVE DEMOCRACY: SOME CRITICAL ISSUES ............ 66 3.4.1 Issue One: The Ideal vs. Practice ....................................................................................... 66 3.4.2 Issue Two: Contextualism vs. Universalism ....................................................................... 67 3.4.3 Issue Three: Power ........................................................................................................... 68 3.4.4 Issue Four: Communication .............................................................................................. 69 3.4.5 Are There Other Understandings of Participatory Engagement? ....................................... 71 3.5 The Third Debate: Communicative Action Theorists and Critical Realists ............................. 71 3.6 CONCLUSION: TRUST AND POWER ARE INFUSED THROUGH SILENCE ......................................................... 74

~ ii ~ CHAPTER FOUR: TRUST .................................................................................................................. 76 4.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 76 4.1 WHAT IS TRUST? ........................................................................................................................... 78 4.2 THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRUST .................................................................................................... 79 4.2.1 Calculus‐Based Trust ......................................................................................................... 81 4.2.2 Knowledge‐Based Trust ..................................................................................................... 82 4.2.3 Interpersonal and Institutional Trust ................................................................................. 84 4.2.4 Active Trust ....................................................................................................................... 86 4.2.4.1 Basic Requirements for Active Trust ............................................................................................ 88 4.2.4.2 Relationship Building .................................................................................................................... 89 4.2.4.3 Active Trust, Communication, Knowledge and Understanding .................................................... 91 4.2.4.4 Reflexivity: Creator or Destroyer of Active Trust? ....................................................................... 92 4.2.4.5 Leap of Faith ................................................................................................................................. 94

4.3 PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT AND TRUST .......................................................................................... 96 4.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 99 CHAPTER FIVE: POWER ................................................................................................................ 102 5.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 102 5.1 WHAT IS POWER? ....................................................................................................................... 104 5.2 NEGATIVE MODALITIES OF POWER .................................................................................................. 108 5.2.1 Domination ..................................................................................................................... 108 5.2.2 Authority ......................................................................................................................... 109 5.2.3 Control ............................................................................................................................ 110 5.2.4 Coercion and Inducement ................................................................................................ 112 5.2.5 Manipulation .................................................................................................................. 113 5.3 POSITIVE OR “SOFT” MODALITIES OF POWER .................................................................................... 114 5.3.1 Seduction ........................................................................................................................ 114 5.3.2 Persuasion ....................................................................................................................... 115 5.3.3 Negotiation ..................................................................................................................... 116 5.3.4 Further Modalities and Synergies .................................................................................... 116 5.4 NETWORKS AND SPATIALITY ........................................................................................................... 117 5.5 RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 120 5.6 POWER AND PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES ....................................................................... 122 5.7 POWER AND TRUST ...................................................................................................................... 126 5.8 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 129 CHAPTER SIX: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 131 6.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 131 6.1 APPROACH TO THE CHAPTER .......................................................................................................... 132 6.2 SUMMARISING THE THEORY FOR ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 134 6.3 NEGATIVE MODALITIES OF POWER .................................................................................................. 135 6.3.1 Domination ..................................................................................................................... 135 6.3.2 Authority ......................................................................................................................... 139 6.3.3 Control ............................................................................................................................ 144 6.3.4 Manipulation .................................................................................................................. 149 6.3.5 Coercion .......................................................................................................................... 155 6.4 POSITIVE OR ‘SOFT’ MODALITIES OF POWER ...................................................................................... 158 6.4.1 Inducement ..................................................................................................................... 158 6.4.2 Seduction ........................................................................................................................ 161 6.4.3 Persuasion ....................................................................................................................... 163 6.4.4 Negotiation ..................................................................................................................... 169 6.4.5 Influence ......................................................................................................................... 174 6.5 OTHER MODALITIES OF POWER ...................................................................................................... 178 6.6 SYNERGIES BETWEEN MODALITIES ................................................................................................... 179 6.7 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 181

~ iii ~ CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 184 7.0 THEORETICAL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 184 7.1 CASE STUDY SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 185 7.2 ANALYTICAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 186 7.3 MEETING THE AIMS AND ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................... 188 7.4 ANALYTICAL META CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 192 7.5 CRITICAL REFLECTIONS .................................................................................................................. 193 CHAPTER EIGHT: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 196 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................. A1 APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................................. A5 APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................. A7

List of Tables Table 1. Three types of trust, their authors and alternative names ....................................... 80 Table 2. Practical definitions of the different modalities of power with a contextual example where possible....................................................................................................................... 133

~ iv ~

Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis Peter Edwards

~ v ~

Acknowledgements This journey has thankfully never been a lonely one. There have been many people who have been a part of this amazing journey. Some have been with me for the entire journey, some for a large portion of it and some at various points. All of you have been incredible and I am honoured to call you friends and colleagues. I would like to thank my principal supervisors, Associate Professor Jenny Cameron, now at the University of Newcastle and Associate Professor Geoff Woolcock at Griffith University. You have both been such an incredibly powerful force behind me during this thesis journey. You have been supportive, inspiring, motivating, understanding and have pushed me to think and perform to a level I didn’t realize I had. I will be eternally grateful for the incredible effort and time you have invested in me. Dr. Peter Daniels deserves thanks as an associate supervisor and friend for all of his help and support along my journey, especially at the low points. Professor Paul Burton, my other associate supervisor has been of assistance during the later stages of this thesis journey and deserves thanks as well for his help and support. There have been other faculty at Griffith University that have been incredibly supportive and helpful, whether it be with tools to help me complete the PhD, discussion of ideas, or simply moral support. I cannot name every one, but the ones that come to mind are Kees, Jenny, Cristina, Diana and Michael. Thank you for your friendship, collegiality and excellent discussions. To the other PhD students in the Urban Research Program, Planning School/Discipline and the School of Environment: Deanna, Sarah, Wendy, Rowan, Mike, Andrew, Karen, thank you for all of the fantastic conversations, discussions, sharing of knowledge, support, cups of tea, lunches and general chats. They have been in turn, informative, enlightening, entertaining and heartwarming. One could not ask for better colleagues. To my other friends from afar who have been motivating, helpful and supportive, Salim, Ulrika, Ingmar, Gregor and Kristina, thank you for all of your kind words, encouragement, support and ideas. Thank you to Göran Ewald and Lennart Olsson for their support and encouragement in helping me get started along the PhD journey.

~ vi ~ Special thanks go to my family – Mum, dad and sister for their support and encouragement from afar. Last, but definitely not least, Gemma, you are my best friend, my soulmate. Thank you for your love, for being there for me, coping with some of my quirks. You joined me part‐way along this journey, but at the perfect time, reminding me of what life is all about.

~ vii ~

Abstract Community and participatory engagement processes have received heightened attention on the political agenda with an increasing number of scholars and practitioners viewing them as a key component in robust, democratic decision‐making. These participatory practices are, however, far from perfect. In order to refine and strengthen these imperfect practices it is first necessary to understand in detail how they work. This thesis uses a case study of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, a participatory engagement process held on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia in 2004 and 2005 to focus on two elements that can strengthen or undermine participatory engagement processes. These two key elements are power and trust. This thesis argues, following a networked theory of power that a variety of different modalities of power are exercised during participatory engagement processes, with some of these power modalities contributing to strong trust relationships. Other modalities of power, however, undermine trust relationships. Understanding how these modalities of power undermine or strengthen trust is an important contribution to strengthening participatory engagement processes overall. In dissecting the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee process in detail through the lens of specific modalities of power, several key outcomes came to light. First, when individual modalities of power are investigated, it was discovered that participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy seemed able to selectively target their trust to deserving individuals or institutions. Second, not all negative modalities of power automatically engender distrust, nor do all positive modalities of power automatically engender trust. Third, the importance of context has been highlighted. It is truly a key issue that needs to replace blanket, universal institutions in many cases. Fourth, there are different mechanisms at play between expert planning and policy systems and participatory planning and policy‐making. These mechanisms appear to be able to allow participants to selectively trust or distrust rather than have a general distrust of processes.

~ 1 ~

Chapter One: Introduction

1.0 My Journey As I have indicated in my acknowledgements, this thesis is not only about my PhD, but about a PhD topic, as I have never been alone throughout this journey. My story begins several years ago. During a visit to Australia, I noticed that even in mid summer, individuals and organisations were squandering water, seemingly forgetting they were living in an extremely dry environment. Signs announcing watering restrictions appeared to go unnoticed. After this visit, several diverse things later came together in my mind that raised a number of questions. The events that came together inspiring these questions and my eventual research direction were: 

A friend apologising for the rain one day in Melbourne, adding that rain was urgently needed due to the ongoing drought;



Listening to Professor David Schindler speak at the 2005 Dennis H. Chitty Lecture at the University of British Columbia, where he stated that without proper policies, water conservation, and with climate change, vast tracts of Canada would be water scarce by 2100; and,



Wondering why people in the Greater Vancouver area, in a temperate region with high rainfall, generally abide by strict watering restrictions each summer?

These events in mind, the questions about the development of water policy and plans in Australia were that if Canada, a country with vast amounts of rain, extensive snow and ice, and consequently little or no current water scarcity could possibly fare so poorly, what would happen in arid countries, such as Australia? What was being done policy‐wise in Australia? Would it be possible to get better buy in and compliance with water restrictions (based on my anecdotal evidence)? These questions led me to embark on my research journey towards the writing and completion of a PhD thesis began. As my journey continued and I conducted further research into policy and planning processes particularly around why and how the public actually actively buys in to these policy and plans, I wondered why we, as the public, trust politicians and bureaucrats with

~ 2 ~ these tasks? What makes us trust these entities? Is it because they are open and transparent? Is it because they have the same values as us? Or, is it because they are able to manipulate us and we do not recognise it? Would we, as civil society, be better able to trust policies and plans that were implemented if civil society was more involved in creating these policies and plans? Even as recently as August 2008, further evidence of the importance of these questions on my journey became apparent. While at a large international conference, I was asked “Surely, if the community is engaged and participates in policy and planning activities, they must develop trust?” To me, this question reflects the degree to which trust is studied in a superficial way, despite the significant role that trust plays in participatory engagement processes and the extensive role that power plays in the creation of trust. In a more extreme view, this quote may reflect how trust is either taken for granted or simply ignored, even by those in the fields of policy and planning, social geography and sociology for example. As I reflected on the volumes of work on trust found, one thing stood out in the area of trust and policy/planning. Almost all of the work has been done post policy or plan development and implementation. Authorities present a complete or approved plan or policy to the community and then the researchers come along and survey the community about their levels of trust in the authorities to effectively carry out the policy or plan. Very little has been done on how the authorities can create or damage trust through either a typical planning or policy process or one in which citizens and stakeholders are involved in more than a tokenistic way. Storytelling is a powerful tool that can be used to shape and influence actors (Sørensen, 2006) and to draw an audience in and make a connection with them at a more personal level (Chartier et al., 2005). This thesis will tell a story of trust, distrust and power from the perspectives of participants in a community engagement process about water planning and policy. It will focus on demonstrating that for robust, contextually appropriate and meaningful community engagement to occur, proponents and participants need to be aware of and pay attention to opportunities for storytelling (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999). It may also shape or influence how future policies and plans are created by government authorities Young (1995) states that storytelling reveals a plethora of experiences that cannot be shared

~ 3 ~ (as they are individual), but need to be understood by others. This is what the case study will attempt to demonstrate ‐ we cannot hope to share the same story as the case study participants, but we do need to understand what they experienced and how they experienced it. More specifically, in this thesis, the story of how trust and power come together in the participatory engagement process of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy will be examined. I have purposely stayed away from explicitly investigating how trust is formed, because trust is formed based on our own individual experiences and interpretations of those experiences and the context of each individual situation. There quite conceivably could be as many ways to form trust as there are people in the world.

1.1 The Research Setting Over the last 15 years, while there have been worsening environmental problems, globally and locally. There has been a corresponding increased call for environmental governance initiatives and a strong push for new forms of political engagement (Fischer, 2006). This, however, has been slow to happen in Australia. These calls have involved a shift away from the notion of traditional government to a multidirectional system that includes multiple players such as industry, nongovernmental organisations and citizens, with a focus upon public deliberation and problem solving (Fischer, 2006). A variety of authors have called for active engagement that it is inclusive, transparent, and accountable and is a partnership between various groups (civil society, business, and government) (Jürgens, 2002; Bäckstrand, 2004a; 2004b; 2006a; 2006b; Everingham, 2007; Hoppe et al., 2007). What effects does this active engagement, accountability and transparency have on trust? A number of authors writing about trust, planning and policy, and Natural Resource Management (NRM) such as Cvetkovich, Dunn, Uslaner and Winter look at trust and policy and planning after a policy or plan has already been drafted. Trust is then assessed through observing community consultation (if any), or community perceptions or attitudes to already established plans, policies or strategies. For example, Cvetkovich and Winter (2002) look at whether people trust the organization responsible to implement the policy or plan appropriately, once that plan or policy was already adopted. Dunn et al. (2008) look broadly at how professionals trust existing policies around risk from environmental and technical hazards. Dunn et al. (2008) look at how professionals and experts experience trust, which

~ 4 ~ brings up the issue that O’Neill (2002) highlights – professional bodies and their penchant for accountability, transparency and audit, which has the effect of reducing trust. This is in contrast to this research which looks at the dynamics of trust or distrust that may be created through engaging the community in the actual design and drafting of plans or policies.

1.1.1 Research Aims and Questions To date, much of the attention in water research in Australia has been directed towards technological advances for enhanced supply and demand, water quality and security. It is only recently that research has started to focus on environmental and social aspects of water regulation. This new focus on water in terms of the environment has primarily looked at environmental flows – the minimum amount of water necessary to sustain each river ecosystem. Additional work is being done on what happens to river systems during severe or prolonged drought. In terms of social ramifications, water research has looked at demand side management, or how people are able to reduce water consumption and the acceptance of alternative supplies (e.g. recycling). The development of policies that build on this research into environmental and social aspects of water has been primarily expert/technocrat driven. Where participatory processes have been included in environmental decision‐making, they have typically been tokenistic ‘consultations’ (Eketone and Shannon, 2006). One example that touches on a key reason for participatory engagement research is the failure in Queensland to adequately involve stakeholders in the development of water policy through the State Premier’s dismissal of plebiscite plans for South East Queensland water recycling (Algate, 2007). The Premier cancelled this opportunity for the public to have some say in water planning due to the worsening water situation in South East Queensland. Within months, the situation had changed from where purified recycled water was an option to one where it became a necessity (Algate, 2007), apparently negating the need for public input. This is particularly critical for two reasons: a) water planning issues are quite complex; and b) governments, politicians and bureaucrats are engaging in the ‘politics of life’ – making decisions on issues, such as water, that are absolute basic necessities for human life ‐ without sufficient participation, engagement, or deliberation of the broader population, let alone key stakeholders. Effective public participation in the policy or planning process can only enhance the quality of these decisions (Harding, 1998). Harding (1998) provides an

~ 5 ~ extensive list of more tangible benefits of public participation including giving communities and the public a better understanding of a project, identifying and addressing concerns before plans are finalised, providing other sources of knowledge, particularly local knowledge, and encouraging transparency and trust between stakeholders. These more tangible benefits not only enhance the quality of decisions, but improve their legitimacy (Bäckstrand, 2006b). This thesis proposes that stakeholders and the general public are important actors in the policy development process. It also proposes that participatory engagement processes are important, yet largely absent, in decision‐making and policy development in water policy. Not only are water policies not participatory, reflexive, inclusive or deliberative, governments are increasingly facing a legitimacy crisis due to increasing public mistrust and opposition to hastily made decisions (for example, with regard to water recycling and desalination) (Clark, 2006; Russell and Hampton, 2006). This situation calls for a revitalisation of the policy‐making and planning process. My research proposition for this thesis is thus: “By including and engaging all relevant stakeholders and the interested public in a participatory process of decision‐making, policy outcomes in the area of water management are better legitimated, engender the creation of active trust, and thus stand an increased chance of overall success.” From this proposition, several aims have been developed. The first of the broad aims for this thesis is to discover the connections between and bring together several disparate academic disciplines, most notably human geography, urban planning and sociology. This is not about physically uniting these disciplines, but allowing the thinking that went into this thesis to be “a little less specialist, more inclusive, less particular, more holistic” (Knight, 2000: 1‐2). The second aim can be found in amongst the debates in participatory engagement processes and trust. There appears to be little research that actually looks at trust in a practical sense and ties it to participatory engagement and power. This thesis will attempt to colour in some of the gaps between these debates while highlighting the importance of the interconnectedness of participatory engagement, trust and power.

~ 6 ~ A more focused aim of this thesis is to inform the ongoing debate between Communicative Action (CA) theorists and critical realists in community engagement and planning. CA theorists tend to argue that researchers need to look at power and the micro‐politics of participatory and communicative engagement practices. On the other hand, critical realists believe that we need to take several steps back and look at the ‘workings’ of participatory and communicative planning from the viewpoint of other disciplines that contribute so much to planning as the design and regulation of space. Planning, and to some extent policy are the focus of this thesis, as they combine a variety of disciplines under their general umbrella of ‘policy’ or ‘planning’. This will be addressed in much greater detail in Chapter Three. Additionally, this research aims to investigate the key aspects of power present in the creation of trust and/or distrust, particularly during the process of actually involving citizens and stakeholders in developing policy or plans. The journey elucidated so far has led to the creation of three research questions that this thesis will attempt to address. 

What forms of trust are developed through community engagement in the policy and planning process?



What mechanisms are at work in the development of trust or distrust between stakeholders in the process of community engagement?



What underpinnings or undermining of trust by power are evident or come to light through engaging the community in the policy and planning process?

Through these aims and research questions, this thesis does not begin to claim to bridge the gap between the arguments put forth by Communicative Action theorists and critical realists, but instead this work aims to start to fill a small part of the ‘space’ between these two sides in the debates which are elucidated further in chapter three. Thus this research concurs with Healey (2000) and other social theorists such as Foucault and Flyvbjerg, that power and the micro‐politics of a process are essential for the understanding of how the process works which in turn provides opportunities for improvement of the process in the future. Furthermore, this thesis is motivated by Yiftachel and Huxley’s (2000) thinking that planning needs to consider other key disciplines that contribute so much to planning and the design and regulation of space, including sociology, geography and ecology, etc. With this in

~ 7 ~ mind the thesis attempts to look at the micro‐politics and power dynamics of a sociological aspect of planning: trust and how it intimately relates to participatory engagement in planning and policy processes.

1.2 Putting the Story in Context The first question that may arise in a reader’s mind is why water? What specifically does water have to do with participatory engagement processes, trust and power? While water policy and planning is not key to the understanding of trust and power; the dynamics of trust and power could be studied through any number of participatory processes. The rationale for choosing to use water policy and planning to study trust and power has several reasons. First, it was a very obvious policy and planning issue that anecdotally did not seem to have much public buy‐in when this thesis was started. The focus on trust and power came about through the necessity of narrowing the focus of this project, and the idea that trust is key to public buy‐in or acceptance of government policies and plans. Second, trust can be considered a crucial aspect of water planning (or food systems, pollution, or any number of other areas) as water and these other ‘areas’ are necessities of human life (M. Adams, Personal Communication, December 5, 2009). The ‘politics of life’ around these issues is reliant on trust.

1.2.1 A Global View As recently as four years ago, the predominant water management governance regime around the world was centralized, hierarchical and involved limited public participation (Pahl‐Wostl et al., 2005). To improve water management governance, Pahl‐Wostl et al. (2005) claimed that integrated, adaptive approaches to water management governance are polycentric, horizontal, and involve broad stakeholder and public participation. Participation alone, however, does not ensure that representative or democratic principles are adhered to, but it can improve information and knowledge for decision‐making (Jasanoff, 2003; Meadowcroft, 2004). And so, a third rationale for using water, while not crucial, is that there has been little research done on ‘horizontal’ governance in water (i.e. participatory approaches), making it an ideal area to focus on. Other issues that may have a longer history of horizontal governance experiences and research may not have provided such an open canvas upon which to work.

~ 8 ~ At the global level, there have been increasing calls for a switch from government to governance in the environmental realm1. This has resulted in a number of initiatives aimed at improving the inclusion of civil society in environmental decision‐making. For example, the Stockholm International Water Institute is now the host institution for a Water Governance Facility (WGF), jointly funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). The WGF promotes water governance reform and implementation, as well as addressing decentralisation and issues of participation in decision‐making (Water Governance Facility, 2006). In addition, the NeWater project, started in 2005 under the European Union’s Sixth Framework Programme, looks at governance in water, and in particular, how to move towards broad, multi‐ stakeholder participation in integrated water resources management under conditions of uncertainty (NeWater, 2005). However, these projects appear to neglect trust or assume that it is ‘just there’, focusing in on the politics and governance aspects or water management policy and planning. One of the countries that has embraced local participatory engagement processes in natural resource management and planning is Sweden. The Kristianstad’s Vattenrike project in southern Sweden is a collaborative approach to ecosystem and landscape management (Hahn et al., 2006). It has been extensively studied from an adaptive governance and resilience perspective, but has also looked at the creation of trust (Hahn et al., 2006). This is one participatory engagement process where the researchers examined trust in more than a superficial way, although trust was not the primary focus of the study. This is one more reflection of the importance of trust in participatory engagement processes. This project, while a secondary focus was on building trust, may not be true community engagement when measured up against Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of community engagement, as the organisers only invite ‘positive’ people to participate in the project (Hahn et al., 2006). Additionally, similar to many of these examples below, the entity that ‘controls’ this project does not have any decision making powers, and must negotiate with municipal authorities to have any of their propositions implemented (Hahn et al., 2006). Despite this participatory engagement work including trust elsewhere, there does not appear to have been any uptake of this trust aspect in participatory engagement research and evaluation in Australia.

1

Where governance is a system or process of management or leadership and government is an entity that administers this process (World Bank, 1991).

~ 9 ~ 1.2.2 Australia Australia has experienced some transitional governance arrangements in NRM. Lawrence (2004) outlines a number of initiatives in regional NRM governance in Australia, focusing on the Natural Heritage Trust’s Landcare, Bushcare, Rivercare, and Coastcare programs. These have included attempts to mobilise community participation and foster partnerships with government, identify the catchment as the most important ‘region’, and develop frameworks that go beyond government budget cycles (Lawrence, 2004). Oliver (2004) has also provided insight into how effective partnerships in NRM can be undertaken. While these examples are relevant to some extent, they are all to do with NRM, and not explicitly with policy or planning. However, as in policy and planning, these initiatives in NRM present us with a problem because they are generally constrained by the government or the bodies that set them up (Lawrence, 2004). At a local level, governments and non‐governmental organisations have carried out a number of more robust participatory engagement initiatives. One of the organizations that have been undertaking deliberative events is the Ethos Foundation at Binna Burra, South East Queensland. These ‘Courageous Conversation’ events have been taking place since 2004 and bring together leaders and emerging leaders from a variety of backgrounds (science, government, industry, and civil society) to explore, at a ‘deeper’ level through dialogue, current highly topical environmental and social issues (Ethos Foundation, 2006). Other examples of more robust participatory engagement processes in Australia and South East Queensland and Northern New South Wales include the Byron Shire Sustainable Agriculture Strategy and the Wollumbin Collaboration. Initiated by the Shire Council in 2002 (Walsh, 2004) with the input of a variety of stakeholders, first through a series of focus groups that determined the key issues and priority areas for action by the Shire Council (Walsh, 2004). These same focus group participants were then invited to nominate any shire resident that they wished for a position in the six identified categories on the Sustainable Agriculture Roundtable (SART) (Walsh, 2004). The nominees were then evaluated by the Steering Committee, made up of Council and Planning New South Wales representatives who then chose the final makeup of the Roundtable committee (Walsh, 2004). In perusing the documentation about this process, there is no explicit mention of trust, giving rise to the arguments that trust is either simply not thought about or it is assumed to ‘just be there’.

~ 10 ~ The “Wollumbin collaboration” is another example where an online network of citizens and groups throughout South East Queensland and Northern New South Wales have come together to collaborate on several important issues (food, water and energy) to develop sustainable alternative plans that can be presented to local and state governments as alternatives to the current trajectory (McLeod, 2007). While these strategies are pitched at local and state governments for wider implementation, they are also implemented by local citizen groups amongst their members as a demonstration of change from the grass‐roots.

1.2.3 Queensland There have been a number of participatory engagement initiatives in Queensland, Australia over the past decade. These attempts at participatory engagement have been at both the State and local government level to more effectively involve the public in decision‐making. While there were some attempts to engage the community prior to 1998, the main thrust of these came during the tenure of Peter Beattie as premier of Queensland starting in 1998 (Reddel and Woolcock, 2004). There are a number of different avenues that have been used to engage with the community, including Community Cabinets where the entire state cabinet would conduct their business in a location away from Brisbane (the capital) giving local communities the opportunity to discuss important regional issues with various ministers (Reddel and Woolcock, 2004). Other notable participatory policy initiatives included the Community Engagement Division (2001‐2005), Community Renewal Program (2000‐2009) and Regional Management Committees (2001‐2005) to name a few. These engagement opportunities appeared to, and at times actively, allowed local citizens and stakeholder groups the opportunity to have input into policies and plans (Reddel and Woolcock, 2004), although they did not give these stakeholders the opportunity to actually develop the policies or plans. One case discussed more in the next chapter, State Planning Policy 2/02: Planning and Managing Development Involving Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS), was developed through a multi‐ year process by affected stakeholders. What makes this one different is that it is not NRM‐ focused, as most other ASS policies in Australia, but focused more on urban development and planning. The process that this policy followed is one that very closely mirrors the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy development that will be detailed in the following chapter.

~ 11 ~ The Queensland Acid Sulfate Soils Management Advisory Committee was set up in 1996 by the then Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with representatives from a variety of State government departments (DNR, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Primary Industries, Department of Local Government and Planning, Department of State Development and Transport), the urban development, agriculture and fishing industries, conservation and community groups, academia and local government (Powell and Ahern, 1999). This informal, voluntary committee conducted state‐wide community engagement on behalf of the state government to facilitate a state‐wide approach to managing ASS (Powell and Ahern, 1999; Powell, 2004). This work, undertaken over more than six years resulted in the Queensland Government adopting State Planning Policy 2/02 in 2002. This planning policy, developed by community, government and industry stakeholders (including technical experts) has been held up as best practice and adopted by other Australian states (Watling et al., 2004). One of the major issues highlighted by Reddel and Woolcock (2004) is that most of these participatory initiatives have a questionable ability to build and maintain relationships between the stakeholders involved. These relationships ‐ a manifestation of the exercise of power between individuals and individuals and organisations or institutions are necessary for the development of active trust. Using State Planning Policy 2/02, this policy development process seems to demonstrate that participatory engagement processes can actually develop highly regarded plans and policies. Although there is no information on the development of trust or distrust or about the relationships between members of the committee, Powell (2004) reports that there had not been much controversy during this process, compared to New South Wales where there was a relatively large amount of conflict between stakeholders.

1.3 Thesis Overview In this thesis, the analysis attempts to discover how power undermines or underpins the creation of trust or distrust in community engagement processes. Three separate but interconnected streams of theory have been looked at in relation to community engagement and the development and maintenance of trust. These streams are participatory engagement literature, trust literature and power literature. These three streams will all be

~ 12 ~ integrated though the analysis and discussion of interview data collected from Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee members. The next chapter introduces the reader to the methodology and methods used during this thesis research and explains in detail the case study that was chosen. It explains the rationale for choosing the case study, narrative interviews and the data analysis approach. The second part of the chapter provides details of the process that made up the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy and the final outcome(s) from the process. In assessing the participatory engagement literature, there are several on‐going debates addressed in this thesis, starting to make connections between this area, trust and power. These debates include what exactly is participatory engagement? Is what we currently term participatory engagement really this? How does it measure up to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen engagement and what are the consequences of this for trust? There are four key issues raised in this chapter on participatory engagement – communication, power, realism vs. idealism and contextualism vs. universalism. Along with the majority of the components of participatory engagement, these issues are closely tied to some of the major components of active trust. The debate between CA theorists and critical realists over the best way to analyse participatory engagement processes is crucial, as both deploy notions of using power as an analytical tool to determine what exactly is happening in these relationships (good or bad). In Chapter Four on trust, several debates in the trust literature that are linked to participatory engagement and power. These debates question whether there is really a crisis of trust? Swain and Tait (2007) certainly claim there is a crisis of trust, framed in broad terms between planners and citizens. They do not address cases where citizens are actively involved in the development of policies and plans. O’Neill (2002) raises some questions about this crisis of trust by asking questions about situating trust in particular contexts. The chapter also looks at two other crucial debates on trust, linked to participatory engagement – the issues of accountability and transparency as factors in declining trust, yet necessary for good participatory engagement. This triggers another debate on reflexivity as a contributor to declining trust, but simultaneously a crucial component of participatory engagement processes and active trust.

~ 13 ~ Chapter Five on power provides the ties that hold these two issues of participatory engagement and trust together detailing the networked theory of power that is used in this thesis and explaining the differences between power and resources. The chapter also addresses a variety of modalities of power that are manifest, including in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. This sets up the integrated analysis and discussion, Chapter Six, where through examining each of the modalities of power and providing examples of how each of these power modalities were used, their effect on the participatory process and their impact on the creation of trust or distrust is revealed.

~ 14 ~

Chapter Two: Methodology and Case Study

2.0 Introduction This thesis uses a single case study to look at the research questions posed in the introduction. This chapter will explain why the case study was chosen and how data collection and analysis was undertaken. A detailed background will also be provided for the chosen case study, the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, as it will be referred to throughout the thesis. Once again, the research questions that this thesis attempts to answer are: 







What underpinnings or undermining of trust by power are evident or come to light through engaging the community in the policy and planning process?

Case study research is useful and practical for understanding complex social phenomena and can be used to investigate contemporary phenomena within their real‐life context; when the boundaries between phenomena and context are not clearly evident; and when there are multiple sources of data (Yin, 2003). Case studies also have an advantage over other methodologies in that they can allow new ideas to emerge from the very detailed information that comes from them (Lindegger, 2001: 255). Lindegger (2001) also notes that case studies are useful to promote critical reflection on existing themes. This thesis will attempt to use this case study to help understand the complexities around power and trust, as well as propose some new ideas around trust. These two ‘actions’ will hopefully provoke some additional thought around the current thoughts on trust, particularly where power relations are present. While case studies are useful for those reasons, there are a number of misconceptions about case studies, which when dissected provide further reasons for using them. The following general misconceptions have been identified by Flyvbjerg (2006a: 221): that general

~ 15 ~ theoretical knowledge is better than context‐dependent practical knowledge; you are not able to generalise based on one case; they are most useful for generating hypotheses; case studies are biased towards verification; and you are not able to develop general propositions or theories from case studies. Flyvbjerg (2001; 2006a) provides a number of arguments for the use of case studies, and in particular, the use of one detailed case study, refuting these misconceptions. Context‐dependent knowledge is just as valuable as general knowledge. In fact, Flyvbjerg (2001; 2006a) claims that context‐dependent knowledge is at the heart of every expert, and that this is how individuals learn, allowing people to move from lower to higher levels in the learning process. In studying humans, there is only context‐dependent knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2001). By understanding how and why people act or behave in certain situations, we may be able to draw out a number of principles about how they will act or behave in similar contexts or situations. Case study research also demonstrates a closeness to real‐life situations, allowing the researcher and the public the opportunity to see the complexity of human behaviour (Flyvbjerg, 2006a). It would seem, then, that being able to study human behaviour through the use of general, rule‐bound theories is not completely possible. This finding of the universal or ‘general’ behind human behaviour can be traced back to Socrates and Plato, who searched for the universal behind all (Flyvbjerg, 2001). This type of thinking is still prevalent in the natural sciences today. Conversely, Aristotle did not look for the universal or the general, he claimed that “values and human behaviour must be seen in relation to the particular” (Flyvbjerg, 2001: 70). This would confirm that to study human behaviour, one needs to look at the particular, context‐dependent information and knowledge that a case study can provide. While a case study does look at the specific and may not always be used to obtain generalised knowledge, there are circumstances where this is possible, should the case study be chosen appropriately (Flyvbjerg, 2006a). Flyvbjerg (2001: 79) presents four ‘types’ of case studies that the researcher can select from: extreme or deviant cases; maximum variation cases; critical cases; and paradigmatic cases. Should a researcher select an extremely favourable case and the thesis involved be disproven, then it is possible to claim that it may be discounted in intermediate cases (Flyvbjerg, 2006a; Goldthorpe et al., 1968‐ 1969).

~ 16 ~ For the purpose of this research project, a single case study will be used to bring together the answers to the research questions posed above. This approach has been chosen for the following reasons. By choosing a single case study, we are able to delve beyond the surface – what may appear to be true could be found to be untrue and vice versa (Flyvbjerg, 2006a). Case studies can be representative of the myriad of power relations that happen in participatory processes (Yin, 2004). This is certainly the case with the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. A single case study can also be considered to be ‘multiple’ in that the depth with which it is explored allows the ideas and evidence obtained to be seen, linked and combined in multiple ways (Flyvbjerg, 2006a). Through the use of several different threads (participatory engagement, trust and power), I will show the complexity involved in the creation and maintenance of trust in participatory engagement processes. By embedding this case study in the larger research literature around participatory engagement, trust and power, the lessons that have been learned here can potentially contribute to the building of new knowledge (Yin, 2003). Lessons that may be learned from this particular case study include what power‐laden practices in participatory engagement practices contribute to the creation and maintenance of trust. This creation of a strong form of trust, active trust, may contribute to an increased level of trust and confidence in government authorities, leading to greater acceptance of policies and plans.

2.1 Case Study Selection The selection of an appropriate case study was not an easy task. As indicated in the introduction, there have been a number of participatory processes that could have potentially been selected for any particular case study. One of the criteria prioritised from the outset was that the case study should involve water, as water is an important, even crucial, topic in Australia. This limited the choice somewhat – major initiatives that were considered included the Murray Darling Basin, the Traveston Crossing Dam (north of Brisbane), the National Water Initiative and the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. The field was narrowed to two, eliminating both the Murray Darling Basin and the National Water Initiative as they both have an incredibly broad scope and it would be difficult to select an aspect that would provide the necessary depth without sacrificing their context.

~ 17 ~ The Traveston Crossing Dam presented a potentially interesting case study since it was announced in mid 2006, shortly after commencing postgraduate studies. While it would have been incredibly valuable in terms of how trust is destroyed (or distrust created), because there really was no community engagement process (the dam was suddenly announced by the state Premier), it would not be adequately able to answer the research questions posed above. This left the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. The case study of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy was selected for this purpose for several reasons. The perceptions of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy by two different cohorts, the media and South East Queensland water planning authorities, suggest that the process was highly regarded. Additional accolades from local Gold Coast Residents, some of whom have been involved in community engagement activities themselves, also flagged the Community Advisory Committee process in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy as a positive occurrence in community engagement in Australia. Further, in discussing some of the issues of interest with a member of the Gold Coast Water Project Team for their most recent Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee (on Recycled Water), I was most impressed with how these community engagement processes had been set up. This was compared to the relative fiasco of community engagement over the Traveston Crossing Dam, also proposed for South East Queensland. While clearly the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy was a well run project, there have been a number of awards presented to Gold Coast Water for their work on both the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy and the Pimpama‐Coomera Waterfuture Master Plan to support this belief, which both followed the same community engagement process. In 2006 the International Water Association presented their Project Innovation Awards Grand Global Prize in Planning to Gold Coast Water for their work on the Pimpama‐Coomera Waterfuture Master Plan (Gold Coast Water, 2009a). In 2007, the International Association for Public Participation awarded Gold Coast Water their Core Values award for the work on the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy (Gold Coast Water, 2009a). Even now, in 2009, Gold Coast Water is still receiving accolades for the Waterfuture Strategy. The Australian Water Association presented Gold Coast Water with both the Queensland and National Water Environment Merit Award and Gold Coast Water has just won the Global Water Awards –

~ 18 ~ Public Water Agency of the Year, ‐ to which both the Pimpama‐Coomera and Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategies contributed heavily (Gold Coast Water, 2009a). This case study was selected because it was so highly regarded and seemed to provide a positive case of robust community engagement, with easy access to all needed documents and reports. The documents, reports, meeting minutes and contact details for potential interviewees were provided, without hesitation, by Gold Coast Water. The correspondence between myself and Gold Coast Water has been included for reference in Appendix A. While the process had taken place over approximately the two years prior to commencing postgraduate research, it was still fresh in the minds of the participants and did not appear to have the same amount of potential political and media influence acting upon the process as the current Recycled Waterfuture process did. This eliminated some potentially complex additional ‘variables’ from this research. This case study, the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, was chosen after consideration of several alternatives for its perceived positive contribution to community engagement and trust. This case study is enlightening through both the positive and negative qualities relating to the creation of trust that are presented throughout this thesis. This selection of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy was chosen following Flyvbjerg’s (2001; 2006a; 2006b) typology as primarily a critical case and secondarily as a paradigmatic case. A critical case study has some strategic importance in relation to a general problem, while a paradigmatic case study highlights more general characteristics of the society in general (Flyvbjerg, 2006a; 2006b). The next chapter will explain in more detail how this case study relates to the general problem in the debates between different schools of planning and policy thought. The case study will also be used later to highlight some more general characteristics of community engagement and trust in general.

2.2 Interviews and Data Collection In order to undertake this research, two approaches have been used. The first, a relatively minor approach, was to go through the minutes of both Gold Coast City Council meetings and the minutes of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee meetings to: a) find out or confirm general background information; and b) to find examples ranging from the trite to very solid of how and what components of participatory engagement processes and trust were present or absent.

~ 19 ~ The second approach was through a series of narrative interviews with members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee and the project team that supported the process. These interviews were recorded digitally and later transcribed using Nuance Software’s Dragon Naturally Speaking 9.5 Preferred software program. There are a number of reasons put forth for choosing this particular method. The first reason for undertaking entirely qualitative research methods is to explore in greater detail how people feel trust is created or destroyed than what a purely quantitative study can demonstrate. Secondly, there is significant controversy around the measurability of power (Hindess, 1996; Allen, 2003). Thirdly, we can learn a lot about the institutional context of the process from transcripts of these types of interviews and from meeting minutes (Forester, 1996). Through using a qualitative technique of interviewing, the researcher is able to probe deeper into the participants’ reasons and understandings of trust, distrust and power. While a quantitative study can provide information on ‘how many’ or ‘how much’ respondents trust or distrust in a particular situation, it requires a qualitative investigation to reveal motivations and reasons behind a particular actor’s actions. This can then provide researchers with data, that when analysed may suggest ways in which participatory engagement processes can be modified in order to facilitate or create trust between individuals and institutions. Going beyond this particular study, by having detailed qualitative data from a number of different contexts, researchers can gain insight into the broader picture of what forces and mechanisms are at play in the creation of active trust and begin to understand what role the specific context of the actors plays in the creation of active trust and/or distrust. Through looking at these transcripts with the interviewer’s observational information added in, such as tone, body language, expressions, etc., we can gain a sense of how people saw the process being set up and run, and whether that conflicted with their notions of what norms and institutions should have been followed. From meeting minutes, one is able to follow along with the administrative institutions of the process, but can also see if any institutions were used to allow individuals or groups to sway or move the group in a different direction than was envisaged.

~ 20 ~ After gaining ethical clearance from the Office of Research, Griffith University (protocol number AES/02/07/HREC), fifteen semi‐structured, narrative style interviews were conducted with fifteen members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee and Project Team between May and November 2008. Contact details of the members of the Community Advisory Committee and key members of the project team were provided by Gold Coast Water. All potential interviewees were contacted by email or regular postal mail, depending on their personal circumstances, explaining what the research project entailed and providing a general information sheet along with researcher contact details. If there was no response, a follow‐up email and/or phone call was made to the potential interviewees. Fifteen of the twenty two Community Advisory Committee members agreed to talk about their experiences on the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee. The interviews were scheduled at mutually convenient times and locations, often in the interviewee’s own office or home, making it more comfortable and convenient for them. Some further general demographic details about the interviewees can be found in Appendix B while still maintaining the confidentiality of the participants. Interviewing is an ancient form of gathering knowledge or information, and even goes back as far as Thucydides who interviewed people in order to write a history of the Peloponnesian wars (Kvale, 1996). Interviews, as Kvale (1996) points out, are like conversations or narratives that are crucial for obtaining stories and insights into the social world. Narrative interviewing can be defined in this context as a non‐standardised, flexible approach to interviewing that can elicit rich, detailed information that can be used in a variety of qualitative analyses (Fielding and Thomas, 2001). In this thesis, the narrative interviews involved the interviewer presenting a broad theme to the participant and asking them to recall their experiences in as much detail as possible. This allowed the participant to tell a story or narrative about their experiences and recollections about the particular theme presented. Narrative interviewing then can be compared to both un‐structured and semi‐structured interviewing techniques. When one is interviewing a variety of different individuals from different backgrounds, it is difficult to know what questions or approach will resonate with particular interviewees (Fielding and Thomas, 2001). Narrative interviewing relates in so many ways to the ideas of well run participatory planning processes, communication and this thesis, particularly through aspects of listening, learning,

~ 21 ~ and power (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999; Forester, 2006). As Kvale (1996) suggests, broad interview themes or questions were developed by the researcher as broad topics or themes. These themes were introduced to the participants so they could share their experiences and values about the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process as stories. These open‐ended questions or themes allow the interviewee to communicate their stories, beliefs, values and more spontaneous answers, rather than a superficial answer to a specific question that may be loaded with interviewer bias (Fielding and Thomas, 2001). These more ‘unstructured’ type interviews are certainly more appropriate for this situation, where respondents were from a number of disparate backgrounds, not knowing what type of interaction would resonate with them (Fielding and Thomas, 2001). To accommodate this possibility, increasingly specific topics and questions under each of the broad themes were developed so that the interviewer would be prepared for the approach that each interviewee preferred. The interview guide, with its levels of increasingly specific themes or questions can be found in Appendix C. Narrative is a key thread throughout this thesis. It takes shape in this thesis with the theory of rhetoric and narrative from Iris Marion Young (1995), and how narrative is crucial to participatory engagement processes. In order to continue to highlight its importance, narrative has been used through the telling of my story in the introduction and throughout the writing of this thesis. This has been continued by incorporating narrative into the methodology through the use of narrative interviews. This interviewing technique, taken from Forester (2006) has a number of ties with the three theoretical realms of participatory engagement processes, trust and power that are explored in this thesis. As with any interviews, these interviews were recorded with the participants’ permission using a Sanyo ICR‐A 125M digital voice recorder and later transcribed verbatim so that no information was lost (Fielding and Thomas, 2001). Notes were taken during the interview and used during the transcription process to help capture the emotional tone of what the participants were saying (Forester, 2006).

2.3 Data Analysis Approach The analysis of the interview data started as early as during each interview. Because the interviews were semi‐structured, it left opportunities for the interviewer to ask further

~ 22 ~ questions or clarifications on themes or key points that the respondents mentioned in their responses. To this end, there was a short list of key themes that had emerged from the literature (including communication, inclusion, building of relationships, and length of time people were together) that were used to draw out more detailed information from the respondents. Some respondents brought other themes to light that may not have been in the literature surveyed or may have come from different disciplines. These additional themes were added to the list from what the respondents had said. These themes were then put to future interviewees and elaborated on in their interviews. Examples of this include themes such as commitment, and how or why they felt that various modalities of power were exercised during the process. When a respondent said something that appeared even remotely related to a theme or topic, this was a trigger that was used to probe for further details in an attempt to either clarify their meaning or decide that it may be the beginnings of a new theme not yet used in the context of participatory engagement and trust. For example, Committee Member 11 mentioned several times that they felt “corralled.” While this does not match any specific modality of power, it could be, depending on context, related to manipulation, domination, or persuasion, all vastly different modalities of power. The respondent was then asked to describe in greater detail what exactly made them feel “corralled”, how it happened, etc. so that a more detailed and accurate picture could be seen. In this case corralled could be considered either domination or coercion. This will be explained in greater detail later in this thesis. Contributing to the analysis of the interviews were the written notes taken during the recorded interview. These included notes on respondent body language, gestures, and key points that could be followed up later in the interview, from the literature or in further interviews with other interviewees. Each interview was transcribed from the digital recording by the interviewer using Dragon Naturally Speaking 9.5 Preferred voice recognition software from Nuance. The general procedure for this followed the methods set out by Ayres and Stafford (2008) in their analysis of the use of voice recognition software for interview transcription activities. The Dragon Naturally Speaking 9.5 Preferred software was trained to my voice and had its dictionary updated with the majority of the vocabulary that has been used in this thesis and

~ 23 ~ related work. As the software was trained and accustomed to my voice, I listened to the interview recording and repeated verbatim what was said for the voice recognition software. Once each interview was transcribed, the audio recording was listened to a second time so that minor corrections could be made to the transcript, notes about the respondents tone or emphasis were inserted, along with interviewer notes and observations from during the interview. This simple quality improvement process ensured a high level of accuracy in what was said by the interviewees. This process also would have picked up many of the elements of Young’s (1995) communicative democracy, where tone, emphasis, body language and other ways of communicating are all important to the overall communication process. In this way, a much more complete picture of the respondent’s story and experiences was constructed. The transcripts were then manually searched for the literature‐based themes that were in three broad categories of power, trust, and community engagement. Interviewee responses could, and some were, sorted into multiple categories. Transcript excerpts in each of these broader categories were then sorted into more narrowly defined themes based on the theoretical components of each of the categories. For example, transcript excerpts in the trust category were divided into the themes that make up the components of trust – predictability, positive expectations, knowledge, etc. In some of the categories, there were a number of these themes that were not in the reviewed literature, but identified by one or more of the participants as being a key contributor, in their experience, to trust and the community engagement process. These were put to the end of each category pile and treated last so that a larger picture could be built up with the known themes before trying to introduce and integrate these new themes into the analysis. This manual method of searching of interview data for themes was more appropriate than resorting to the use of software packages Nudist or NVivo for two reasons. First, with such a small sample size and the quantity of data involved, the benefits of using a software package was outweighed by the time needed to learn how to use the software and input the data into the software for analysis. Secondly, this manual method ensured that the researcher remained ‘close’ to the data and the context in which the data was gleaned. By being so ‘close’ to the data, it would be more difficult to miss important details that may have been contextual or from the non‐verbal notes.

~ 24 ~ This richly detailed, narrative data is crucial for the study and understanding of trust and is difficult to do with standard methods and instruments that are often used in trust research (Möllering, 2006). What this thesis cannot do is to determine how trust is formed. The formation of trust is subject to the interpretation of specific information, attributes and irreducible faith of the actors or stakeholders involved – their own, deeply personal interpretations (Möllering, 2001; 2006). Consequently, the chapter on Analysis and Discussion will be highly reliant on the interpretations of the interviewees, but will also be accompanied by analytical interpretations of the theory presented in Chapters Three through Five. This thesis aims to provide as much opportunity as possible to let the stories that were collected from the members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee and Project Team speak directly to the reader, accompanied by analysis or highlighting of the insight and analyses that the interviewees themselves provide. This follows the approach that Michel Foucault has used in his work and is also used by Flyvbjerg (1996; 1998a).

2.4 The Case-Study – Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy 20062056 The Gold Coast is a local government area in South East Queensland, Australia, situated south of the capital, Brisbane. The Gold Coast is promoted for its relaxed lifestyle, surf beaches and sunny atmosphere (Gold Coast City Council, 2009a). The Gold Coast City Council is a local government authority in the State of Queensland under the Queensland Local Government Act, 1993. Within the Gold Coast City Council framework, Gold Coast Water is a key business unit of council, providing potable water, recycled water and sewerage services to the citizens of the Gold Coast (Gold Coast City Council, 2009b). The Gold Coast City Council has a fairly extensive history of engaging with citizens in a wide variety of planning and policy areas. There have been many and varied consultation and engagement processes that span the entire length of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder from simply informing the public to consulting the public about plans and policies that are soon to be

~ 25 ~ decided (Gold Coast City Council, 2009c). There have been other engagement opportunities that have presented, at least on the surface, and opportunity for what Arnstein (1969) calls partnership, allowing the public to have a large hand in actually developing the plan or policy, but not quite giving them decision‐making or implementation powers. A recent example of this is the Gold Coast City Council initiatives in Community Consultation and Capacity Building (Cuthill, 2004: 430). In the area of water planning on the Gold Coast, the best examples of this are the Waterfuture ‘series’ of consultations, starting with the Pimpama‐Coomera Waterfuture Strategy, moving on to the entire Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy and most recently the Recycled Water Waterfuture Strategy (Gold Coast City Council, 2009d). The Gold Coast Waterfuture strategy began with the idea to get community input into how the Gold Coast should plan their water supply for the upcoming 50 years and ended with the Community Advisory Committee putting forth a recommendation to Gold Coast City Council on an overall water strategy. This was the logical beginning and end of the cycle, which is an appropriate ‘place’ to leave the reader, according to Yin, (2004). With the Gold Coast City Council’s history of creating smaller, localised Community Advisory Committees, the Waterfuture Strategy was an ideal place to start. This was a Community Advisory Committee for a city‐wide strategy, building on a localised project, the Pimpama‐Coomera Waterfuture Strategy. It provided the major framework for further Community Advisory Committees, including the most recent Recycled Water Strategy, where Community Advisory Committees were asked to provide specific strategies for the implementation of the recycled water component of the greater Waterfuture Strategy. This case study, being the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy while part of a larger picture, has a definite beginning and end with outcomes that can be investigated in their own right. The Gold Coast Waterfuture process began in 2004 with the establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. Over approximately 20 months, the Community Advisory Committee considered a variety of different strategies for the provision of water on the Gold Coast and chose a preferred strategy (Gold Coast Water, 2009b). During this process, community feedback was solicited and incorporated into the final strategy proposal that was adopted by Gold Coast City Council in 2005 (Gold Coast Water, 2009b). Implementation began in 2006 with some revisions due to worsening drought and legislative changes made at the State

~ 26 ~ Government level, with the current revised plan being presented in 2009 (Gold Coast Water, 2009b). The specific Terms of Reference for the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee were set by the Gold Coast City Council at an early 2004 Council meeting. Broadly, the Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Committee involved the following objective “The Advisory Committee will oversee the development of a final report detailing a sustainable Water Supply Strategy for the City, accounting for current and future growth requirements. In establishing this Water Supply Strategy, the Committee shall address the following issues” (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.: 1). The issues that the Terms of Reference required the Committee to investigate included diverse bulk supply options for the City, further demand management options, consider levels of service and environmental flows when determining inputs to water supply storage calculations, develop an implementation plan for the Strategy, ensure that the Strategy was developed in the context of the National Water Initiative and consider the outcomes of the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy2 (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.). These items were the issues that were to be the scope of the Committee’s discussions and debates. They were to exclude any development of pricing reform and the cost of any infrastructure charges. These two items could be discussed in the context of helping come up with an overall strategy, but there would be future Advisory Committees to look at these issues in detail (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.). The stakeholders for this Community Advisory Committee were identified through a stakeholder analysis performed by the Gold Coast Water project team. These potential stakeholder groups were then put to council for their approval before formal invitations were sent out (Pers. Comm. Project Team Member, July 4, 2008). The stakeholders initially

2 The South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy (SEQRWSS) is an initiative of the Queensland State Government and the South East Queensland Council of Mayors that started in 2003. This was a systematic review of water supply in South East Queensland aimed generally at ensuring a safe and reliable water supply in South East Queensland and developing strategies for achieving optimum outcomes in social, environmental and economic terms. The outcomes from Stage One of the SEQRWSS in 2004 were that each local council was to identify short to medium term urban water needs, taking into account existing supply capacity, levels of service and any gaps in the capacity to deliver those levels of service (p. 9). Additionally, local councils were to address critical short-term urban and related planning requirements, develop a communication and education plan and assess rural water needs and locations (p. 10) (State of Queensland and Brisbane City Council, 2004).

~ 27 ~ invited to participate can be broken down into four categories: Community groups; Industry groups; State government representatives; and Local government representatives. The community groups that were initially invited to participate in the Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee were: 

Paradise Point Progress Association, a resident’s group from the northern section of the Gold Coast;



Palm Beach Neighbourhood Watch, a neighbourhood group from the southern portion of the Gold Coast. This group ceased to exist shortly after the Waterfuture Strategy process started, but the representative continued to provide updates and receive feedback from neighbours and the Kirra‐Tugun progress club;



Mudgeeraba Rotary Club, a residents service organisation from the central portion of the Gold Coast (Rotary International, 2009);



GECKO, the Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council, a local consortium of environmental groups active on the Gold Coast;



The Gold Coast Catchment Association, a network of all catchment groups on the Gold Coast, “protecting and enhancing the environment of the Gold Coast” (Gold Coast City Council, 2009e);



Communities for Sustainable Futures, a residents association formed to present a voice of reason for sustainable development, to combat the extreme green minority on the Gold Coast (Source Watch, 2006);



Gold Coast Junior Council (two members) to represent the views of Gold Coast youth.

Industry representatives that were initially invited to be part of the Community Advisory Committee were: 

Urban Development Industry Association, an umbrella organisation that represents the development industry on the Gold Coast;



Gold Coast tourism representative. Tourism is a major industry on the Gold Coast, with more than 4.1 million visitors each year, with a total economic input of over 4 billion dollars annually (Tourism Queensland, 2009).

~ 28 ~ Additional members in this category that were invited after the first meeting included a representative from the Chamber of Commerce, and a representative of the Nursery and Garden Industry, as they are major users of water (although not always city water). A number of state government agencies were asked to send representatives to sit on the Community Advisory Committee in order to provide advice and expertise on the State Government’s water management requirements, as well as share their extensive expertise or experiences with the committee. Representatives from the following State Government agencies were included: 

Queensland Health;



Natural Resources and Water (two representatives, one from water planning and the other from water sciences);



Environmental Protection Agency;



Department of Local Government.

Local government also had representatives on the Committee. Gold Coast Water, while they were also behind setting up the process and had numerous staff on the Project Team, they also had two members on the Committee, as the business unit of Gold Coast City Council that would be charged with implementing any strategy. Gold Coast City Council was also represented on the Advisory Committee by four councillors and the Mayor. They could represent both the views of council as a whole, but could also bring in the views and feedback from their constituents. At the first meeting in April 2004 the original 17 members were introduced to the process and the expectations that the Gold Coast City Council had of their participation. Each member was given a brief of information for participants with such things as the meeting schedule, the general administration of the meetings and the roles and responsibilities for the Project Team, Advisory Committee members and the Committee chairperson (Gold Coast City Council, 2004a). The issues that were proposed for discussion by the project team were presented3, and the members of the Community Advisory Committee were invited to

3

The broad topics from the Terms of Reference (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.) included a review of yield calculations for current and future water supply; review levels of service; review and assess future bulk water supply options; review and assess opportunities for further demand management and source substitution; and develop a broad implementation plan. Specific topics presented by the Project Team

~ 29 ~ suggest other members for the committee along with other issues they could think of to discuss. Two additional members of the community were invited to participate, representing small business and the nursery industry. One of the most crucial aspects of the committee composition was the appointment of an independent chairperson. This individual was appointed by council to ensure that the process was undertaken in a fair and unbiased manner, ensure that all members were able to contribute and present their position and be the public face of the committee. The independent chair also ‘stood up’, as Committee Member 12 put it, for the committee against political interference and attempts to push the committee in a particular direction. To provide further context about what happened during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, further background on what was discussed, where some points of contention arose and what the final outcome of the process that Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water undertook in running this strategy will be provided. During the process, the participants were presented with a large amount of technical information behind urban water planning, how to create a strategy, and evaluation techniques. The discussions during the monthly meetings had pre‐determined elements that had been put in place by the Project Team. The members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee were, however, invited to present their own topics and ideas for discussion during the process. The discussions started off in a progression from the basics of what was needed in terms of water supply, based on the Gold Coast Planning Scheme and projected population growth figures (Gold Coast City Council, 2004b). The discussions then moved into the basics of the current ‘water situation’ – what the levels of service that the population expected from Gold Coast Water, current dam yields from the Hinze Dam and how these were calculated. This also included discussions about the environmental and social impacts of dams, how dams function for storage and flood mitigation, the function of their catchment areas and environmental flows (Gold Coast City Council, 2004c). Within this discussion about dams in general, the issue of raising the Hinze Dam wall was also brought up by one member who was determined that this would go ahead. This became a source of friction on the committee throughout a number of meetings, particularly when Gold Coast City Council decided to go ahead with the raising of

included rainwater tanks, dam construction, storage and yields, environmental flows, leakage and pressure management, water restrictions, greywater, recycled water, desalination, groundwater, the regional pipeline and financial modelling.

~ 30 ~ the Hinze Dam before the Community Advisory Committee had fully investigated this option. This will be investigated in more detail in Chapter Six – Analysis and Discussion. Further options for water supply and management that were discussed by the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee included alternative sources of water such as desalination, groundwater and stormwater harvesting and rainwater tank optimisation. Discussions around desalination included the possible types, locations, timelines and the serious environmental concerns – greenhouse gas emissions from the energy required and brine disposal (Gold Coast City Council, 2004e). The other three options were relatively ‘unknown’, and were considered but the details were left to several ‘commissions’ of Gold Coast Water to fully investigate. Two other options for water supply were discussed under the banner of source substitution – recycled water and rainwater. Recycled water and indirect potable reuse were two other issues that caused some friction on the committee. This was a ‘touchy’ issue, as talk around recycled water and indirect potable reuse was equated to drinking ‘poo water’. All of these different water supply possibilities were discussed taking into consideration water quality, the basic costs, environmental impacts and social issues. The wider community was also invited to put forward their propositions, and one community member made a presentation to the committee for their consideration of damming the Broadwater (a brackish series of canals) to use as a freshwater storage area. Water supply was not the only side of the equation that was considered. One meeting was devoted entirely to demand management/water conservation. A further meeting discussed the idea of water restrictions. These discussions were not as technical, as it was something that everyone could relate to during this period of drought (Gold Coast City Council, 2004e; 2004f). While not a source of water or water conservation, the idea of a regional water pipeline was also discussed so that water could be shared amongst different council areas should the need arise. Information about the ‘national perspective’ on water planning was also presented by the Water Services Association of Australia, the peak national body for large water service providers. Outside of the technical information about water, the Community Advisory Committee also learned about and discussed ways to bring all of this information together into coherent

~ 31 ~ possible strategies. Once this was accomplished, the Project Team took the five strategies proposed by the Community Advisory Committee and went through an exhaustive series of environmental, economic and social indicators and risks to provide the best possible overview of each strategy. Committee members were given and discussed a methodology (Multi‐criteria assessment) to evaluate each of the possible strategies they had created (Gold Coast City Council, 2005a). The five strategies determined by the Community Advisory Committee and presented for detailed evaluation all included differing proportions of water coming from the following sources (including conservation): Hinze Dam stage 2 (the current dam wall level), Hinze Dam stage 3 (raising the dam wall), supply from Logan City (the local government area directly to the north of the Gold Coast), recycled water, regional pipeline supplies, desalination, rainwater tanks, water conservation and pressure control. One of the strategies was acceptable to the most number of Community Advisory Committee members, was modified slightly by the committee so that all members were in agreement that it might work best. The Project Team then took this revised strategy away to do the detailed financial, environmental, social and risk assessment before bringing it back to the committee. The final strategy that was agreed upon by the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee and recommended to council in October 2005 for ratification included raising the Hinze Dam wall for flood mitigation and increased yield, maintaining the existing supply from Logan City for the long term, desalination of 41 to 55 ML per day at some future date, leakage and pressure management, encouraging residential and non‐residential rainwater tanks, recycled water, water conservation and the regional water pipeline . The committee also recommended that the council should actively investigate emerging water supply initiatives including grey water reuse, groundwater, indirect potable reuse and stormwater harvesting. The strategy that was recommended to Council by the Community Advisory Committee was then adopted unanimously by Gold Coast City Council. There were two areas of conflict during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process – the raising of the Hinze Dam and recycled water and indirect potable reuse. These two conflicts are directly linked to participatory engagement processes and power. There was also another source of conflict, this one directly between the Gold Coast City Council and the Community Advisory Committee. The committee members were generally not happy that

~ 32 ~ the Mayor and councillors seemed to be deciding water related issues that were within the purview of the committee before the committee was able to investigate them fully. This will be discussed further in Chapter Six, Analysis and Discussion. The Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy has strong elements of the three main threads of this thesis – participatory engagement, trust and power. The next three chapters will demonstrate how the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy featured many of the theoretical components of these threads through the extensive use of examples. These clear examples of participatory engagement processes, trust and power in action, while bordering on analysis, should provide links from the documents produced by the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy to the theoretical ideas that are presented. These examples will then be expanded to provide other views with the stories of the people intimately involved in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process – the Community Advisory Committee members and Project Team themselves.

~ 33 ~

Chapter Three: Participatory Engagement Processes “Every view of the world that fades away, every culture that disappears, diminishes a possibility of life and reduces the human repertoire of adaptive responses to the problems that face us all” – Wade Davis, 2001

3.0 Introduction Participatory engagement processes are an emerging force in the overall political debate between representational and participatory democracy. Over the past decade, this participatory turn has been popularised as an issue of good governance, in this case in environmental sustainability (Edwards et al., 2008). It is seen as both modernising government and addressing a democratic deficit that can be found in representational democracy (Curtain, 2003; Nicholson, 2005). Some of the drivers associated with this participatory turn include increasing openness, accountability, evidence‐based policy making, the increased complexity of modern environmental issues and a focus on the citizen (Curtain, 2003; Nicholson, 2005). This participatory turn is not only about democracy, it can also be seen as an opportunity for the creation of active trust, a strong or ‘thick’ type of trust between actors, stakeholders and institutions that is born out of constantly or actively creating relationships. Because participatory engagement involves human‐human and human‐institutional relationships, we must also consider the role of power in these participatory engagement processes. After a brief background on what participatory engagement processes and practices are, this chapter explores the first of several debates around participatory engagement processes, and how this applies to planning and policy making. Habermas and his Communicative Action Theory will be introduced where he basically argues for an ideal situation where participants in participatory engagement processes are equals. In essence, that there are no power hierarchies between participants (Cohen, 1989). Moving beyond this ideal situation, Young’s (1995) idea of Communicative Democracy is introduced where she highlights that privileging one communication form over another or different speech modes over others creates power actor‐actor and actor‐institutional hierarchies. This is the substance of the

~ 34 ~ argument to be made: namely that power plays a role in the more non‐tangible outcomes of participatory planning, policy and strategy development. The issues that inform the second and third debates (Communicative Action and Communicative Democracy and between Communicative Action theorists and critical realists) in participatory engagement processes will be addressed. Throughout this chapter, the debate that continues to swirl around the participatory and communicative turn in planning and policy‐making will be discussed. Allen (1996: 329) defines participation as the “everyday activity of knowledge exchange between states and citizens.” One popularised form of participatory engagement is deliberative democracy, which Young (1995: 135) describes as “a process where publics are created, citizens come together to talk about collective problems, ideals, goals and actions.” Other planning theorists, such as Huxley and Yiftachel (2000) call all manner of participatory engagement in planning communicative planning, where members of the community are also invited to participate in the actual planning process. This context of communicative planning is distinct from Young’s (1995) interpretation. Like many things in the world, there can be multiple ways of seeing issues, and this applies to participatory engagement processes. This can be seen through the three debates in this chapter and the paradoxes seen between components of participatory engagement and trust (e.g. reflexivity). The first debate involves a crucial question ‐ are these processes actually participatory engagement processes? A number of examples introduced previously, including the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy case study will be critically analysed as to how they measure up using Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of public participation. The second major debate addressed is one between two understandings of participatory engagement processes, Communicative Action Theory and Communicative Democracy. Here the role power plays in these two interpretations will be analysed. This also raises the question of whether there is a different way or understanding that may work better, after taking into account power and trust. While there has been considerable debate on the extent to which power plays a role in public engagement processes. There has been no consensus specifically on what role that power plays and the extent to which it influences certain outcomes from participatory engagement processes, namely trust. This exploration of how power plays a role has focused on two broad aspects of these processes – namely what Edwards et al. (2008) call

~ 35 ~ “inputs and processes”. This discussion of power leads to how power affects some outcomes, in particular how it affects the ‘tangible’ outcomes, such as the policy or plan itself. The third debate to be addressed comes out of the previous one; this is a debate between Communicative Action (CA) theorists and critical realists over appropriate methods and tools to critically analyse planning and the participatory turn. This debate is where this thesis situates itself – attempting to colour in a section of the void between these two sides. This chapter will give a sense of the workings behind the actions and processes of participatory engagement. By explaining and demonstrating these inner workings, this chapter attempts to provide an understanding of why certain activities are undertaken in participatory engagement processes and how these actions and processes manifest themselves in practice. This look at the inner workings of participatory engagement processes and practices is not only important for understanding participatory engagement processes overall, but also ultimately the outcomes from these participatory engagement processes (in particular, trust or distrust). This applies equally for the debates intimately connected with trust and power and are addressed in chapters four and five.

3.1 What are Participatory Engagement Processes? Participatory engagement processes (PEP) can have many names including community engagement, citizen participation, public participation and collaborative participation to name a few. Participatory engagement processes, as they will be called here, are processes that are run where the “aspirations, concerns, needs and values of citizens and communities are incorporated at all levels and in all sectors in policy development, planning, decision‐ making, service delivery and assessment” (United Nations, 2005: 1). This definition is rather vague and lacks not only specifics of who is to be engaged, but also the notions of context that are so crucial, as argued throughout this thesis. Other authors provide more refined descriptions, describing participatory engagement as “inclusion of all stakeholders … seek to address the interests of all, allowing time for these to be explored. Participants – public agencies, powerful private interests, and disadvantaged citizens – are all treated equally within the discussions.” (Innes and Booher, 2004: 426).

~ 36 ~ Another general and all‐encompassing definition of participatory engagement comes from Rowe and Frewer (2004: 512) “Public participation may be defined as the practice of consulting and involving members of the public in the agenda‐setting, decision‐making and policy forming activities of organisations or institutions responsible for policy development.” This notion of participation in planning and policy is in contrast to the political legacy of colonialism where the state apparatus is only weakly linked to civil society, and has used a system of domination, which is how actors have been historically conditioned to operate within (Gledhill, 1994). According to Gledhill (1994), this legacy of colonialism has shaped state apparatus in an authoritarian style, but this authoritarian or dominating style can be changed through changing social or political circumstances. These statements by Gledhill perhaps shed some light on why and how participatory engagement processes fail. It suggests that the legacy of colonialism may not be dead, but ingrained in elites in government or other organisations that they need to control plans and policies. Participatory engagement processes are generally seen as a counterbalance to the typical chains of government which are hierarchical and driven by authority, whereas public involvement in participatory engagement processes and horizontal governance seeks to diminish the influence of these chains of authority (Kettl, 2000). Through early public involvement, public officials, civil society and citizen participants are able to speak to each other in a horizontal manner, eliminating the hierarchy and the “us against them” manner (McCoy and Scully, 2002: 127). Participatory engagement processes as a counterpoint to typical chains of government are evident in the participatory turn that planning and policy has started to take, particularly through increasing resistance to expert technical systems in politics (Bäckstrand, 2002). This has partially come out of the perceived deficiencies of representative democracy. With representative democracy there is no requirement for citizen participation between elections, nor is there any guarantee that elected representatives will represent, consult or engage with the wider community (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999). In Australia, this participatory turn was first seen in 1973 with the introduction of the Australian Assistance Plan by the Whitlam government but disbanded without effectively being implemented in 1977 by the Fraser government (Reddel, 2005). There has since been a slow introduction in

~ 37 ~ a number of different resource management scenarios in the 1990s and 2000s by various state and local governments and regional networks.

3.1.1 Key Elements of Participatory Engagement Processes There are a number of key elements or components of participatory processes that are pivotal to the success or failure of engagement processes. These have been broken down into several broad categories – process design, inclusion, knowledge and understanding, discussion and dialogue (or communication), consensus, legitimacy and trust. These components have been distilled from Edwards et al. (2008), where they were assembled from a diverse collection of literature from collaborative planning and policy fields. These components will be discussed in more detail, introducing some questions or thoughts about power and trust that will be tied together in subsequent chapters. There are a number of ways in which participatory engagement processes fail to deliver what is expected of them. This is one area that is not well documented, as most literature is uncritical due to a lack of any systematic evaluative framework and thus a lack of critical assessment for participatory and deliberative engagement processes (Nicholson, 2005; Edwards et al., 2008). Some of the areas that are known to be failings include the lack of representativeness in participatory engagement processes, particularly when there are stakeholders who do not wish to participate, potential bias with experts that are invited to provide deeper information and deeply rooted vested interests of participants (Nicholson, 2005). These various shortcomings will be discussed briefly in the following appropriate sections below. Walters et al. (2003) critique of participatory engagement processes as time consuming, expensive, complicated and emotionally draining on participants will not be discussed in this section, but later in Chapter Six (Analysis and Discussion). Throughout this chapter the idea of power is referred to numerous times. This will be elaborated in much greater detail in Chapter Five (Power). In the mean time, the broad definition of power by Lukes (1974) that power involves an actor or stakeholder doing something significant or affecting another actor or stakeholder in a significant way should provide enough information to understand how power is being used in this chapter.

~ 38 ~ 3.1.2 Participatory Engagement Process Design On a practical level, these participatory processes can be quite difficult to organize and run, requiring a large amount of planning, organization and structure, allowing the organizing actor to potentially exercise some control over the eventual outcome (Fischer, 2006; 22‐3). This is an example of power at work in the very earliest stages of the process. Furthermore, these participatory engagement processes, whereby state actors and civil society engage in partnerships to create the policy or plan, empower some non‐traditional actors, but then disempower others (Gonzalez and Healey, 2005). These design features of participatory engagement processes are all related to power. The participatory engagement features will be discussed in the following sections, while the power aspects will be detailed in Chapter Five, Power. One of the first questions around the design of the event, therefore, is whether the sponsoring organization already has a predetermined course of action or outcome planned (Meadowcroft, 2004), and if so, the participatory engagement process may not be anything more than a tokenistic consultation process. With this in mind, it has been recognized as an important aspect of process design to give the participants ownership through their direct participation in the design phase (ASR Research and Red Road Consulting, 2002; Edwards et al., 2008). This could be a crucial point with regards to power structures; when rules of conduct for participatory processes are designed, they often take most account of identities associated with a high socio‐economic status (Ryfe, 2002), neglecting considerations for other marginalized groups. This may be seen through allowing only the privileged the opportunity to decide the agenda of the process. During the first meeting of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee in April 2004, participants were given the opportunity to recommend or suggest further participants to be invited to participate. They were also asked to provide other topics around water for inclusion in the process and for discussion (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). Throughout the process’ 18 months, Community Advisory Committee members were able to ask the project team to investigate any new or further ideas or options they put forward and present their investigative findings to the committee. Community members who submitted proposals also had some of these ideas investigated and discussed by the Community Advisory Committee. While not complete control or ownership over the

~ 39 ~ agenda, these measures allowed the Community Advisory Committee members some ownership of the agenda and process. A second aspect within the design of the participatory engagement process is the location of groups or actors within a particular space. This is a reflection of the current power structures and determines which groups or actors are seen and heard, and those which are not (Allen, 2003). While there does not appear to be any documented evidence of marginalized groups that were denied access to the Gold Coast Waterfuture process, there are other examples. For example, Kliger and Cosgrove (1999) highlight the difficulty that aboriginal people had in being involved in the planning process in Broome. The ‘silence’ on marginalized groups in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy is interesting, especially when there was obviously no aboriginal or ethnic representation on the Community Advisory Committee. What is of interest here is that save one or two members of the Community Advisory Committee all thought that it was very broad, diverse and representative of the Gold Coast community. While in this case it is indigenous groups, the same issue stands for other potentially marginalised groups as well. This situation, where stakeholders, groups or actors may find themselves excluded leads many groups to use tactics that are outside of mainstream politics (i.e. consensus or discursive approaches) to get their issues on the agenda or considered, including activism, protest and power politics “power struggles and conflicts characteristic of activism and social change” (Flyvbjerg, 1998b: 226). This completes a full circle back to where participatory processes can help communities and actors improve their relationships with government agencies and authorities (Checker, 2007); these actors and stakeholders consciously choose not to participate in participatory events as they see it as a threat to the power that they have (Hendriks, 2006). They may also choose not participate due to potential increased uncertainty around the outcomes or due to a lack of resources (Hendriks, 2006). A third aspect of the process design that highlights power is how the event or process is facilitated. Facilitators, no matter how objectively they are or appear to be positioned, are still a part of a larger power structure (Gledhill, 1994). In our 2007 evaluation of a participatory event, Edwards et al. (2008) found that the way in which some facilitators facilitated the groups affected the process and outcomes of the deliberative event. In the Gold Coast Waterfuture process, the facilitation was provided by both the independent

~ 40 ~ committee chairman, and ancillary work to provide necessary technical information was undertaken by outside contractors (Gold Coast City Council, 2004a). As will be discussed later in Chapter Five, on power and in Chapter Six, the analysis and discussion, these aspects of power that are embodied in the design of the process affect participant’s trust. This not only affect interpersonal trust, but also institutional trust and trust in organizations.

3.1.3 Inclusion – The Breadth and Opportunity for Participation Inclusion in the case of participatory engagement processes can have at least two meanings. Firstly, inclusion can mean the breadth or diversity of participants and secondly, the opportunities that are presented to have their voices heard within the process. Questions that should be answered include who has been included or invited to participate in the process? Are all participants included in the dialogue or other communication modes? What, if any are the barriers to both aspects of participation? These questions will be explored in this section and in the following sections. In looking at the first question posed, it can be broken down into two sub‐components – were particular groups even invited to participate and were there groups who may have been invited to participate but did not? There are some processes that are open to all. For example, for the Ethos Foundation Courageous Conversation everyone that wished to attend could (Edwards et al., 2008). There were even bursaries for travel and accommodation available for people that required it to ensure that all interested parties could attend and have their voices heard. Young (2000) recognizes the impossibility that all citizens in a community are present to participate in the decision‐making process, and that representation in some form is necessary. Young (2000) continues by saying that this representation is acceptable only if the representative is the same as their constituent group; i.e. that the representative does not or cannot introduce their own bias, values, feelings or position into the decision‐making process. Tebble, (2003) is quite correct in pointing out that on a practical level this is an impossibility There are some mitigation measures that can and were employed by the Gold Coast in the Waterfuture Strategy process to attempt to off‐set this dilemma of representation. The representatives on the Community Advisory Committee were to report back to their groups on what had been discussed during the meetings, and bring their

~ 41 ~ group’s feedback, views and positions back to the Community Advisory Committee meetings for discussion. In addition to this, the project team from Gold Coast Water went out to the groups to present in more detail what was being discussed in the committee, answer more technical questions and solicit feedback from the group members directly. While this is still not the ideal, it did attempt to mitigate the problem of individual representation. Government initiated processes often are open to actors and stakeholders through invitation. The Gold Coast Waterfuture Project Team undertook a detailed stakeholder analysis4 and presented these findings to Gold Coast City Council (Pers. Comm. Project Team Member, July 4, 2008). The Gold Coast City Council then invited representation from those stakeholders. The Project Team realised that this ‘list’ may not have been complete, and so at the first meeting of the Community Advisory Committee, the members present were asked to suggest additional stakeholders to be invited (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). The Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee involved stakeholder representatives from a variety of community organizations. When looked at, the representational base of these groups may not have been the most inclusive – there were potentially large sections of the population left out, including indigenous and middle aged people. A second, deeper investigation of participatory engagement processes and inclusion suggests that there is the possibility that some groups will not want to participate, as they fear the possibility of being co‐opted, often by larger, more powerful groups (Hendriks, 2006). This difference or even perceived difference in power and influence between groups and individuals can lead to the exclusion of some groups, particularly smaller and marginalized groups (Lawrence, 2004). One counter argument to this is suggested by Fung (2004) who argues that ‘redundant’ representation can help marginalized groups. This

4

According to the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Project Team, the stakeholder analysis involved identifying key stakeholders such as developers – individuals and industry body representatives, residents groups. Youth from the Gold Coast Junior Council were specifically included as youth would bear most of the consequences of the decisions made today. State Government agency representatives were also targeted to ensure that they could provide input into what State Government policy or direction was or would be. Once groups were initially indentified, there would be an analysis to ensure that the representation was not skewed towards one type of group or entity. These identified groups were then presented to the director of Gold Coast Water who either approved the list or suggested additional groups to include. Once the list was ‘complete’, it was then presented to Gold Coast City Council for final approval. Once the groups identified were approved, they were invited to select a representative to sit on the actual committee. There was always room for additions or deletions from the committee, but in this case there were no deletions, only additions.

~ 42 ~ would mean having multiple similar groups represented in the process in order to help them speak up against the status quo, and having an ally to help in holding out (Fung, 2004). In the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process, there was some redundancy seen – there were multiple residents associations, although they were representing residents from distinctly different areas of the Gold Coast, with different issues, there were two environmentally minded groups – the Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council and the Gold Coast Catchment Association. The multiple councillors could be considered redundant representation in several ways – multiple people representing council, but each of these councillors have their own personal ‘bias’, be it the environment or development to name a couple. There was, however, no representation from aboriginals, and people involved in the process were at a loss to say why this group had been omitted. There are several questions raised by Lawrence (2004) around groups and participatory engagement processes. These questions include what is the representational base of these groups? Who do they really represent? Who does the representative really represent – him/herself or the greater group? How do these groups function – do they subscribe to democratic principles, accountability and transparency in their operations? While these questions may be important to participatory engagement processes, trust and power, they are not crucial overall to this thesis. To explain this, we need to start with ‘access’ to members of each of the groups represented by the members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee. Each interviewee was asked at the conclusion of each interview undertaken they were asked if they were willing to provide the contact details of someone from within their group who would be willing to be interviewed. All declined to do so. Upon further reflection, these questions would have been crucial when looking at trust or distrust in the slightly wider community. (The slightly wider community encompasses members of the groups that were represented at the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy). However, since this work focuses on the actors and stakeholders directly involved in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee due to data source limitations, they are now outside the scope of this thesis.

~ 43 ~ While there are some advantages to group based participatory processes, there may not be ‘room’ for citizen based participation as well, leading to what Meadowcroft (2004) calls the unorganised public to become a marginalised group. In the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process though these “unorganized publics” were invited to any and all of the meetings, where they were certainly given at least a brief amount of time to present their ideas. In addition to this, they also had the opportunity to write letters and submit ideas, propositions and other submissions to the committee. All submissions and presentations were responded to by the committee through either the independent chair or Gold Coast Water. This did provide somewhat of a role for these “unorganized publics” in this process. Perhaps a more pertinent question raised about participatory engagement processes and how inclusive they really are is who decides who will participate in these engagement processes? Tebble (2003:208), poses the questions “who, after all, is to decide how the committees are to be compose? … of who is to decide upon the perspectival content that is to be communicated on its behalf?” In order to respond to this, we can turn to Sharp (2002) where the breadth and diversity of participants in such a process works towards ensuring that one group does not dominate the process and to ASR Research and Red Road Consulting (2002) where participant’s direct involvement in agenda setting is a key component of the deliberative and participatory process. Although still prone to excluding some people and some agenda items, awareness of these challenges of inclusion can often enhance many participatory engagement processes, even where they are more representational than participatory processes. Edwards et al. (2008) found that the composition of the committee and the building of the agenda can be taken care of to an extent that is acceptable to the majority with a well thought out process design, such as the one they investigated by the Ethos Foundation. The design process of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process appears to meet this standard as a well thought out process. Participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process were invited to submit their ideas on what should be included in the process of meetings at the first meeting of the Community Advisory Committee (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). They were also asked to suggest additional actors or stakeholders that may have been overlooked for inclusion on the Community Advisory Committee (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). While not all of the potential participants were members of the committee, this could be due to any of the reasons previously discussed in the section on inclusion.

~ 44 ~ The idea of inclusion or exclusion is not complete without a short introduction to how the ideas of power and trust are involved. Starting with power, Gledhill (1994) has stated that many of the institutions of today are rooted in colonial thought, where elites ‘hold’ on to power and subject those that they can control to that power. Flyvbjerg (1998a) goes further to state broadly that the entire social context and history condition today’s institutions and their effectiveness. This can be seen in the discussion around inclusion in participatory processes. These politics have created entire communities of exclusion where only the powerful are included. Indeed, most participants in participatory processes come from higher socio‐economic groups (Young, 1992; Ryfe, 2002). Not only does self‐selection ‘cause’ this bias, but those that are often in power and responsible for selecting participants generally select those from higher socio‐economic class. Often fewer resources are needed by higher socio‐economic groups than lower socio‐economic groups (Ryfe, 2002). These middle and upper class participants, who are often higher educated, feel that they have a right to speak, and when they speak, they and their speech carries more authority or privilege than others (Young, 1995). The inclusion and representation of marginalized groups, however, maximizes the sharing of social knowledge, providing a look at the variety of possible social consequences of implementing any particular policy or plan (Young, 1992). Links to trust are also present, with Winter and Cvetkovich (2000) postulating that individuals or organizations that distrust decision‐making authorities to an extreme extent may not even participate in community engagement processes. This would suggest that some trust, or at a minimum, skepticism, is required in order for the process to go ahead and include the widest number of participants. Distrust is fuelled by both physical exclusion from the process and through a lack of different communication modes (Dunn et al., 2008), and this will later be shown to have occurred in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. A number of key issues then surround inclusion and exclusion in participatory engagement processes, particularly about who has been included and the range of barriers present. In the section overleaf on communication, discussion and dialogue, an attempt at answering the questions raised about whether participants are included in communication and what the barriers to this may be. First, though, a brief discussion on knowledge and understanding is necessary, as there may be impacts on participants’ communication.

~ 45 ~ 3.1.4 Knowledge and Understanding Bringing a variety of different types of knowledge to the participatory engagement process is a crucial component in the understandings of participatory engagement processes by Habermas and Young. The traditional authoritative expert system is not always seen as being sufficient in today’s complex, ever changing society. What is needed is local, lay and traditional knowledge, as knowledge is contextual, the product of social relationships and values (Carolan, 2006). Because knowledge is essentially socially constructed, it has no universal reality from which it can be measured or changed (a Foucauldian perspective); it is now essentially a political process (Allen, 1996). This suggests that traditional, lay and local knowledge is just as ‘valid’ as that of experts. Critics would argue that expert, scientific knowledge is tested and reviewed by others, and ‘proven’ to be correct. Olsson et al. (2004: 76) suggest that “traditional knowledge is an attribute of societies with historical continuity in resource use and practice and is defined as a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission.” This statement suggests that through generations, traditional, lay and local knowledge has also been tested, reviewed and adapted over and over, similar to expert knowledge. When there is a mis‐match between the authoritative, scientific, expert discourse and the public’s perceptions and experiences (traditional, local and lay knowledge), there may be a decline in the amount of trust, as their positive expectations of being heard, understood and accepted are not being met (Dunn et al., 2008). Understanding is another aspect of participatory engagement processes. These processes, and in particular deliberative events, can help participants view and understand the perspectives and positions of other participants, and may even change their positions (Carolan, 2006). Forester (2008) echos this in reminding planners and policy‐makers that we do need to respect other actors and stakeholders enough to realise that they can learn (from others), find new information, revise their claims and see the world in new and different ways as the interactions between them unfold and evolve. This is the first step in taking on a new identity, one of the key components of active trust involving reflexivity, as will be explained in the next chapter. One part of the understanding ‘process’ involves reflexivity. Reflexivity, according to Foucault (1990: 98) is a “theme of the flesh”, where individuals use different forms of discourse, such as self‐examination, questioning, admissions, interpretation and interviews

~ 46 ~ using existing knowledge, as well as new knowledge from other sources. This reflexivity can be seen in the development of understanding their own and others positions through extensive communication, interaction and interpretation by and with the actors or stakeholders. It is important for all actors and stakeholders to be involved and understand each other during participatory engagement processes. When actors and stakeholders come from such a variety of cultural and social backgrounds, and use their own communication style or mode, it can be difficult for others to understand what they are trying to communicate or get across. Edwards et al. (2008) found that the use of adequately trained, experienced, independent facilitators allowed them to be interpreters. This involved taking in the information or knowledge from particular actors and ‘re‐packaging’ it perhaps in several different ways so that all actors could understand it. This was also evident in the Gold Coast Waterfuture process, where the chair ‘interpreted’ for or assisted other community members in understanding particular points that were brought up. During the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process a brief scan through all of the meeting minutes will demonstrate the vast amount of technical information that was presented to the Community Advisory Committee. The technical information was prepared by the independent contractor and sent out to all of the committee members at least one week prior to the Community Advisory Committee Meeting. In addition to the purely technical information, a community summary was always included, using language that non‐experts and lay persons would (should) be able to understand. If they did not understand this information then the Project Team and independent contractor would be available to answer any questions the committee members had, as well as revising how they created and wrote the community summaries for the next meetings to ensure that all members would be able to understand (Pers. Comm. Project Team Member, July 4, 2008). While the Project Team attempted to present information that all participants could understand, and undertake research and reporting on issues that the committee members brought up, this leads to one aspect of knowledge and understanding that could be cause for debate. This is the issue of whether the community members that are part of participatory processes are actually the repository of all knowledge in the community. Tebble (2003: 202) makes the statement that “Secondly, she [Young] assumes that the forum as a whole is the

~ 47 ~ repository of the knowledge that is present in the wider society for whom it is authorized to make decisions.” While the members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee do not have the whole repository of wider community knowledge, a concerted effort was made to engage other members of the community to gain their insights and knowledge. The meetings were open to the public, who were invited to speak or ask questions through the committee chair. A number of individuals in the community did so, while others submitted letters and emails with their information and views to the committee, which were shared and discussed. Some community members who put forward ideas were even invited to make short presentations to the committee (Gold Coast City Council, 2004d). Additional feedback and knowledge was solicited through open days and surveys under the moniker of ‘market research’ (Gold Coast City Council, 2004e).

3.1.5 Communication, Discussion and Dialogue Evident from above, communication between participants in participatory engagement processes is a crucial factor. Participants, lay and expert alike, may have extraordinary knowledge about a particular topic, but if they are not able to communicate this information, then other participants will not be able to understand or the orator may not be able to persuade for or negotiate a desirable outcome. The use of persuasion and negotiation suggests verbal communication in the form of discussion and dialogue is the most common communication mode in participatory engagement processes (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999), as it is a cornerstone of Habermas’ Communicative Action Theory. There are other modes of communication that are equally important that relate directly to inclusion that are key parts of Young’s (1995) Communicative Democracy. As most authors in the policy and planning realm focus on discussion and dialogue, and the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process billed itself as a deliberative, participatory process (Gold Coast City Council, 2004a), these two modes of communication will be analysed first. Hajer (2003) points out three key dimensions of discussion and dialogue in a deliberative process, a type of participatory process. First, the participants themselves are the ones that negotiate how the process is going to be played out. Second, there is the exchange of pros and cons of any position, idea or viewpoint which should lead to a greater understanding of each of the participants’ positions. Third, a discussion of values is undertaken to hopefully lead to shared understandings. These three communication processes are not only found in

~ 48 ~ deliberative processes, Forester (2008) lists, in a different order, dialogue, debate and negotiation as three key processes needed in participatory planning. Charles Hoch (2007) is yet another author who claims deliberation is the communication process that allows participants to overcome any difficulties in understanding. Communication will be discussed in subsequent sections as a key contributor to the debate between Communicative Action theorists and critical realists. When actually engaging in dialogue and discussion in public participation and community engagement processes, there are a number of ‘factors’ that are in place to ensure the proper running of the event. Some of these factors include: participants should be willing to communicate with and listen to each other with respect; all participants’ points of view should receive some level of attention; arguments and assertions should be supported by appropriate and/or factual information; and that there should be a balance between arguments and counter‐arguments (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005). Flyvbjerg (2000) outlines five ideal requirements for discourse and dialogue: 

No one that is affected by what is being discussed should be excluded from the dialogue;



Everyone should have an equal opportunity to present their claims and critique the claims of others;



All participants must be willing and able to empathise with and understand each others claims;



Any pre‐existing power differences between participants must be neutralized so that there is no effect on any consensus; and



All participants must openly explain their goals and intentions, and refrain from engaging in any strategic action.

But, as Forester (1996) states, no matter how often people are reminded that they must be transparent and leave behind their vested interests, people will always have and care deeply about their own interests. The retention of vested interests can happen despite the mode of communication being used or the best intentions of the participants. Dialogue does help solve planning and policy problems by building relationships and community amongst the actors and stakeholders (McCoy and Scully, 2002). This building of

~ 49 ~ relationships and community can be closely associated with the networked theory of power and the building of trust that will both be discussed in the subsequent chapters. There are numerous others that support this, as Flyvbjerg (2000) points out, Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida all agree that communication is penetrated and infused with the notion of power. The question remains, while dialogue and discussion do build relationships between participants, does it build relationships between all participants, ensuring that all are or feel included in the process? With diverse audiences, such as the one found in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee, multiple media formats and communication modes need to be used to communicate information to the audience. The most common communication modes are audio, visual and written formats. The two audio formats have been discussed (dialogue and discussion), and now turn to evaluate the other modes. The challenge in any participatory engagement process with a diverse group of actors and stakeholders is to capture not only the oral, but the visual, tactile and experiential approaches (Bonny and Berkes, 2008). Written communication modes include such things as written stories, books, reports and drawings to name a few. This can make it difficult to convey a number of observations such as practice, gestures or expressions (Bonny and Berkes, 2008). This mode only captures what can be written in words or drawings. The major problem with this communication mode is the issue of literacy. Literacy levels affect whether written communication can be used effectively (Bonny and Berkes, 2008). Maps, pictures and drawings used in written materials would generally not be affected by literacy levels, however their interpretation could differ from actor to actor, dependent on their backgrounds. The Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process used extensive written materials. All reports compiled by the Project Team were in written format and distributed to the committee members via email or regular mail. All agendas and meeting minutes were also in written format. While all members of the Community Advisory Committee that were interviewed were literate and able to read the reports, agendas and minutes, some did have difficulty with understanding some of the complex technical language used.

~ 50 ~ The third major communication mode, visual, can be broken down into several areas. There are film‐based modes that can be very effective in communicating the social context of knowledge. The viewer is able to see the environment, others in the audience and the interaction between the audience and the actor using the film (Bonny and Berkes, 2008). Film is also able to capture expressions, gestures, voice, demonstrations and ambient sound, unlike written communication modes (Bonny and Berkes, 2008). Visual communication modes also include information technology systems. CD ROMs in particular are versatile as they can contain written, visual and audio communication modes (Bonny and Berkes, 2008). Newer technologies in this area involve internet resources. These are similar to CD ROM, but can be updated regularly, providing actors with the most current information possible (Bonny and Berkes, 2008). The difficulty with information technology systems is that not all actors may be computer literate or have access to computing facilities or the internet. Visual communication modes were also used during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. The presentations by the Project Team used Microsoft PowerPoint with a combination of words, pictures and diagrams. These presentations were always supplied in printed format for all actors and others attending the Community Advisory Committee meetings. Additionally, community members invited to give presentations of their ideas used PowerPoint and maps. Members of the Community Advisory Committee also used visual communication modes including film to present their positions. Information technology‐based systems were also used: email was used to communicate with members of the committee and the strategy had a webpage on the Gold Coast Water website dedicated to providing information to the community at large through meeting agendas and minutes. One drawback to this was that several members of the Community Advisory Committee did not have computer facilities, although in these cases the Project Team mailed the necessary documentation to them well before each meeting (Pers. Comm. Project Team Member, July 4, 2008). One member of the Community Advisory Committee even screened a short film at one meeting, using visual media to attempt to get his view across to the other members of the committee (Gold Coast City Council, 2005a) When we look below the surface of the discussion and dialogue issue, another potential problem appears: the actual language that participants use during the engagement process.

~ 51 ~ The languages that different actors and stakeholders use can give a good sense of who is exercising power and to some extent, what modality of power is being exercised (Bhatia, 2006). For example, by using rational arguments (or rationality), where the actors explain or justify their particular idea using generally logical thinking, they are exercising a rather weak form of power (Flyvbjerg, 2003). However, sometimes the force of such rational moral appeals “made by otherwise powerless people effects a change of policy because the powerful agents have been successfully shamed” (Young, in Drexler, 2007: 11). Depending on the modality of power that is being exercised by a particular actor or stakeholder, the truth or perceived truth of the information that is presented during the participatory process may be called into question, potentially affecting the levels of trust or distrust that participants may place in an individual or organisation (Christenson, 2005; Dunn et al., 2008). Christenson (2005) claims that multiple truths that may result from the presentation of multiple sides of the expert debates results in a decrease in individual’s trust. Munnichs (2004), however, claims that by having multiple sides to the story can actually increase levels of trust. This would appear to be supported by Innes (1999), where the act of dialogue and other communication modes allows participants to develop a better and deeper understanding of others’ positions, develop better relationships and ultimately trust, discussed further in the next chapter.

3.1.6 Consensus – Is it Possible or Desirable? Communication is generally characterized by the maintenance of interests and a tendency away from consensus‐seeking (Flyvbjerg, 1998a; 1998b). In essence, this would suggest that the actors and stakeholders try to ensure their interests retain primacy. One of the ways in which this may be achieved is through the exercise of power mediated by one or more communication modes. While consensus‐seeking is generally not an outcome in communication‐based participatory engagement processes, it is sometimes held up as an ideal outcome in other participatory processes (Gold Coast Water, 2009b). The Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy was a process, however, that did strive for consensus among the Community Advisory Committee members. The meeting minutes show that this was the case for the majority of decisions made. Often, where there was dissent, a simple change in wording or phrasing was sufficient to achieve consensus. Other times, a caveat attached to the resolution or decision was in order to ensure that all viewpoints were noted. Where

~ 52 ~ there was dissent that could not be reconciled, the dissenting viewpoints were noted in the minutes or in the actual report. Communicative participatory processes do not necessarily reduce disagreements; it actually may bring oppositions and differences to the surface, potentially widening the ‘chasm’ between participants (Shapiro, 1999). Practically, participatory engagement processes are not expected to produce a consensus (Carolan, 2006); collective judgment is generally arrived at through a vote (Young, 1995), as in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. This would appear to demonstrate that all individuals and groups have their own particular world views that are context dependent, and are not able to be reconciled through any general or universal principles, as in Habermasian ideals (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). Consensus‐building, whether it is desired in a particular process or not, however, may lead to the most acceptable or palatable decision rather than the best or highest quality decision (van de Kerkhof, 2006). This may be partially explained through Young’s (1995: 138) idea that “[C]onsenting because of the force of the better argument means being unable to think of further counter‐arguments, that is to concede defeat.” The court system is a good example of what Young means in her statement above. In a court situation, which can be considered a deliberative space, there are winners and losers in the final outcome. The accused, if deemed guilty, would be the loser, while the victim or crown is the winner. Now, if the accused, after listening to the case or argument that the crown makes against them, decides that they cannot think of any counter argument to what has been said by the crown, then they may as well plead guilty, become the loser and accept the consequences. However, in planning and policy practice, actions or decisions determined by consensual agreement are more likely to be implemented than those where there is open conflict (Flyvbjerg, 1998a). The trade‐off appears to be whether process organisers want a decision that is of high quality or one that is liked or approved by the most number of people and will most likely be implemented.

3.1.7 Legitimacy of the Process Related to the information, knowledge and how it is presented, legitimacy relies on technical and/or scientific truth (Seini, 2003). There are two forms of legitimacy according to

~ 53 ~ Beetham (1991) – legitimacy derived through a process and legitimacy derived through norms. In this small section on legitimacy, this thesis will focus on legitimacy derived through the participatory process itself. Within this process‐based legitimacy, there are, however, components of legitimacy derived through norms. Legitimacy in participatory engagement processes depends on two principal factors. First, how inclusive these processes are, and second whether the outcomes are binding on decision‐makers (Shapiro, 1999). Truth is one component of trust (Dunn et al., 2008). Legitimacy in participatory engagement processes then also relies on trust. If there is mistrust or a decreased ‘amount’ of trust, then the legitimacy of the process may be adversely affected. Legitimacy can also be thought of in terms of specific components of the participatory engagement process. For example, the knowledge and information provided by actors and stakeholders is one component that can impact on the legitimacy of the process. Some actors and stakeholders, often authorities, will draw on ever greater networks of expertise to demonstrate or improve their credibility and legitimacy (Allen, 2003). There were several actors and stakeholders in the Gold Coast Waterfuture process who undertook to bring in knowledge and information from outside their ‘normal’ networks. Examples of this included information that the Mayor had gathered on desalination during a trip to Dubai (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). Another member recounted his experiences with recycling water to potable standards during a personal trip to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (Gold Coast City Council, 2004h). A second component of the process that impacts legitimacy (and validity) is, according to Flyvbjerg (1998b), the way in which actors and stakeholders communicate. Such ways as eloquence, rationalization and charisma at least appear to give the speaker and their information more legitimacy (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). These modes of communication involve the exercise of power, elaborated further in Chapter Five – Power. If legitimacy is tightly linked to trust or confidence, as described above as Parsons (1986) suggests and as outlined by Misztal (1996), then it would seem that trust in the process or the organizing organization is needed in order for the process to go ahead and set the stage for the creation of further trust. Because the organization(s) involved in setting up the process are seen to exercise power (if ‘they’ did not decide to set up the process, then it

~ 54 ~ would not happen), this exercise of power also requires legitimacy. This legitimacy of power comes from an initial group that subsequently empowers a particular person or organization (Lukes, 1974). In the case of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, the citizens who voted for council empowered council to decide on this participatory action. This legitimacy of power, then, would also require trust (Allen, 2003).

3.1.7.1 Legitimacy and Power Beetham (1991) claims that by understanding legitimacy, the expectations that individuals have about power relations can be explained more easily. Any given power relationship is not simply legitimate because people believe in its legitimacy, but because it can be justified in terms of their beliefs. In this instance, where members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee believed that they had a role to play in the development of the Waterfuture and that the Community Advisory Committee through the relationship building process was valid to them and could therefore be considered legitimate. Beetham (1991) supports this further by stating that evidence of consent is important for legitimacy. The actions taken by the Community Advisory Committee members confer legitimacy because they demonstrate consent within a particular context – participatory engagement. Participatory engagement relates to the legitimacy of power because the participatory engagement process involves multiple power relationships, as will be demonstrated in Chapter 5. The participation of the committee members publicly demonstrated their consent to the power relationships involved, and hence the legitimacy of the process. Participants who may have stopped attending the committee meetings may have, therefore, expressed that they no longer consented to the power relationships and the process, and this may have decreased the legitimacy of the process in their minds. This shows, in a simple way, how the process itself confers legitimacy. From the perspective of legitimacy being born of norms, Beetham (1991: 15‐6) suggests that power can be legitimate if it conforms to rules that are justified by the beliefs shown by both the dominant and the subordinate in a hierarchical power relationship and the subordinate has consented to the relationship. For the most part, elements of this were seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee; the committee members agreed to the ‘rules’ as set out in the Terms of Reference, putting them in a subordinate role to the

~ 55 ~ Council. Additionally, they also generally consented to their changing roles in the exercise of more positive aspects of power (discussed in further chapters). On the other hand, there were members of the committee who expressed their non‐concurrence of some of the power relationships and their position, decreasing the legitimacy of those in power in those circumstances.

3.1.7.2 Legitimacy and Trust Trust is the central pillar in politics, according to Locke, and enhances people’s ability to cooperate (Misztal, 1996). Legitimacy itself does not rely on trust, but on an individual’s sense of duty to obey a proper authority. Trust, therefore may be an indicator of legitimacy in that people who trust that political power is appropriately exercised have good grounds for compliance with policies and plans (Misztal, 1996). When there is minimal trust in the economic and political institutions of today and doubts about the type of rationality employed by these institutions, this is shown in a lack of legitimacy around these institutions (Misztal, 1996: 251). By opening up the policy and planning process and including community stakeholders, who are then able to see and experience the rationality involved, there should be increased trust and legitimacy in the process. Habermas also claims that any crisis in legitimacy can be traced to the lack of transparency in socio‐political processes (Misztal, 1996). The Gold Coast Waterfuture process can be seen as a good example of this, where community stakeholders were invited to be an integral part of the process. The participatory nature of the Waterfuture process is also key to both trust and legitimacy, through, as Misztal (1996) claims, promoting a viable ‘civil religion’ of participation, cooperation and democratic accountability.

3.1.8 Is Trust a Key Initial Element of Participatory Engagement Processes? Some authors claim that trust is required to build further trust. In some ways, this is true, particularly when it comes to expert knowledge, as most expert knowledge must be taken on trust (Beck, 1992). However, when engaged in participatory engagement processes, we almost need to be able to trust the actors who will be involved as well as the institutions and organisations who set up the process before we will commit to participating. Questions that

~ 56 ~ potential participants might ask themselves could include: Do I trust the organisers to incorporate our/my ideas in the plan or policy? Will the outcome with our/my ideas be implemented? If people do not have a small amount of trust to start with, there is the likelihood that they will decline to participate. Trust plays an important role in participatory engagement processes. The creation of trust through the engagement process has a number of outcomes that include open communication, information exchange, commitment, belief in the truth of information and cooperation (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005). This is potentially a reinforcing feedback loop, where as trust is created, the consequences become ‘freer’ and greater trust is achieved.

3.1.9 Summary There are a number of key components of participatory engagement processes that include inclusion, knowledge, understanding, communication, consensus, legitimacy and trust, each overviewed above to begin drawing some connections between each of these components and trust and power. This is the beginning of tying the three themes of participatory engagement, trust and power together, setting the stage for the coming sections and chapters. In the following sections of this chapter, three debates that are related to two different understandings of participatory engagement processes and some of the components noted in the previous sections will be discussed. These three debates broadly centre on whether participatory engagement processes are really participatory, some issues between two main understandings of participatory engagement (Communicative Action Theory and Communicative Democracy) and a methodological debate between Communicative Action theorists and critical realists.

3.2 Debate One: Are Participatory Engagement Processes Really Participatory?

~ 57 ~ One of the ongoing debates, particularly between authorities (governments), the public and academics is over what constitutes participatory engagement. Different aspects of this debate will be discussed, drawing on Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of public participation. This seminal idea of Arnstein’s is that there is a continuum of participation in planning and policy processes that ranges from non‐participation through tokenism and on to citizen power. These categories and the ‘rungs’ that make up them up are not set in stone. There can be many degrees of public engagement that may fit between these defined rungs. Non‐participation, according to Arnstein (1969), encompasses the rungs of manipulation and therapy. Manipulation involves citizens being invited or placed on advisory committees and instead of advising, wind up being advised by officials, resulting in the rubber stamping of whatever the authorities want (Arnstein, 1969). Therapy, according to Arnstein (1969) is where citizens may be heavily involved in programs put on by authorities designed to re‐ educate them away from their dissenting or incorrect views or stances to what the authorities deem appropriate. The next category on the ladder is tokenism. Tokenism is where stakeholders are made to feel that they have a role to play but the authorities are still the ones to exercise all of the power in the decision‐making and implementation stages. The rungs of the ladder that constitute tokenism are informing, consultation and placation (Arnstein, 1969). Informing involves a one‐way flow of information from the authorities to the public with no avenues for the public to provide feedback (Arnstein, 1969). Consultation, according to Arnstein (1969), opens up the opportunity for the public to provide feedback, although there are no guarantees that the authorities will act on the feedback. Placation allows the public some degree of influence. These actors or stakeholders are allowed to advise or create the plan or policy, but the authorities retain the power to adopt or reject the plan or policy (Arnstein, 1969). Some of the examples mentioned in the introduction resonate with these categories. The State Planning Policy 2/02 Acid Sulfate Soils Management, Byron Shire Sustainable Agriculture Plan and the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy all have clear elements of the placation rung. In all three cases, the advisory committee was struck, decided on the best course of action or created a plan or policy, but the local council or state government retained the right to veto any suggested strategy that the advisory committee came up with.

~ 58 ~ In the Gold Coast Waterfuture Terms of Reference for Advisory Committee, the goal of the committee is clearly only to recommend a preferred water strategy to City Council (Gold Coast City Council, n.d; 2) Arnstein’s third section, citizen power, is where she finds that true participatory engagement happens by allowing citizens to exercise the majority or all of the power in how their public affairs are handled (Arnstein, 1969). The rungs in this section of the ladder include partnership, delegated power and citizen control (Arnstein, 1969). Partnership, which hints at being a longer‐term concept, involves negotiation and re‐distribution of the exercise of power so that the stakeholders and the authorities share decision‐making responsibilities (Arnstein, 1969). Delegated power is where negotiation leads to citizens having the ability to exercise decision‐making power over a particular policy or plan (Arnstein, 1969). Citizen control, the top rung of the ladder, involves citizens having control over an entire issue or organisation and are able to negotiate with the outside world on all aspects of that particular issue (Arnstein, 1969). Neither of these two ‘rungs’ of the ladder are seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, although, on a superficial scan of the process, one could suggest that with Gold Coast City Council adopting the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee recommendations unanimously, this process could be considered delegated power. The two processes undertaken by non‐governmental organisations, The Ethos Foundation and the Wollumbin Collaboration can both be considered examples of citizen power. The participants in the Courageous Conversations (Ethos Foundation) and the network (Wollumbin Collaboration) are able to create plans and actions together and are then free to implement them within their groups or as individuals as they see fit. The hope is that by having groups or individuals implement these actions, authorities could take note and perhaps begin to introduce or implement these plans or actions on a wider scale. Within Arnstein’s (1969) ladder, there are any number of participatory engagement processes that can be used. What matters is that the type of participatory process is matched to the context in which it takes place (Meadowcroft, 2004). The design and selection of a particular participatory process needs to follow some general, common sense

~ 59 ~ principles for projects. By knowing what the overall goal is, who to engage, the best way to engage them and time‐lines, an appropriate participatory process can be designed or used, resulting in a process that is truly participatory. This could also depend on who is ‘hosting’ the event. For example, in a process that is ‘hosted’ by government, participants may feel that it is participatory and engaging even when at the placation rung of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder. One possible explanation for this is that the decision‐making authority is presented with a rigorously developed plan, policy or strategy that has a very good chance of being accepted unless some political reason crops up. This was the case in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, where even though on the placation rung, the strategy was accepted unanimously by council without changes in part because of its rigour.

3.3 Two Understandings of Participatory Engagement Processes In order to understand the second debate in participatory engagement processes between Communicative Action and Communicative Democracy, there needs to be a short introduction to the theoretical bases behind these two sides of the debate. There are two understandings behind participatory engagement processes, Communicative Action Theory from Jürgen Habermas and Communicative Democracy from Iris Marion Young. Drexler (2007) points out that Communicative Democracy is built on a Communicative Action foundation, but goes much further. These understandings of participatory engagement processes are particularly relevant, as the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process appears to share many of the traits suggested by these theories. In general, some highlights of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process that lead me down this path include first, the fact that the process was deliberative (from Communicative Action Theory), second, with respect to actors and stakeholders presenting viewpoints, stances, positions or information, all actors and stakeholders involved were generally equal (further explained later in the thesis). Third, in the spirit of Communicative Democracy, the actors were able to present their viewpoints, stances, positions or information in a way that was comfortable or appropriate for them and their backgrounds. While most participants communicated verbally, some prepared written handouts to explain their position on a particular issue. There was even a film that was brought in by one of the members of the

~ 60 ~ Community Advisory Committee and presented to the rest of the committee so that they could actually see some visible evidence in support of that particular stakeholder group’s position (Gold Coast City Council, 2005a).

3.3.1 Jürgen Habermas and Communicative Action Theory Jürgen Habermas is but one theorist upon which a number of participatory practitioners base their processes, particularly in the field of collaborative planning. One of the attractions of Habermas lies in the general grassroots philosophy of Communicative Action Theory, “where what is right and true is determined only by the participants” in the process (Flyvbjerg, 2000; 3‐4). The emphases in collaborative planning are multiple, and take root from Communicative Action Theory. These include the idea that all forms of knowledge are equal, that there are many synergies between expert and lay knowledge, development and that communication of knowledge and reasoning take many forms (Healey, 2006). Contextually, actors all have diverse interests, expectations and preferences that are achieved through social contexts and interaction (Healey, 2006). Communicative Action does allow the actors and stakeholders involved to decide what argument they will accept as an outcome, and would most often be found or formed in deliberative decision‐making processes which are a type of participatory engagement processes. Habermasian ideals are particularly applicable to deliberative participatory processes, as he advocates communicative rationality where actors and stakeholders engage in well thought out dialogue, attempting to persuade others using “reasoned discussion rather than blind acceptance of the views of established authorities … they advance arguments and listen to counterarguments; they employ critical reason to weigh alternatives and make judgements.”, which can also be termed the force of the better argument (Meadowcroft, 2004: 184). The force of the better argument is not solely based on scientific or technical reasoning or argument. Healey (2006) highlights three types of reasoning in Communicative Action: Scientific and technical, values and ethics and reasoning derived from emotional experience. To date, scientific and technical reasoning has been allowed to crowd out the others. This is important because the whole process of reasoning and giving reasons is about what actors think is important. How actors think and express their thoughts is based on cultural conceptions and context (Healey, 2006). This dialogue‐based communicative

~ 61 ~ interaction, where one is to persuade by the use of a rational argument, still privileges a single, verbal mode of communication (MacKie, 1998). Habermas bases his political philosophy around ideals, consensus and what should be done (Flyvbjerg, 2000; Flyvbjerg and Richardson, 2002), providing an ideal or utopian situation of how participatory processes should unfold. These ideals have been, however, translated into practical application in collaborative planning, best captured by the work of Healey. The work of Habermas in Communicative Action Theory has made policy and planning more horizontal, moving away from the older, more abstract system of hierarchical bureaucracy (Healey, 2006), although this does have a long road ahead. This idea of the ideal in Communicative Action Theory rests partially on the notion that citizens involved in the process are all equal – there are no power hierarchies present (Habermas, 1990). To ensure that this ideal of no power hierarchies is achieved, Habermas calls for the necessary development, application and use of universal institutions (Flyvbjerg, 1998b; 2000). These universal institutions can be described generally as universal rules, laws or customs for undertaking a particular course of action or activity without regard to the nuances of the specific context in which the action or activity is occurring. The development and application of these universal institutions through processes underpinned by Communicative Action are necessary to control the exercise of power (Flyvbjerg, 1998b; 2000). In essence, what Habermas believes is that by enshrining, for example, dialogue as an institution of participatory engagement processes, dialogue becomes similar to a law that everyone would follow, in theory making everyone equal with no power hierarchies. As discussed in a later chapter, power is exercised through relationships, and simply making a level playing field will not eliminate the exercise of power. Despite the many criticisms, Habermas has transformed the planning field through Communicative Action from one that was fraught with well defined hierarchical power relationships and conflict to one that has allowed actors and stakeholders to turn to and use facilitation and discussion to deal with disputes (Healey, 2006). This has lead to collaborative consensus building. Collaborative planning and Communicative Action has allowed the information and interests of lay people to be presented and discussed, partially

~ 62 ~ filling some of the void left by the increasing loss of faith and decrease in trust in experts and science. Some of the more attractive principles of participatory engagement processes from a Habermasian perspective include interactions focused on common concerns; equal accessibility to all stakeholders; rational‐critical deliberation; and normative standards of evaluation (Haas, 2004). These wide‐ranging and universal perspectives may make these types of processes easy to set up, run, appear accessible to citizens and easy to evaluate in terms of their success, but they are not adapted to any local context, which is necessary according to authors such as Foucault, Flyvbjerg and Meadowcroft. This will be discussed in a subsequent section on the debates surrounding participatory engagement processes in planning and policy.

3.3.2 Iris Marion Young and Communicative Democracy Iris Marion Young’s theoretical conception behind participatory engagement processes is called Communicative Democracy and is broadly based on Jürgen Habermas’ Communicative Action Theory. Unlike Communicative Action, Communicative Democracy is where any and/or all forms of communication are openly welcomed and accepted for use by the actors and stakeholders involved (Young, 1995). The basis for this new form of democracy for engagement then revolves around opening up space for all types of communication so that participants from all cultural and social backgrounds are able to feel welcome and accepted. Sontag (1965: 293) very early on noted that “inhabitants of different cultures speak different languages, use different documents, techniques and encounter different problems.” This ‘cultural differentiation’ extends deeper, in that people can inhabit their culture to the exclusion of all others (Sontag, 1965), making the use of a variety of communication techniques all the more important so that everyone is heard and understood. Kliger and Cosgrove (1999: 56) summarise this nicely by stating that “everyone has a voice that deserves to be heard in their own way.” Under Communicative Democracy, everyone, including those actors and stakeholders in civil society that have traditionally been excluded from the policy and planning process, have a right to be heard and play an active role in the policy and planning process. Examples of groups that have traditionally been excluded from participatory planning and policy processes include children, aging persons, ethnic and indigenous peoples (Austin, 2006;

~ 63 ~ Freeman, 2006; Friesen, 2006). While Young presented this idea in the 1990s, it has just recently become increasingly accepted in different countries (New Zealand) (Freeman and Thompson‐Fawcett, 2006) and different contexts (climate change), as Beck (2008: 79) states that “if we want to survive, we have to include those that have been excluded” (c.f. Austin, 2006; Freeman, 2006; Friesen, 2006). The Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process demonstrated this aspect of Communicative Democracy, as some of these groups, especially young people, who were invited via the Gold Coast Junior Council to participate in the Community Advisory Council. There were also a number of retired individuals on the Community Advisory Council, although they were representing groups other than aged people (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). There was, however, no apparent representation of indigenous groups on the Community Advisory Council, nor was there representation from ethnic or middle aged adult demographics. One of the main ideas behind Communicative Democracy is to address issues of inclusion and power, particularly around communication and interaction. Young advances three propositions that need to be taken into account in communication – greeting, rhetoric and storytelling or narrative (Young, 1995). The three propositions advanced by Kliger and Cosgrove (1999: 56), based on Young’s work, are “a commitment to equal respect for each other” (greeting); “an agreement on procedural rules for fair discussion and decision‐ making” (rhetoric); and “a willingness to accept the validity of different points of view.” (storytelling). The first of these communicative components is greeting. Greeting is the speech that is necessary for communication, but does not necessarily say anything concrete, yet conveys one’s respect to the others (Young, 1995). Examples of this include such phrases as ‘Good morning’, ‘How are you?’, ‘Welcome’, and ‘See you later’ (Young, 1995: 145). This can be particularly important, as it shows how one recognizes others that are involved in the process and helps promote mutual respect and trust (Haas, 2004). Haas (2004) also notes that participants who do not recognize or acknowledge others are generally unlikely to seriously consider the arguments or positions of others. There was nothing documented on whether or how the use of greeting was demonstrated in the Gold Coast Waterfuture. As trite as it may seem, the minutes from the meetings do note

~ 64 ~ that the chair opened the meeting and “welcomed the members attending and noted the apologies.” (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i: 2). This is certainly a part of standard, formal procedure in meetings and minute taking, but it also suggests that there is limited place for greeting to be used within such formal meeting structures. Outside of the formal meeting component, (i.e. before the meetings, during dinner and after the meetings), greeting could have been an important component of the relationship building process. The second component of Young’s Communicative Democracy is rhetoric. Rhetoric is a component of speech that “creates the speaker, audience and occasion” by creating a specific context around them, or the way opinions and/or reasons are expressed (Young, 1995: 146; Haas, 2004). The creation of a specific context happens through wordplay, humour, images and figures of speech (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999). This has two uses. The first is that rhetorical moves encompass political practice outside of the actual policy or planning process. Rhetoric can be used through street demonstrations, protests and other actions, to actually get an issue on the policy or planning agenda (Drexler, 2007). If these contextually sensitive and relevant modes of communication are ignored, this can further exclude or marginalize already marginalized or disadvantaged stakeholders from meaningful participation (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999). The second use of rhetoric is within the policy and planning process itself, and concerns how participants present their stories or experiences to others; how they situate themselves in relation to the audience (Haas, 2004). Narrative is a component of rhetoric, as it conveys the differently situated knowledge of the participants (Haas, 2004), and helps reveal the source of people’s values, their meaning, and their cultural basis (Young, 1995). This utility of narrative is therefore one of the principal reasons behind the use of a narrative interviewing style in gathering the stories of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee participants. The idea of rhetoric does not include solely verbal communication, but also body language and other expressive forms of communication, for example, facial expressions, that are important vehicles for participants to get their message across. The current models of solely using dialogue and deliberation, however, devalues, discourages and discounts these other forms of expressive communication (Young, 1995). Both of these components, greeting and

~ 65 ~ rhetoric put forward by Young contain elements of expressiveness that include verbal and non‐verbal components. The third component in Young’s Communicative Democracy includes “differently situated knowledge”, or knowledge that adds to the knowledge and understanding of all participants, and could include traditional, lay and indigenous knowledge rather than western scientific or expert knowledge (Young, 1995). This was used in the Waterfuture process through personal experiences of the actors and stakeholders involved in the process. As with the idea of greeting, it is difficult to determine from meeting minutes whether the knowledge and information presented by participants is differently situated knowledge or mainstream, expert, authoritative knowledge. This will be discussed in Chapter Six, Analysis and Discussion, when information and details from the participants themselves is provided. The above components of Communicative Democracy, highlight how different modes of communication are a crucial element to inclusive, successful participatory engagement processes, as groups other than white, middle class males may prefer modes of communication other than argumentation (Young, 1995). By allowing a diversity of communications, modes, views and participants, Communicative Democracy may be well suited for working towards complex solutions to complex environmental problems (Meadowcroft, 2004). These ideas are good in theory but they need to be translated into practice. While Kliger and Cosgrove’s (1999) statements match with Young’s (1995) key components of Communicative Democracy to show that the theory can be translated into practice, some actual practical examples of how Communicative Democracy was put into practice during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process will be demonstrated. One of the key issues with implementing Communicative Democracy is space. In relation to meeting space, Kliger and Cosgrove (1999) mention that there needs to be two types of space during meetings – one where the actors and stakeholders are ‘protected’, supported and nurtured and can present their ideas without fear of retribution from other members or the public and one space where their ideas can then be tested against reality and institutions or norms. However, the meeting space needs to, in general, be comfortable for all participants.

~ 66 ~ During the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process, meetings were held at different points in time (i.e. early in the month, mid‐month or later in the month), once a month over 17 months, at a variety of meeting spaces – the Gold Coast City Council offices at Bundall, the Bicentennial Hall at Nerang, Gold Coast City Council offices at Nerang and some smaller meetings at members’ offices or homes. These could reflect some of the elements of Communicative Democracy in practice as noted by Kliger and Cosgrove (1999), such as ensuring that meetings are accessible time and spatially, as well as providing meeting venues that may be more comfortable for participants, such as the Nerang Bicentennial Hall and unofficial meetings at members offices or homes. During the meetings themselves, Gold Coast Water appears to have followed these principles of Communicative Democracy. The times before and after the meetings and the dinner break were times where actors and stakeholders could engage each other along with the project team and the public to bounce ideas off one another, discuss them in a bit more detail, etc. During the official meeting time is where they would have been able to test their ideas against reality and institutions, elaborated by committee members through their participant interviews in Chapter Six, Analysis and Discussion.

3.4 Debate Two: Communicative Action and Communicative Democracy: Some Critical Issues There are several quite relevant debates and critiques that surround both of these understandings of participatory engagement processes. There are, however, four debates that are crucial to this thesis in that they relate directly to the notions of power and trust. These four issues that will be discussed are the ideal situation versus what is achievable in practice, contextualism versus universalism, the absence or presence of power hierarchies within Communicative Action and Communicative Democracy and the use of one communication mode or multiple modes.

3.4.1 Issue One: The Ideal vs. Practice

~ 67 ~ The first debate to be addressed is the one between Communicative Action theory and other understandings of participatory engagement processes – the ideal situation versus what is able to be done in practice. Habermas and Communicative Action theory describe the ideal situation, or what should be done. In this context, Cohen (1989) states that equality is necessary for democracy, with specific reference to deliberative democracy. However most participants or citizens bring, by nature of their life experiences, varying degrees of resources to ‘the table’ in the political realm of policy and planning. Tebble (2003:207, emphasis added) provides a quote that captures the idea of inequality – “Politics, however, is not journalism and cannot afford the luxury of talking in perpetuity about current affairs. Rather, it is charged with enforcing decisions to the exclusion of those that are deemed to have lost out in public political debate.” The emphasised sentence clearly proclaims that there are winners and losers, which refutes the claims that Communicative Action theory is egalitarian. Deliberative models or participatory engagement, which are underpinned by Communicative Action theory are derived from a combination of scientific debate, modern parliaments and the courts (Young, 1995). Parliamentary debates and the court arguments are portrayed as deliberative (participatory), however, are part of elite ruling institutions, and not inclusive or participatory in nature (Young, 1995). In fact, particularly in the court system, it is not deliberative; there are definite winners and losers, not a consensus.

3.4.2 Issue Two: Contextualism vs. Universalism The second issue up for debate is one between contextualists and universalists. Universalists, such as Habermas, believe that by having a constant universal ‘platform’ (constitutions or norms) it will prevent nihilism, relativism or contextualism from establishing itself in the decision‐making process, which is unacceptable (Flyvbjerg, 2000). Contextualists, such as Flyvbjerg or Foucault believe, however that the emphasis, when looking at any action or activity, should be placed on the context in which it occurs (Price, 2008). The complete nature of the action or activity can only be understood relative to the context (Price, 2008). This universalist idea of Habermas suggests that participatory events should be very highly structured so as to potentially minimize power hierarchies within the process, making everyone as equal as possible. These types of highly structured events, however, usually end up with winners and losers, the winners are those that know how to ‘play the game’

~ 68 ~ (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999). The ‘game playing’ just goes to show that political actors that are involved in these processes can be very adept at bending, using, twisting or ignoring these types of ‘constitutions’ to get their own way (Flyvbjerg, 2003). This gets back to issue one, where, in practice, these types of events are not egalitarian, and cannot currently achieve the Habermasian ideal. This universal model of Habermas ignores the local context of how power and discourse work in any particular situation (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999). Civil society has been able to enact change in local, contextual ways that are specific to the situation, not in a universal way that Habermas posits (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). Some examples of this can be found in the work of Drexler (2007) in Seattle, but at different times and in different situations. In order to achieve this political change, even on a case‐by‐case basis, there is a need to understand power relations, which is lacking in Habermas’ conception of participatory processes (Flyvbjerg, 2000).

3.4.3 Issue Three: Power The third issue that has generated substantial debate between proponents of Communicative Action and other understandings of participatory engagement processes is the notion of power. Habermas claims that the public sphere needs to be unsubverted by power, yet this cannot work, as the public sphere itself is established through the exercise of power (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). While the Habermasian ideal is that participants in participatory engagement processes, and in particular, deliberative‐style processes, should be equal, there are ways in which manipulation (a modality of power) can be exercised, where the participants themselves may have no control. Manipulation can occur variously through the use of moneyed interests, un‐principled negotiation/discussion amongst the participants, direct media attention on personalities rather than policies, and the systematic exclusion of already marginalized groups (Meadowcroft, 2004). This idea of power is very closely related to communication issues between Communicative Action and other understandings of participatory engagement processes.

~ 69 ~ Once power is introduced, rational communication as Habermas defines it becomes distorted (Hindess, 1996). One way in which rational communication may become distorted is, although all parties engage freely in the process, there is generally one or more dominant figures, often in the form of the organizers or facilitators who guide the conduct of the other actors or stakeholders (Allen, 2003), which then introduces a power hierarchy. In another apparent contradiction, proponents of Habermasian deliberative participatory processes claim that since all participants are equal, power does not determine the fate of any proposals or ideas, reason does (Cohen, 1989). However, the flaw in this argument is that no matter how weak it is, reason is still a form of power (Flyvbjerg 1998a). Iris Marion Young and Communicative Democracy are not immune to criticism either. Habermas rejects Young’s rhetorical practices as manipulative, non‐rational, pressuring and coercive (Drexler, 2007). This can be understood when one looks at two of Habermas’ ideals ‐ that all participants are equal with respect to power and the use of rational argument as the only communicative mode permitted. This essentially gives an equal playing field, where no participant is able to use other means that may give them an advantage in persuading the other actors or stakeholders. When one looks at Young’s practices from the ideal perspective of Habermas, then one can certainly understand that by allowing other practices, there are then opportunities for all sorts of modalities of power to be exercised. Not only are manipulation and reason present in the communicative aspects of participatory engagement processes, there are still other modalities of power present in various circumstances. Rolin (2002) states, following Habermas, that to ensure a responsive and inclusive dialogue, strong, universal norms are needed to ensure that all participants are heard. These normative beliefs have hierarchies of power instilled within them. Conformity with these beliefs is rewarded while any departure from them is punished (Rolin, 2002) – this is a mode of power called control. Far from getting participants to leave their power differentials behind them when engaged in communicative action, the entire process and belief system behind Habermasian Communicative Action is dependent on power.

3.4.4 Issue Four: Communication Habermas and Communicative Action theory as a basis for participatory engagement processes has caused debate in the area of communication. Young’s idea of rhetoric is a

~ 70 ~ critique of Communicative Action’s method of objective, rational argument, where this type of communication is privileged by deliberative norms (Young, 1995). The use of objective, reasoned argument ignores a large number of other modes of communication such as figurative language – hyperbole and metaphor, leading to exclusion or cultural bias (Young, 1995; Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999). Through the choice(s) of a dominant communication mode, authorities or organisers are effectively silencing others through the devaluation of their communication or speech modes (Young, 1995). Young, however, by narrowing down inclusion to the sole aspect of communication, herself neglects a number of other important aspects around inclusion (Drexler, 2007). Not only does communication play an important role in inclusion, it also is a key component of trust (Winter et al., 1999). Discussion‐based participatory engagement needs to move beyond the rigidness of deliberative engagement (Young, 1995). Under Habermasian principles, speech or dialogue that is assertive, combative or even antagonistic is de rigueur, which supports Young’s (1995) assertion that speech that is assertive (and confrontational) is more valued than that which is tentative or exploratory. This would seem to contradict Habermas, where deliberative engagement is supposed to involve learning and acceptance (Cohen, 1989). This can be illustrated in the difference between male and female speech behaviours, which may place females at a disadvantage when compared to males (Young, 1995), producing a power differential between males and females. This could potentially be extrapolated to just about any other group, outside of the dominant group – favouring one mode of communication over others results in cultural imbalances in participatory processes (Fung, 2004). One crucial point that Habermas attempts to emphasise is the idea of the force of the better argument. It is claimed, however, that the only form of power in communicative rationality is the “force of the better argument” (Flyvbjerg, 2000: 3). The questions that arise from this that should provoke debate include what is an argument, how good is it, and how is a ‘better argument’ determined, defined and evaluated against others (Flyvbjerg and Richardson, 2002)? These questions may not even be relevant, as in many cases, it is strategy and tactics that lead to acceptance of a proposal, not the better argument (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). The final aspect in the debates around communication is the idea of a trained, impartial facilitator or independent chair for citizen committees. In the previous example of the Courageous Conversation event run by the Ethos Foundation, Edwards et al. (2008) found

~ 71 ~ that a good, independent facilitator was able to ensure that each and every member of the group was able to present their ideas, but they were able to do it in their own way with the facilitator providing translation between the group members. The Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process also attempted this in a more formal way. An independent chair was selected from the community by City Council to chair and guide the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee Meetings. This individual had both the interest in water and the experience in guiding such committees as a former member and chair of the Queensland Acid Sulfate Soils Management Advisory Committee.

3.4.5 Are There Other Understandings of Participatory Engagement? While the bulk of this thesis has so far concentrated on two particular understandings of participatory engagement processes, there are other understandings. Other authors claim that deliberation as opposed to more activist activities, as proposed by Young and Drexler, would allow for a level playing field (Humphrey, 2007). Yet, as previously discussed, this is not the case because there are still power hierarchies and relations within the realm of deliberation and communicative action. It is therefore, meaningless to try to work with a concept of communication in the absence of power (Flyvbjerg, 2000). Two authors (Drexler, 2007; Humphrey, 2007) claim that rather than using more ‘civilised’ modes of communication such as speech, or visual representations, radical action or activist and fundamentalist activities are needed to get issues on the political agenda. This would suggest that there needs to be greater organisation and action from the grass roots to organise and participate in planning and policy‐making. It also relates to Arendt’s conception of power and association, which will be discussed in Chapter Five, Power.

3.5 The Third Debate: Communicative Action Theorists and Critical Realists This third debate looks at more of a methodological perspective of where this thesis is situated and what it contributes to our understanding of how power underpins or undermines the creation and maintenance of trust. One issue that should be clarified is the link between policy‐making and planning. Yiftachel and Huxley (2000) state that there is

~ 72 ~ quite a difference between policy‐making and planning, while Healey (2000) claims that they are very similar. Dovers (2005) persuades one to be much more convinced by the position of Healey (2000), laying out a similar series of claims about policy that Yiftachel and Huxley (2000) propose with planning. Previously planning (and policy making) have been treated as a suite of different issues that were treated reactively. Now, however, policy‐making and planning are seen to be made up of a series of integrated issues of fields. Decision‐makers and academics are now attempting to address the actual causes of the problems in planning and policy‐making rather than dealing only with the symptoms; and both have physical, social and economic manifestations and challenges. Dovers (2005) also provides a key rationale for participatory engagement processes in policy, which is the same for planning, and that is to identify, expose and reconcile different expectations and values. A number of other authors have contributed to this debate in the urban planning context. These include Forester, Healey, Huxley, and Yiftachel have contributed substantially to the debate around power in public engagement processes in the planning sphere. Forester and Healey, amongst others are, according to Yiftachel and Huxley (2000), too theoretical, and need to step back from the theoretical aspects of planning or policy‐making, e.g. Communicative action and how power structures are formed, and examine the causes and consequences of planning or policy activities. Yiftachel and Huxley are generally considered to be critical realists (Hoch, 2007). Critical realists, on the other hand, tend to put less emphasis on the structure of the process and focus more on the outcomes (Hoch, 2007). The Queensland Acid Sulphate Soils Management Advisory Committee process, introduced in the introduction, is an example that demonstrates that policy making and planning are inextricably linked and not vastly separate entities. This is a policy about how developers are to manage Acid Sulphate Soils in Queensland. Because the distribution of soils is spatial, this would indicate that the State Planning Policy 2/02 (Acid Sulphate Soils Management) is also ‘planning’, where planning can be seen as the spatial application of policies. Communicative Action has become increasingly popular over the past decades for decision‐ makers including planners. This has created the space for debates between individuals that see themselves as Communicative Action theorists and those that consider themselves critical realists. Communicative Action theorists tend to look at how current planning and policy practices are happening, however, often neglecting to look at what the effects of

~ 73 ~ basing participatory engagement processes on Communicative Action Theory and why those effects are occurring (Yiftachel and Huxley, 2000). Communicative Action theorists investigate the micro‐political processes involved in communicative planning – analysing and evaluating how meaning is constructed, resources are distributed and power exercised (Healey, 2000). Healey, (2000) claims that this approach allows a dissection of communicative planning practices within the context of the social relations and discourses involved in the process. Rather than stand and critically evaluate communicative planning processes from afar, the Communicative Action theorists attempt to look at how things work close‐up and attempt to effect change from an embedded perspective (Healey, 2000). This contrasts with the ideas of critical realists, who feel that a broader viewpoint is necessary to improve communicative planning. Communicative Action theorists, even while looking at, for example, how power is exercised, do not look at the outcomes of this exercise of power or the distribution and mobilisation of resources. This then raises the question of how does one analyse or evaluate the creation of trust during such processes? Critical realists, however look at the outcomes from participatory engagement processes, and while able to see that trust or distrust may be created, are looking at it from such a distance that they are not able to dissect the finer details of the processes and thus determine what actions or relationships might be at work. That planning needs to be looked at from a distance is a valid argument by critical realists. However, planning is not just planning; it incorporates elements from a variety of disciplines including sociology, ecology, geography and psychology to name a few (Yiftachel and Huxley, 2000; Hoch, 2007). These are the disciplines involved in the material and political processes that shape cities and regions through planning, not solely communication. Communication alone does not demonstrate the true embeddedness of planning in the greater picture (Yiftachel and Huxley, 2000). Yiftachel and Huxley (2000) claim that we need this broader perspective so that analysts can examine both the causes and consequences of planning policies. Both of these views present valid claims and arguments. Analyses of both the micro‐ processes and the macro‐processes are necessary to effect change in communicative planning. This thesis attempts to cross these boundaries, but looking at a particular process

~ 74 ~ in terms of the micro‐elements put forward by Healey (2000), but comes from more of a sociological and geographical perspective, as suggested by Yiftachel and Huxley (2000). None the less, this thesis does attempt to look at power and social relationships within a communicative planning framework, and how this influences the creation of either trust or distrust in both the process and the outcomes.

3.6 Conclusion: Trust and Power are Infused Through Silence This chapter has attempted to show a broad overview of what participatory engagement practices are and what they entail from both a theoretical and practical stance, highlighted in the debate between Communicative Action theorists and critical realists. Although the threads are still loose, the introduction of some ideas of how trust and power work in participatory engagement processes and practices has enabled these two concepts not often found together, and even more rarely found in a participatory engagement context, to be more closely linked. In the forthcoming chapters, trust and power are introduced in more detail, attempting to link them more closely in the context of participatory engagement. Many of the key components involved in the design and running of a strong participatory engagement process are directly related to the creation of trust. This list includes inclusion and participation, communication, reflexivity and consensus. These components are not only linked to trust but also to power, are discussed in greater detail in the next two chapters respectively. Through the two primary theoretical understandings of participatory engagement processes (Communicative Action theory and Communicative Democracy), the idea of power in participatory engagement processes has been introduced and in particular, how the role of power in each contributes to debate within and between these theories. The third understanding of participatory engagement through the eyes of Arendt also includes power but in a different way. In each of these understandings there is a dominant way in which power is articulated, silencing other ways in which power can potentially play a role. Arendt’s insights contribute to the thesis’ later demonstration that by using a networked theory of power, power can be harnessed and used to create trust in participatory processes.

~ 75 ~ All three debates ‐‐ Are participatory engagement processes really participatory?; The interaction between Communicative Action and Communicative Democracy (and the four issues comprised within these understandings: ideal vs. practice, contextualism vs. universalism, power and communication) and Communicative Action theorists versus critical realists ‐‐ highlight the need for a systematic analysis of power. This systematic analysis through power demonstrates that by using the essence of these debates, participatory engagement is linked to trust both theoretically and practically, manifest in the design of participatory engagement processes.

~ 76 ~

Chapter Four: Trust

4.0 Introduction The previous chapter discussed a number of ways in which trust is connected to participatory engagement processes. Some of these connections include the idea that trust may actually be needed to create trust, inclusion and exclusion impact on trust and the methodological connections of trust and power. A number of questions were also raised about the connections between participatory engagement processes and trust, including why analytical actors generate distrust, how do multiple ‘stories’ or knowledges create trust, how trust affects legitimacy and how the four issues in the Communicative Action/Communicative Democracy debate relate to trust. This chapter takes up these issues and explores them more thoroughly; however, it begins with a generic description of what trust is and what the different types of trust are. It then delves into the myriad of ways in which trust is present in and connected to participatory engagement processes. Finally, a discussion of Swain and Tait’s (2007) “crisis (or perceived crisis) of trust” will be described and analysed. Swain and Tait’s (2007: 234) description of what they call a “crisis of trust”, where trust has been declining in government, institutions and professions, (including planners and policy‐makers) is considered to have four main causes – reflexivity, rise of the risk society, rise of the rights‐based society and the rise of advanced liberalism. The first three of these main causes relate to one of the main types of trust that are discussed, while the rise of advanced liberalism relates to a level of trust – institutional trust. These causes of the crisis of trust will be discussed, particularly how case differs in participatory engagement processes for planning and policy. Throughout the chapter, it is argued that active trust, which is built and maintained out of public engagement (especially deliberative processes) has been for the most part looked at in terms of public consultation. The aspect that has been downplayed is whether or how trust is created and maintained when the community is actually involved in developing plans, strategies or policy. Furthermore, the framework through which trust has been researched evinces the ideas of social psychology rather than a broader sociological

~ 77 ~ perspective. While a number of authors, such as Cvetkovich and Winter (2002; 2008), use a narrower social psychology approach, a broader sociological perspective where the notion of the multiple roles that power can play in developing and maintaining trust is needed. Examining trust in the context of policies and plans that have been put forward by various national, state or local governments has been where citizens have been asked whether they actually trust the government or other authority to implement plans, strategies or policies that have already been developed and/or implemented. In essence, these have been post‐ hoc analyses of citizens’ trust relationships with the government, answering question such as do citizens actually trust the government to develop appropriate plans and policies? and looking at whether citizens feel these policies and plans have been implemented appropriately. The most notable example of this is through the works of Cvetkovich and Winter (2002; 2004; Winter and Cvetkovich, 2008), who looked extensively at whether citizens trusted that the U.S. Forest Service, through their plans, strategies and policies, manages various aspects of the National Forest system appropriately (and particularly in a risk management framework). A second area where trust research has been conducted is that of whether people trust the institutions that help shape the government and our society. Trust is a crucial aspect of our society. When trust is clearly lacking or absent, the ‘situation’ has then deteriorated into one of terror, while mistrust is a negative form of trust that can still shape government and society (Möllering, 2001). A number of authors use the term institution as meaning actual agencies of the government or the government itself, while sociologically, there is an alternative view of institutions as being made up of norms, conventions and habits that are established over time and shape how we live and interact with society. Cook and Gronke (2005) have found that people have confidence in institutions in this second sense, but neglect to mention trust. Trust and confidence, while related, are not the same thing, and consequently confidence is not dealt with in this thesis. Uslaner, although linked more closely with work in trust, does consider what he calls civic engagement and its links to trust. This civic engagement is distinct from participatory engagement processes in the planning, strategy and policy making field. Uslaner (2002) defines civic engagement as activities where citizens participate in community groups, charities and other community‐based organisations, generally for pleasure or philanthropic

~ 78 ~ ends. There may be some connections between the ultimate goals of participating in civic engagement activities and participatory engagement processes in policy and planning contexts. Both of these distinct participatory activities may affect trust creation and/or maintenance in similar ways. Trust is generally analysed in the policy literature, particularly by Cvetkovich and Winter (2002; 2004), through the discipline of social psychology, and in particular the theory of salient values similarity. Salient values similarity theory is illustrated when two (or more) actors have similar values that are salient to the issue under consideration, and when this happens, those actors are more likely to trust one another rather than strangers or someone who does not have the same values (Cvetkovich and Winter, 2002; 2004). Uslaner and Conley (2003) posit the same theory; that is, that those people who have similar values and come from similar backgrounds will build trust amongst themselves, but probably not with outsiders. In their analysis of trust in intercultural business situations, Child and Möllering (2003) find that people from different cultural backgrounds have difficulty in forming trusting relationships when trying to develop business relationships between companies. Trust research has recently begun in some areas of planning, strategy and policy development in the past several years, but particularly in the field of anthropology. While this is getting closer to the sociological perspective, it still seems to focus on power as a negative influence, in a hierarchical way, rather than the positive aspects of power (Casagrande et al., 2007).

4.1 What is Trust? A dictionary definition can give a broad sense of the meaning of trust, but it does not capture the contextual nature of the whole trust phenomenon. This is because trust is contextualised from many disciplines, including the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, economics and mass media (Kasperson et al., 1992). Each of these fields comprises a wide variety of more specific, contextualised meanings. The sociological context in which trust is being understood in this thesis focuses in particular on trust in social relations (Gilson, 2006) or as a basis for social cohesion and order (Kohring and Matthes, 2007). Trust is also contextual in the sense that it also depends on specific individual experiences – I may trust a particular doctor, but not another based on my individual experiences with them.

~ 79 ~ A number of authors have broadly defined trust as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another (Rousseau et al., 1998; Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005; Möllering, 2005a; Connell and Mannion, 2006; Santos‐Granero, 2007). This definition covers some of the major dimensions of trust and starts to contextualise trust as part of social and interpersonal phenomena, where one party, who is ‘doing’ the trusting, (the trustor) is taking a risk or making a leap of faith or going beyond what one would normally do (Bijlsma‐ Frankema and Costa, 2005: 261) with another party, who is being trusted, (the trustee) with the future expectation that they will fulfil their end of the transaction (Kasperson et al., 1992). While this thesis does not address the idea of trust in the face of ‘outside’ risks, there are some risks inherent in the process of building trust. This distinction between a known or unknown entity brings up the idea of trust needing the trustor to involve themselves in a certain degree of risk or uncertainty (Gilson, 2006). While trust is usually associated with decreasing risk or uncertainty (Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1995), the trustor needs to weigh the risk that they are trying to mitigate with the amount of risk or uncertainty involved in trusting someone to reduce the risk in the first place. If we follow the idea that people who engage in trust relationships have similar values, then the act of trusting someone in that same group is not as risky as it would first appear (Uslaner, 2002). With more knowledge, information or experience around a particular situation, actors and stakeholders are better able to weigh the risks involved and make improved trust decisions, again, usually in their own self‐interest (or in the interest of the groups that they represent).

4.2 Three Different Types of Trust Within the sociological distinction, trust can generally be divided into three distinct types: Calculus‐based trust (CBT), Knowledge‐based trust (KBT) and active trust. Different authors have given these types of trust different names. Table 1 classifies the names of these three types of trust from a variety of the major authors based on the general characteristics that they describe for that particular type of trust. This list in Table 1 is not exhaustive, but it encompasses the major authors used in this thesis. CBT and KBT will be briefly described before going on to discuss active trust in some detail, as it is the focus of this thesis.

~ 80 ~ Depending on the author, these types of trust can be seen as distinct and separate types. Maguire et al. (2001) elaborate that these are distinct but incremental stages of trust beginning with CBT, moving to KBT as the relationship matures and ending up with active trust. While it certainly can be seen from the literature how these types of trust can be stages along the trust path, it will be detailed in Chapter Six – Analysis and Discussion that these types or stages of trust were seen to be quite separate and not a progression. Unlike the previous chapter, there are no examples of these three types of trust from the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy meeting minutes or other documents. This is because, as already explained, trust is about social relationships – how people experienced their relationships with each other and with the institutions and organisations that ‘hosted’ the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. The examples of which types of trust were created during this process and where and how they may have been created will be discussed in Chapter Six ‐ Analysis and Discussion. Where feasible, examples of the different components that are required to create or maintain trust are presented in this chapter. Table 1. Three types of trust, their authors and alternative names

Calculus‐based (Maguire et al., 2001)

trust Knowledge‐based

trust Active

(Maguire et al., 2001)

trust

(Möllering

2005a)

Process‐based trust (Neu, Particularised trust (Uslaner Identification‐based 1991; Möllering 2005b)

trust

and Conley, 2003; Uslaner (Maguire et al., 2001) and Brown, 2005)

Rational trust (Möllering Strategic 2005a)

trust

(Uslaner, Generalised trust (Uslaner,

2002; 2004)

Rational calculative (Swain Characteristic‐based

2002) trust Moral trust (Uslaner, 2002)

and Tait, 2007)

(Möllering 2005a)

Norms (Swain and Tait, Swift trust (Möllering 2005a) 2007)

The three different types of trust that will be discussed, CBT, KBT and active trust, all encompass one or more of the dimensions of trust including predictability, commitment goodwill, reliability, competence, objectivity, truth and fairness. These dimensions of trust need some brief elaboration, as a number of them are seen repeatedly in this study of the Gold Coast Waterfuture project. As demonstrated later, however, these are not the only

~ 81 ~ building blocks of trust. Each will be discussed in terms of how they may apply to each of the three types of trust.

4.2.1 Calculus-Based Trust

Calculus‐based trust (CBT) can be considered the most basic type of trust and is based upon a trustor’s ongoing calculation of the trustee’s predictability, one of the key dimensions of trust. In CBT, all the costs and benefits involved in the relationship are constantly calculated and evaluated by the trustor (Maguire et al., 2001). In addition to calculating the costs and benefits, all the trustor’s knowledge and information from previous interactions as well as expectations from future interactions is integrated in order to build trust (Neu, 1991; Möllering, 2005a). CBT is created, maintained, damaged or destroyed based on the outcomes of these calculations. These calculations also include consideration of incentives, rewards, and punishments for creating, maintaining or damaging the trust relationship (Maguire et al., 2001). In other words, coercion or remunerative control (forms of power) are a major sociological component of calculus‐based trust, akin to a form of contracting (Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1995). This can be seen as a market‐oriented, rationalist economic calculation of the trust relationship; individuals are opportunistic and self‐ interested (Doney et al., 1998) and will only trust if it is in their self‐interest. With predictability being the major or only factor in CBT, it is not actually a strong form of trust. Connell and Mannion (2006) find that the notion of predictability as a sole component does not equate to trust, but rather cooperation. With an admission by Maguire et al. 2001 that power is intimately involved with this form of trust, the question now is how is power seen or exercised in this context. CBT requires the exercise of a modality of power – control ‐ which gives actors a rational basis upon which to build their trust and be able to reflect on their calculations of others (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005). Generally in the context of CBT, the manifestation of control takes the form of contracts. These contracts may and do provide some assurance that the positive expectations of the trustor will be met, a crucial component of trust (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005).

~ 82 ~ Swain and Tait (2007) have found that this type of trust is ‘thin’, and can break down easily. Whether CBT is trust or not, Lewicki and Benedict Bunker (1995) state that CBT is often the starting point for trust relationships, and that these relationships can develop professionally and sequentially, moving from CBT into Knowledge‐based trust (KBT), the next ‘level’ of trust when moving towards the pinnacle, active trust. One of the major differences between CBT and KBT is that KBT is generally free from the use of control or coercion. There may, however, be other, more subtle forms of power operating in KBT. Calculus‐based trust is the first instance where one can see the beginnings of what Swain and Tait (2007) call the crisis of trust – the rise of the rights‐based society. In this scenario, individuals are more concerned with receiving what they feel is due to them and their rights rather than with action and their obligations to society; there is a loss of trust through a widening difference in values and norms (Swain and Tait, 2007). Swain and Tait (2007) do suggest that this can be somewhat reversed through a system of audits to ensure that people’s rights are being fulfilled, although this could improve trust on one hand, it would only be Calculus‐based trust due to contracts and control. O’Neill (2002), however, has found that this redress through audits would actually have the effect of reducing trust, so there may be ‘no way out’ of this situation.

4.2.2 Knowledge-Based Trust Knowledge‐based trust (KBT), like CBT, relies heavily on the predictability of the trustee (Maguire et al., 2001). There is, however, a progression from reliance on incentives and punishments to an increased reliance on information in KBT (Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1995). This increased reliance on information comes from the trustor’s own observational and experiential ‘data’ over time, and particularly a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of the trustee (Maguire et al., 2001; Uslaner, 2002). With incentives and punishments eliminated, and an increased knowledge of the trustee, this may partially eliminate self‐ interest and opportunism, opening up space for goodwill, a second key dimension of trust. Lewicki and Benedict Bunker (1995) go further by stating that regular communication needs to be present, in addition to consistent behaviour and experiences. KBT therefore cannot be generated spontaneously or instantly; it emerges naturally through the increasing interaction and experience of stakeholders engaging in trusting relationships (Maguire et al., 2001).

~ 83 ~ Because we have more interaction and experience with people or groups we already know, KBT has been closely linked to trust in people that we already know, or are a part of our own group, culture, or social group (Neu, 1991; Uslaner, 2002; Uslaner and Conley, 2003; Uslaner, 2004; Uslaner and Brown, 2005). Möllering (2005b) further suggests that this trust may also be due to other similarities between various actors and stakeholders. Lewis and Wiegert (1995) and Connell and Mannion (2006) propose that trust also involves previous knowledge of an actor or an institution, as well as the situation or context surrounding the trust action. Van de Bunt et al. (2005) goes further and states that that the more efficient an individual’s network, the less interest they have in initiating trust relationships outside of that network, keeping trust between people or groups that are already well known to the trustor. A network, as evinced by van de Bunt et al. (2005), is the complex web of interpersonal relationships that any individual has. An efficient network would then be one that has a large number of relationships and is very closely knit. Another purported cause of the crisis of trust perceived by Swain and Tait (2007) is what they call the rise of the pluralistic society. This can be linked to KBT, particularly through Uslaner (2002) and others’ conception of us trusting people we already know or are familiar with. In the pluralistic society there is an increasing variety of interpretations of institutions, norms, customs and values, due to a greater number of personal or group interests. Society then avoids trusting those individuals or groups that do not have the same specific interests as they do (Swain and Tait, 2007). This potentially makes the creation of KBT and active trust more difficult as people revert to CBT and the calculations of what will benefit them or their group. This tendency of actors and stakeholders to stick with and trust similar stakeholders and actors implies that they may not be willing to take on the potentially increased risks involved with trusting strangers (Uslaner and Conley, 2003). At the level of KBT, then, trust can then still be considered a closed affair. This could be considered a mechanism to protect actors and stakeholders from the exercise of power, as ‘others’ may not share the same values, and attempt to exploit them for their own ends (the exercise of power, in a variety of forms) (Uslaner and Conley, 2003). This is the way in which KBT shares characteristics with CBT, in that people will still act in their own self interest, not increasing the amount of risk they may potentially face.

~ 84 ~ Möllering (2005b) brings up the idea of understanding again in this context. KBT is produced through social similarities between actors, which include common understandings. To get to these common understandings and ultimately build trust, there is a need for negotiation to get to a common language so that all individuals can understand each other (Eshuis and von Woerkum, 2003). This can be built through associating with like people or groups, or it may be developed through the on‐going communication and reflection that occurs in active trust, the next level of trust higher than KBT. So, how does one move away from the need for knowing and experiencing the other in a trust relationship to creating active trust from ‘nothing’? Doney et al. (1998) propose a method called transference, where the trustor transfers trust from a known or trusted entity to one that is unknown. Through trusting an institution or institutions, such as norms or customs, this ‘mediator’ can help promote the exchange of information or knowledge (Connell and Mannion, 2006). These institutions can also help bring people together to interact with and ‘experience’ others to be trusting rather than making abstract calculations about them (Möllering, 2006). This is an appropriate point for a short discussion of interpersonal and institutional trust and the role that they play in CBT, KBT and active trust.

4.2.3 Interpersonal and Institutional Trust Interpersonal trust is the trust that can be created between individual human beings, and comes from our early life (parents and upbringing), but is constantly adjusted and refined as we gain experiences throughout life (Mishler and Rose, 1997; Uslaner, 2004). This is one level of trust, while the other grouping is institutional trust. Within each of these levels, one can find all three types of trust (CBT, KBT and active trust). By calling interpersonal and institutional trust two distinct levels, I mean that interpersonal trust is created through tangible relationships ‐‐ one can actually see, feel or communicate with the other party in the relationship. Institutional trust is on an intangible level ‐‐ we know that particular laws, norms or customs are there, they may not be visible, but we are still able to form a relationship with them; however, this is through different means than a tangible relationship. Lewicki and Benedict Bunker’s (1995) perspective on trust is called institutional trust, where institutions are defined as laws, customs and norms. Institutional trust is therefore the trust

~ 85 ~ that people have in these laws, customs and norms (Gilson, 2006), as opposed to an organisation, which is a physical entity (groups, government, etc.). Institutional trust is obviously different from interpersonal trust, but is just as crucial in gaining public support for plans and policies (Winter and Cvetkovich, 2007). However, similar to interpersonal trust, institutional trust is based on people’s experiences and history with particular institutions. Therefore groups or individuals may already have trust in, or distrust of these institutions (Meadowcroft, 2004). Often this trust or distrust of a particular institution is driven by interpersonal trust. We associate the people who are the face of these institutions to the institutions themselves. Institutional trust is therefore important in participatory engagement processes. These processes, whether following universal Habermasian ideals or more contextual Foucauldian critiques, are based on either local, contextual or universal norms, customs or laws. If actors trust the institution(s) behind the setting up of the participatory processes, these institutions become the objects of trust and can then serve as a source of trust between the diverse actors and stakeholders involved (Möllering, 2005a; 2005b). Because participatory engagement processes have been closely linked to active trust, it can be argued that some form of institutional trust is necessary for the development of active trust. If potential participants in a participatory engagement process are to participate, they would want to know that they could trust the organisation and the norms or customs behind the process itself, if they are to give up their time. This again gets back to the issue of self‐ interest ‐‐ they or their group do not trust that they are going to get a benefit out of participating, then the process may collapse due to non‐participation. Institutions such as norms and customs can be a basis of trust between actors and stakeholders because of their high level of ‘taken for grantedness’ – meaning that they enable shared expectations between actors who have no mutual experience with each other (Möllering, 2005c). This is achieved through the shared expectations that come from formal social structures, such as membership in a particular organisation, etc. (Möllering, 2005c). Another cause of the crisis of trust, according to Swain and Tait (2007) is the rise of advanced liberalism. This is related to the current trend towards private management and moving away from public service, where government authorities are divesting themselves of planning and some policy functions and giving them to private enterprise (Swain and Tait,

~ 86 ~ 2007). While this has been happening, we have been assured that because of increased accountability, transparency and audit requirements, everything will continue to function properly. O’Neill (2002) clearly agrees in this respect, that with the increasing audit society, trust will be lost. This is another situation where both the problem and the supposed solution can cause a decrease in trust. One could speculate, however, whether improved community engagement in the planning and policy‐making world could turn around the ‘crisis of trust’ based on the rise of advanced liberalism.

4.2.4 Active Trust Active trust can be considered something of a pinnacle in trust and public participation processes, community engagement and the policy and planning realm, as it is a very strong and robust type of trust (Maguire et al., 2001). Active trust breaks down barriers between sectors or interests, then starting to build new and creative collaborations, reducing risk in new and different ways (Banks et al., 2000) and opening up opportunities to perform truly transdisciplinary work (Ramadier, 2004). Active trust is thus a social construction that is gradually and actively created and built up by the actors or stakeholders involved through processes of continuous communication and reflexive familiarisation (Child and Möllering, 2003; Möllering, 2005a; 2005b; 2006). This suggests that there is a substantial amount of work and effort involved on the part of actors to ensure that this strong type of trust is energetically built and sustained. A concise description of active trust could be outlined as follows. Active trust is a strong form of trust that is produced, intentionally or unintentionally, through a number of means including active participation and the democratisation of expertise; joint problem solving through transparency and openness; perceived reciprocity in the involvement in a problem situation; and rituals, mediation and verbal and non‐verbal expression (Argyris, 1999; Forrester, 1999; Hornig‐Priest, 2005: 295). Some of the roots of active trust can be found in the ideals of participatory engagement where diverse groups of stakeholders are invited to participate. Maguire et al. (2001) assert that active trust does not emerge where there is a single, collective identity, but arises from a number of complementary, different identities. Gilson (2006) also contends that to move towards active trust, organisations will have to include those whose trust they seek in the dialogue, further diversifying the participating stakeholder base. Gold Coast Water

~ 87 ~ recognised this, inviting new people to participate in the process at the first meeting (Gold Coast City Council, 2004g). This suggests that these stakeholders sought and brought together are not and should not be from the same collective identity group. Trust can then be created through new similarities that are discovered or created by stakeholders interacting (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005), or as Maguire et al. (2001) call this, the creation of new identities. This active trust arises from new forms of social or collective solidarity (Banks et al., 2000). Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, (1995: 152) share this theory by describing active trust as trust that is based on a newly created collective identity, involving the creation of joint products or goals. This changing of individual identities must be finely balanced so that participants do not lose the identity that they share with their constituent group or social network (Maguire et al., 2001; Casagrande et al., 2007). What is this changing of identity? This occurs when individual actors or stakeholder groups make small changes to their position or to the compromises that they are willing to accept without betraying the principles or values that they or their constituent group hold. This is done in order to arrive at a palatable or acceptable collective decision. With the idea that active trust emerges from participatory engagement processes and is premised on the creation of a new collective identity, it is now an appropriate time to turn to the important components involved in active trust. Active trust has a number of components that are similar to those involved in the other forms of trust, but some are different. These components that are described come from the literature, which will be applied later in Chapter Six, (Analysis and Discussion), during the analysis of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy interview data. One of the first components is the debate around whether or not actors need to have trust before they are able to start ‘creating’ active trust. Uslaner and Brown (2005) have found that those actors who have trust in other people are more likely to participate in civic engagement exercises, although this is not a prerequisite. These exercises, however, do have some differences from community engagement exercises. Uslaner (2002) defines civic engagement as volunteering for charities, joining community groups, and donating to charities, but does not seem to include active participation in the policy and planning process. There are a number of parallels (often volunteer and community groups are involved in the deliberative process, sometimes one step removed); however, Uslaner and Brown (2005) claim that political activity actually

~ 88 ~ undermines active trust due to its competitive nature, but can contribute to the building of knowledge‐based trust (trust in similar or like‐minded people). In summary, Uslaner (2004) concedes that there is no empirical, significant relationship between trust and civic engagement, but when it does happen, it is always positive. Civic engagement or participatory engagement processes should not be confused or equated with political activity, however, because it is geared towards winning or defeating the opposition, it actually leads to a decline in trust (Uslaner and Brown, 2005). There are other authors (Möllering, 2005a; 2006) that claim the precondition of already having a more traditional form of trust is not necessary for the development of active trust. Möllering (2006) introduces the concept of blind trust, as a basis of active trust. In this scenario, actors are not familiar with each other, and must actively work towards relationship building in order to build and maintain trust through reflexivity and communication (Möllering, 2006: 98). This blind trust is necessary as there is a general lack of familiarity with today’s societies. This lack of familiarity necessitates trust and the only way to start building trust is through blind trust (Möllering, 2006). Blind trust may be involved in institutional trust here because strong participatory engagement processes are not yet commonplace or a norm. Potential actors or stakeholders may have to blindly trust that the process will work.

4.2.4.1 Basic Requirements for Active Trust In addition to the requirements of predictability and goodwill, there are two further requirements for active trust, even before the participants in a participatory engagement process begin to meet, are material support and a strong regulatory framework (Marks, 2006). These logistical and procedural requirements were provided by the Gold Coast Water Waterfuture Strategy project team during the Waterfuture engagement process. A framework for how the participatory process would be undertaken was prepared by Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water and provided to participants in two documents called the “Gold Coast Waterfuture Advisory Committee Information Paper (Gold Coast City Council, 2004a) and the Gold Coast Waterfuture Terms of Reference for Advisory Committee (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.). Further, within this framework, participants were able to collectively decide on how the issues within the scope of the committee would unfold (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i).

~ 89 ~ The material support provided by Gold Coast Water and Gold Coast City Council can be seen mainly as the vast amounts of information were provided by the engineering and consulting firm Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), the ‘independent’ contractor engaged by Gold Coast Water. SKM’s role was to provide information to the committee in a timely manner so that all participants had an improved knowledge about each meeting’s discussions. Further information and clarification was provided as needed to the participants and their constituent groups by any of the project team members – Gold Coast Water, SKM or other contracted entities. Overall administrative and communications support was provided by Gold Coast Water, which included publicising the process and strategy to the public and soliciting their feedback, as well as ensuring that Community Advisory Committee members could get to and from the meetings. A special form of material support that was provided was the opportunity to create relationships outside of the formal meeting space. Gold Coast Water provided a dinner at the mid‐point of each meeting, allowing committee members to meet and socialise in a more relaxed atmosphere.

4.2.4.2 Relationship Building The amount of time that participants spend building relationships is an important aspect of KBT and active trust. Uslaner and Conley (2003) state that the amount of time spent building relationships in civic engagement activities is insufficient to build KBT or active trust. This is certainly relevant when Uslaner (2002) talks of civic engagement, where participants may spend little time in groups, are not likely to discuss civic affairs and don’t have enough in common. These types of situations are also very unlikely to bring actors into contact with relatively unknown actors, and hence will not produce active trust (Uslaner, 2002). In terms of time spent, this is quite different from the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy and other similar public engagement activities, where there were over 17 meetings over a period of one and a half years, with additional smaller groups meeting outside of the formal meetings (Gold Coast City Council, 2006). There were also additional activities, including a day‐long field trip to visit a number of proposed sites and projects and community information days in which some members of the advisory committee participated. On paper, at least, the participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy did not come from the same ‘group’ as Uslaner (2002) defines them. As detailed in Chapter Six, Analysis

~ 90 ~ and Discussion, many of the participants were fairly well known to each other from previous community engagement processes or professional contact. Many of them also had backgrounds in the water industry and in general, the participants all had one very important thing in common, which was the development of a sustainable water supply on the Gold Coast for them, their children and grandchildren. Gold Coast Water, in providing dinner during each of the meetings, provided a second, contrasting type of time together for the participants. Each approximately four hour meeting was broken up by a dinner break in the middle. During this break, the members of the advisory committee were able to discuss committee related business in a more relaxed, informal and social atmosphere. This was also a time when they could discuss other things not related to the Waterfuture Strategy, and begin to build relationships with each other. Anecdotal stories also suggest that many of the committee members would arrive early for the meetings in order to discuss issues with each other, the Project Team or engage in other social activities, further strengthening their relationships with each other. While the participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee subjectively appear to have had plenty of appropriate time to form social relationships and develop commonalities, (contra Uslaner’s 2002 view), there are other instances where trust can be developed very quickly. This trust that can be developed very quickly is what Möllering (2006) calls swift trust, and is a form of active trust. This swift trust, as a type of active trust, allows actors to work together on short term projects, and is partially explained by CBT, KBT and active trust (Möllering, 2005a). Briefly, the ways in which swift trust can be explained by each of these types of trust include the need to continually communicate with each other, actively reflecting on what needs to be accomplished (active trust). Very quickly, the actors involved in a swift trust situation become familiar with each other and their working styles. This may provide the experience necessary for another individual to trust (KBT). When all else fails, because swift trust is usually found in a project situation, there are often contracts that stipulate incentives for quick completion or sanctions for failure to complete the project or milestones (CBT). The amount of time spent together has implications for a number of the other components that build active trust. First, as actors spend more time together, they start to have increasing shared experiences, which allow trust to be conceived and continually built upon (Möllering, 2005b). Second, time is a factor in the taking on of a new identity. As actors and

~ 91 ~ stakeholders communicate and reflect on the positions that are presented, they will come to take on a new identity. Third, although from a slightly different perspective, time is a factor in cooperation when working in groups. Cooperation can be considered a component in taking on a new identity, a key part of active trust (Uslaner and Brown, 2005). With cooperation, actors will begin to forego their opportunism, and begin to share each others’ understandings and expectations and work together in the common best interest, creating active trust (Maguire et al., 2001; Möllering, 2006). These shared understandings are a key component in public participation and community engagement activities ‐‐ one major goal is to at least foster a deeper understanding of other actors’ positions. This in itself starts to build trust amongst the participants.

4.2.4.3 Active Trust, Communication, Knowledge and Understanding One way in which knowledge and understanding is transmitted is through communication, both verbal and non‐verbal. Communication and dialogue are key components in the creation of both active trust and distrust (Koehn, 1998) and associated decision‐making practices (Gilson, 2006). Communication and dialogue does two things in the creation of trust. First, it begins to build relationships through direct interaction between actors and stakeholders; secondly, it starts to promote shared interests, which is one of the bases for trust in social psychology (Gilson, 2006). Additionally, the continuous, ongoing and open nature of this communication promotes the creation of active trust (Möllering, 2006). One of the communication‐based ideas that helps create a basis for the establishment of trust is Young’s (1995) concept of greeting. Culturally relevant politeness, differential behaviour and body language are just some of the communicative bases for establishing trust (Kliger and Cosgrove, 1999), while any cultural and social obstacles to appropriate communication actually undermine trust (Rolin, 2002). The overt promotion and or advancement of special interests, in direct contradiction to Habermasian principles, have also been seen to undermine the creation and maintenance of trust (Fossato, 2001). There are two further possibilities that are put forth with this aspect of communication: first, trust is created through a collective consensus on the standards of communication (Rolin, 2002). Second, the idea raised in the previous chapter that the use of a trained facilitator to ensure that there is ‘translation’ between all parties and that all parties are able to communicate their message aid in the creation of active trust. This can be seen through the work of the

~ 92 ~ committee chair, who ensured that everyone had their say, but was also able to clarify or elaborate on information where necessary for understanding. Just as different types of knowledge and to some extent quantity of knowledge improve participatory processes, knowledge improves understanding and trust between actors and stakeholders (Banks et al., 2000). When actors either already have higher levels of knowledge or gain increased knowledge about a subject or other actors involved, trust levels generally tend to rise (Uslaner, 2002). Multi‐cultural settings, particularly in business, have shown that trust is difficult to create and maintain in these intercultural settings, due to a lack of understanding or knowledge of each other’s cultures and cultural practices (Child and Möllering, 2003; Bolognesi, 2006). Active trust is very similar to intercultural trust in several ways. Firstly, participants generally do not initially know the backgrounds and values of the other participants. As participants work constantly towards understanding through communication, spending time together and sharing experiences, in this case through a public participation or community engagement process, relationships are formed and active trust is created (Möllering, 2006). The provision of knowledge can be divided into two separate categories – lay knowledge and expert knowledge. There is a distinct connection between people’s trust in experts and the emotional connection that they have to those experts (Fossato, 2001). This seems to connect directly to the faith (an emotional connotation) that people put in those experts being ‘right’ (Kasperson et al., 1992) as well as how the experts present that information – the ideas of eloquence and charisma that was presented in the previous chapter in the discussion of legitimacy. On the other hand, by having contradictory or conflicting information presented by both experts and lay people, a variety of views are presented. Trust may then be enhanced by allowing citizens to look at this broader perspective and engage in reflexive practice, another key element of active trust (Munnichs, 2004). This variety of knowledges is seen to a certain extent in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, where individual members brought and shared their own knowledge and experiences in addition to the expert technical knowledge presented by the Project Team.

4.2.4.4 Reflexivity: Creator or Destroyer of Active Trust?

~ 93 ~ Reflexivity is a significant component in the creation of active trust. Reflexivity, according to Foucault (1990: 98), is a “theme of the flesh” where individuals use different forms of discourse, such as self‐examination, questioning, admissions, interpretation and interviews on the knowledge that they previously had, as well as new knowledge from other sources. This reflexivity can be seen in the development of active trust as extensive communication, interaction and interpretation by the actors or stakeholders. In other words, reflexivity can be seen as the on‐going interactions between the actors or stakeholders (Möllering, 2006). Reflexivity, as a sort of summary of all of the components of active trust, still does not constitute the whole of active trust. Möllering (2006: 106) states that there is “an important missing element which captures the true essence of all types of trust that makes it a unique phenomenon ….” This important missing element is what Möllering (2006: 102) and others refer to as a “suspension of reflexivity” or a leap of faith. Reflexivity can be tied to two of the other components of active trust, communication and the creation of new identities. Möllering (2006: 99) states that “Familiarity has to be continuously and reflexively created through familiarisation produced by open and even intimate communication. This is the building of social relationships between actors and stakeholders as they communicate and reflect on their and others’ communication and words. Maguire et al. (2001) claim that active trust is created when actors and stakeholders are actively constructing themselves and others. This involves reflecting on their and others’ positions and adjusting their position to more accurately reflect themselves in light of other stakeholder’s positions or new knowledge. Gilson (2006: 369) also states that “Trusting relationships are the product of deliberate and reflexive strategies such as education, mentoring and supervision.” Reflexive practice or reflexivity, however is claimed by Swain and Tait (2007) to actually reduce levels of trust in participants. Swain and Tait (2007) state that the underlying causes of reflexivity reducing levels of trust emerge from the rise of the Risk Society, noting that reflexivity allows actors to think of and highlight new areas and higher levels of risk. This, in turn, erodes the foundations of trust. While this may be true in the hierarchical planning systems that Swain and Tait (2007) discuss, there is substantial evidence that it is quite the contrary in participatory engagement processes. In this case, reflexivity is the opportunity to reflect on the positions, stances and ideas of the other actors and formulate a response. This response may be a

~ 94 ~ further argument attempting to rebut the other position or it may be a response where the actor or stakeholder modifies their position slightly, starting to take on a new identity. As with a number of Swain and Tait’s (2007) arguments, they concern highly contextualised issues, but are presented as a universal. The idea of reflexivity being contextual relates back to issue number two in the debates around Communicative Action and Communicative Democracy, universalism vs. contextualism. Universal inferences are not reflective of what is actually happening. Contextual information is required to best understand the situation and provide the most ‘true’ picture of what is actually happening.

4.2.4.5 Leap of Faith Earlier, the idea of confidence was seen to have some relation to trust. There are two main ideas linking confidence to trust. The first has to do with the relationship that trust has with participatory engagement processes, particularly marginalised groups and their participation in engagement processes. When marginalised groups or people in participatory processes become discouraged or frustrated and finally give up (loss of confidence) when faced with dominant groups, there is a decrease in trust in the process (Young, 1995). Institutions, while generally improving the prospects for trust, may have the opposite effect with marginalised communities and groups, as they may increase the risks for these communities by ignoring their claims, leading to distrust (Checker, 2007). The second way in which confidence can relate to all types of trust is through the ideas of belief, culminating in what Möllering (2001; 2005a; 2006) calls the ‘leap of faith’. Confidence could be generally thought of as being able to rely on or have faith in something or someone. For example, one could say that they have confidence in science to solve issues of drought. This would suggest that one has faith or is relying on science to come up with a solution to drought. While this is different from trust, trust and confidence are linked in a type of feedback loop, where confidence (faith) is needed in order to trust someone or something; trust then builds confidence (faith) in larger social entities (Cook and Gronke, 2005). Needing confidence or faith before committing to trust reveals itself through the idea of the ‘leap of faith’.

~ 95 ~ The leap of faith is an essential component of all types of trust that has been downplayed, taken for granted or even overlooked in most work on trust to date (Möllering, 2001; 2005a; 2006). This leap of faith is needed to, in the ideas of Simmel, ‘leap across’ a gorge between interpretation and expectation (Möllering, 2001). As this implies, the leap of faith cannot be made from nowhere to anywhere – we start from where our interpretation of the knowledge and context of the situation has led us, and ‘leap’ to where we have placed our expectations (Möllering, 2001). As trust is a mechanism to deal with uncertainty and vulnerability, the leap of faith is the way in which we deal with the irreducible vulnerability; the vulnerability that cannot be eliminated through information or knowledge (Möllering, 2005a). To pause and clarify a few terms, Möllering (2001) defines interpretation as our experiences as humans that give us the basis for trust; suspension is another term for the leap of faith and the defining aspect of trust; and expectation is the state that we reach at the ‘end’ of a trust cycle. While others may call trust a process, it is more accurate to call it a cycle, as once we have reached the either favourable or unfavourable expectation after the leap of faith, this becomes an addition on to our interpretation for the next iteration of the trust cycle – our experiences this time around influence whether we will take the leap of faith the next time, and trust (Möllering, 2001). This demonstrates the idea that past experience contributes to our ability to trust and is compatible with the idea of the leap of faith. Søren Kirkegaarde ([1843] 1983), writing under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, first brings up this idea of the leap of faith in a rather dark way with the story of Abraham having to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham has this, what some may call irrational thought that while he is prepared to sacrifice Isaac, God will make sure that everything turns out right in the end. There is nothing logical to base this thought on, there is no information or knowledge to indicate this situation will be any different from any other sacrifice, yet Abraham has this faith that God will ensure that all turns out well at the end. Putting the leap of faith into more modern and secular terms, Möllering (2006) and other authors term it suspension or bracketing. Reason and knowledge can only go so far in creating trust. Actors and stakeholders manage to live with these gaps and missing information and simply have to ‘suspend’ reason and take the leap (Möllering, 2005c; 2006). According to Möllering (2006), this suspension is where uncertainty and vulnerability are

~ 96 ~ treated as if they are not a problem. This is similar to Abraham and Isaac. As Kirkegaard ([1843] 1983) explains, Abraham was about to carry through with the sacrifice of Isaac as if everything would be all right, even though he was troubled by the thought of sacrificing his son. Having explained the leap of faith to some extent (for a detailed explanation and analysis, see Möllering 2006, Chapter Five), we should ask the question “Where does the ability to take this leap of faith come from?” Briefly, in sociological terms, Giddens (1990) claims that this suspension or ability to suspend reason is learned in infancy through the experience of parents’ love and closeness alternated with their temporary distance. The faith that an infant/child has in the return of their parents becomes the basis for the leap of faith in trust. With this ability to make suspension decisions ingrained in us so deeply from infancy, these decisions may not be made consciously, but they are made willingly and therefore involve agency (Möllering, 2006). The leap of faith and one’s willingness to either take it on or not relates to Gambetta’s (1998) statement that cool, analytical and impartial actors generate distrust. This leap of faith, as Möllering (2006), claims is ‘beyond’ the point where rational thought stops; therefore these cool, analytical actors are either not willing or able to take this final step in entering a trusting relationship. While this does not necessarily mean that they create distrust, this would come after a number of similar experiences now based on negative expectations. The actor would engender distrust because they have shown over time that they are unwilling to trust other.

4.3 Participatory Engagement and Trust There are a number of aspects related to trust that link closely with participatory engagement processes in policy and planning. The issues with trust brought up in the previous chapter, including whether trust is needed for actors to participate in the first place, trust and legitimacy, three key aspects of the Communicative Action/Communicative Democracy debate and the apparent dichotomy between the need for accountability and transparency in participatory engagement processes and its contribution to a decrease in trust will all be discussed.

~ 97 ~ There is the possibility that actors and stakeholders would need to have institutional trust before they are willing to participate in a participatory engagement process. As Olsson et al. (2004) found, trust is crucial in that it allows for collaboration. If actors and stakeholders are going to come together to engage in developing policies and plans, they will need to have some trust. Because they will most likely be unfamiliar with the other stakeholders, interpersonal trust will not be present, but institutional trust will need to be present. Mishler and Rose (1997) and Maguire et al. (2001) have found just this – institutional trust is a required element in order to have actors participate in participatory engagement processes. Trust is also linked to participatory engagement processes through communication. Several authors (Hajer, 2003; Möllering, 2006) support this by stating that dialogue based communication builds up trust during participatory engagement in policy and planning. These claims that discourse and deliberation create trust, coupled with Uslaner and Conley’s (2003) KBT (particularised trust) where actors trust similar or familiar actors, suggest that groups who do not communicate in the same manner may not be trusted. Because they are different, some groups may not be willing to trust other groups who do not communicate the same way they do. This problem, however, may be mitigated through reflexivity in active trust. By ensuring active communication with actors rather than being caught up in bureaucratic minutiae (control), trust has been successfully built in a community devised and run wetlands project in Sweden (Hahn et al., 2006). Through this exercise of building knowledge and trust between actors and organisations, the local legitimacy of the institution has been established and increased (Hahn et al., 2006). This raises one of the possible tensions between participatory engagement processes and trust. Lawrence (2004) describes in detail how participatory processes need to have extensive mechanisms in place to ensure accountability and transparency. O’Neill (2002) however, presents arguments that this accountability and transparency actually decreases trust. Lawrence (2004) highlights the needs that are ‘imposed’ on governments and other organisers in order to ensure that public money is spent appropriately (many of these participatory processes are set up or funded by the government). These auditing mechanisms – openness, transparency and accountability are considered key components of

~ 98 ~ the legitimacy of not only the process, but the frameworks behind them (Lawrence, 2004). Beck (1999) finds that institutional legitimacy rests largely on actors, stakeholders and the general public having trust in them. So, legitimacy requires openness, transparency, accountability and trust. These requirements of openness, transparency and accountability are similar to contracts being imposed on the actors and stakeholders who undertake these participatory engagement processes, resonating with calculus‐based trust, where there are contracts and provisions for sanctions should the desired outcome not eventuate, and there are strong ties to control. O’Neill (2002) likens accountability to control, a modality of power and component of calculus‐based trust. The control‐trust dimension will be described and explained in the next chapter on power. An additional issue around trust and accountability relates to the truthfulness and validity of the information being provided under these auditing schemes. O’Neill (2002) states that we need good information to make our judgements as to whether to trust or not. If the information that we receive is not ‘good’, this will affect our judgement around trust. Sometimes this information is purposefully not good or deceptive (manipulation) ‐‐ as society increases the number of checks and balances on people and organisations in the name of transparency and accountability, there will always be those who will attempt to, and successfully circumvent the checks and balances and deceive others, leading to distrust. O’Neill (2002: 72‐3) sums this up by stating that transparency does not reduce deception, but may actually increase it, leading to greater distrust. O’Neill’s (2002) argument about transparency seems overstated. In today’s knowledge society, people are increasingly aware of the myriad of knowledge and information available to them, including awareness of what is happening around them in their communities. They can thus see what previously may not have been apparent. It could be argued that people today are therefore more equipped to see that institutions and the processes they spawn are trustworthy precisely because they are open, transparent and accountable, which could be considered expectations. These processes positively meet people’s expectations simply by being open, transparent and accountable, resulting in the development of trust in the process itself. People are equally able to see that the people ‘fronting’ or running these

~ 99 ~ processes may be trying to push their own agenda by finding ways around the audit mechanisms in place, hence distrusting them. Rather than a hierarchical, state‐centred planning and policy process, the idea of actually actively engaging community actors and stakeholders in the planning and policy‐making process may actually improve trust. This type of situation, where a diverse cross‐section of community actors and stakeholders are able to meet and communicate openly about their positions, provide new or different knowledge, all while working towards a common goal, is conducive to the creation of trust, and in particular active trust.

4.4 Conclusion This chapter has introduced the three major types of trust seen as a continuum along a ‘ladder of strength’ from Calculus‐based trust (the weakest type of trust) to active trust (the strongest type of trust). In attempting to draw out some of the ways in which active trust is closely linked with participatory engagement processes the chapter has identified active trust as characteristic of the process itself and as an outcome of the process. In terms of the process itself, the literature that demonstrates that active trust is the major form of trust that emerges from participatory engagement processes has been highlighted. Yet similar to the participatory engagement literature, the trust literature has very little mention of any of the processes whereby trust is created rather than a general outcome. The chapter has also discussed some of the debates about trust and distrust and how these relate to participatory engagement processes. Namely, reflexivity is cited as a cause in the decline of trust, and yet it is necessary for the creation and maintenance of active trust. Accountability, transparency and openness are all major characteristics of participatory engagement processes, yet they have been found to lead to a decline in trust. Is it possible to reconcile these two issues? Zhang and Chia (2003) summarise the majority of these possible causes of the decline in and subsequent crisis of trust as an underlying lack of trust in the entire political system. This may be indicative of the lack of a representative democracy being able to find a best solution to planning problems. In which case, perhaps it is genuinely time to test a system of participatory democracy, which allows civil society to directly participate in the creation of plans and policies.

~ 100 ~ Reflexivity is very important in the development of active trust (or distrust in a negative sense) for several reasons. Not only is it an important component of both participatory engagement processes and in the creation of active trust, it is also something that mediates and allows people to change their identity. Reflexivity changes the point at which people then start to make their leap of faith – it could be considered the rational thinking portion in developing active trust. Trust is seen as crucial in the areas of risk, vulnerability and planning and policy relations with government (Beck, 1992; Winter and Cvetkovich, 2000), but has been overlooked in discussions of power. Trust and power have a number of overlapping areas, especially through their sociological ‘roots’ where they are both constituted through social relationships. Trust is also an adjunct to power, as Koehn (1998) claims that trust is an alternative to a code of ethics (which works in equal power situations) where there are large asymmetries of power. There is the sense, in a number of disciplines related to and including planning, that trust is simply assumed to be silently created or ‘just there’ in community engagement. Doubly, as most researchers and practitioners do not look at the underpinning or undermining of trust by power in participatory engagement practices, both are again silenced. Once this silence is exposed and planning practitioners, academics and policy‐makers realize that these interactions are taking place (but not necessarily visible from a narrow, mono‐disciplinary view), the entire planning and policy‐making community can work towards contextual improvements to participatory engagement practices in the way or ways that work best in their particular situation. Koehn (1998) reminds us that just because one of the parties involved in an active trust relationship may have failed to fulfil one of these dimensions of trust, it does not mean that trust is automatically destroyed, nor is distrust immediately created. Active trust is a more resilient and strong type of trust than either CBT or KBT. Several issues need to be taken into account. We need to critically examine the trustor’s expectations and the context of the situation. The expectations may have been near impossible to meet, while the trustee made all possible efforts to meet them. This is where components such as consistency and goodwill become important factors – has the trustee consistently failed to meet expectations or is this a first occurrence? Does the trustor recognise the trustee’s efforts to

~ 101 ~ meet the positive expectations and therefore goodwill becomes a key factor in the creation or continuation of trust? If it is a first occurrence, then there is a much more reasonable expectation that people will exercise their goodwill and continue to trust. Should it be a recurring event, then the goodwill may soon become exhausted, and no trust will be created or maintained. This would suggest that goodwill is definitely a factor in the continuation of trust.

~ 102 ~

Chapter Five: Power 5.0 Introduction The previous chapters have alluded to the idea that the literature on participatory engagement is concerned with accounting for the presence or absence of power in participatory engagement processes. Additionally there is debate around the use of power as a methodological tool for critically analysing participatory engagement processes. It will be further argued that there is a paucity of attention paid to trust in participatory engagement processes. There has been the further argument that the trust literature looks at trust in many different ways, but found that even the sociological perspective, seems to omit that power is involved in the creation and maintenance of trust. Drawing on the previous two chapters, this chapter will argue that power has a great number of connections to the creation and maintenance of trust between both individuals and on an institutional level in participatory engagement processes that involve policy or planning. In much of the participatory engagement literature surveyed and analysed in this thesis, there is the acknowledgement of the existence of power, but its effects are downplayed or ignored completely. In the third understanding of participatory engagement processes as proposed by Hannah Arendt, power plays a central role and its positive uses are harnessed. Methodologically, power is left out of one side of the debate between Critical Action theorists and critical realists. While not highlighted in this thesis, in much of the literature on trust, trust is related to the mitigation and management of risk and reducing uncertainty and vulnerability. In most cases, power is overlooked as playing a role in trust, and in particular the role that various modalities of power play in the creation and maintenance of trust, and distrust. These different modalities of power appear to play a key role in tying public engagement processes to trust, but again in this respect, are overlooked. Modalities of power would appear to be the threads that tie the components of participatory engagement processes to the development and maintenance of trust or distrust. The way in which this can be seen is through a spatial or networked theory of

~ 103 ~ power, where tangible and intangible ‘things’ called resources are mobilised in order to exercise a particular modality of power. Power in its various modalities plays a role in all types of trust, from the weakest type to even the strongest type. In Calculus‐based trust (CBT), more ‘negative’ modalities of power are at work through the system of sanctions and rewards. Some of these modalities still reflect the stereotypical image of power as the “crude face of domination” (Davis, 2006: 33). The networked or spatial theory of power, however, seems to highlight the more positive aspects and attributes of power and is becoming more accepted through the work of Foucault (1990), Allen (2003), Manns and Castells (as synthesised by Allen, 2003). These authors break power down into its various modalities, including negotiation, persuasion and seduction but still retain negative modalities such as manipulation or domination (Allen, 2003). Each of these modalities of power, and others, are exercised through the mobilisation or use of resources – these resources, in the context of this work are for the most part, components of participatory engagement processes, with the end result being either the creation or maintenance of trust or the creation or maintenance of distrust amongst stakeholders involved. Each of the major components of good participatory engagement practices discussed in Chapter Three will be discussed demonstrating how they can be considered resources to be mobilised in the exercise of power, resulting in trust or distrust. Although somewhat disputed as a component of participatory engagement processes and as a pre‐requisite for trust, trust can also be seen as a resource to be mobilised in the exercise of power to create further trust or distrust. Some components of a theoretical model of the interactions between participatory engagement practices, power and trust will be introduced. The work linking power with participatory engagement practices and trust has at least two major difficulties. The first is a methodological challenge that manifests itself through each individual’s various perceptions of what each modality of power involves. Hence, what modality or modalities of power that are actually exercised in individual circumstances can vary dramatically between individuals. This also goes for trust and individual perceptions of how it is formed, as discussed in the previous chapter.

~ 104 ~ The second and more crucial challenge to be introduced here is to actually analyse the relationship between power, trust and participatory engagement processes. The subsequent chapter analysing the interview data will go into greater detail of how the literature, subjective interpretations of it and the data collected enhance the importance of understanding the role of power.

5.1 What is Power? Power has many different notions and meanings that depend on the context of the situation and the individual(s) involved. Power has been explained in various ways by numerous authors, ranging from a quantitatively determined capacity to an unquantifiable medium that is “everywhere and nowhere at the same time” (Allen, 2003). With such variation in the concepts or ideas of power, one single definition that encompasses all contexts is not possible (Lukes, 1986). In the following paragraphs some of these bases will be described and explained. Lukes (1974) notes that the fundamental notion of power is that an actor is able to do something significant or affect another in a significant way. Lukes (1974) further enumerates several possible outcomes from ‘power’: one, that they can further the interests of the already powerful (elites); two, the powerful (elites) may do something that is against their own interests; and three, the powerful (elites) may serve the interests of others. The first and third possibilities are seen (anecdotally) in the realm of politics and government today. An example of where the powerful further the interests of the powerful could include where their paid lobbyists are involved in and contribute to strong public participation and community engagement events. Their interests would be furthered in processes where government has devolved some or most of their power to the participatory process that the lobbyists are involved in. In these understandings of power, there are a number of scholars of power that see power as a quantifiable capacity. This concept of power as a quantifiable capacity has its origins in the works of Thomas Hobbes, where he describes power as a common medium that shares the attributes of strength, eloquence, and riches (Hindess, 1996), all of which are traits that are quantifiable to some degree. Proponents of this view include Weber, Dahl (in some of his writings), and Mills (Hindess, 1996). In a general sense of power, Mills states “By the

~ 105 ~ powerful, we mean those who are able to realise their will, even if others resist it.” When Hobbes goes on to suggest that power is the pursuit and realisation of particular goals (Hindess, 1996), this wording suggests that the possession of this capacity or these attributes is something tangible and quantifiable. By having more power, an individual or group would be able to realise an increased number of goals or objectives, putting them ahead of others. The idea of power as something that can be held, distributed or have a surplus of is a very simplified, quantitative view of power (Parsons, 1986; Allen, 2003) that is espoused by theorists such as Weber, Dahl and Mills (Hindess, 1996). There is however, another view about power, that it is something that cannot be held, but can be exercised (Dahl, 1986). Other theorists including Foucault and Machiavelli support this by claiming that power cannot acquired, seized or shared, nor does it belong to anyone (Foucault, 1990; Seini, 2003). Hindess (1996) states clearly that which many scholars of power seem to agree with – that power has a variety of ‘heterogeneous bases’ which make it difficult (or impossible) to quantify. Still using the thought that power is where someone can do something significant to another, older notions of power centre on the state and sovereignty, where sovereignty can be defined as the legitimate power to achieve territorial, legal and resource objectives (Heywood, 1997). A privilege of sovereign power, in the past, was to determine life and death of citizens (Foucault, 1990). When Foucault states life and death, it does not imply that violence or the granting or taking of a real life, it simply means that the state retained the power to direct all aspects of each citizen’s life. The idea of sovereign power evolved into the notion of state power, which was established through the normalisation of knowledge and property (Seini, 2003: 86), and its shaping of people’s ability or inability to exercise power (Clegg, 1989). However, there are various ideas and modalities of power that are employed on many different levels and forms that go beyond the state (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). Also emerging from the sovereign state idea of power, there is often the view that power is limited to the modality of domination (Weber, 1986). This is where power is often seen as something that oppressive, all encompassing and has constant supervision, to name a few descriptors. Domination has been closely linked to authority, another special modality of power that can have negative connotations, and together they can be seen as a smothering presence or blanket constraint on people’s freedom (Allen, 2003; 2004). Domination has

~ 106 ~ been seen as the strong or elites imposing their will or desires on the weak (Allen, 2003), with the interests of the elites furthered (or realised) at the expense of someone else (Allen, 2003). This relates to what was previously mentioned, where elites can exercise power over others through serving their interests or the interests of other elites. Domination, however, is not a ‘one way street’. The ‘dominated’ also participate through internalising their inferior identity and the low valuation assigned to them by the dominator (Plumwood, 1993). Even in these post‐modern times, state apparatus are still primarily oriented towards government by domination rather than government by consent, and these dominating systems will continue to be built, as actors have been historically conditioned to this mode of operation (Gledhill, 1994). This cycle of ‘domination building’ can be changed through changing social or political circumstances (Gledhill, 1994). Although, with politics often comprised of elites, this political change can be a difficult task. Gledhill (1994) attributes this as being partially due to the weak links between the state apparatus and civil society. The inclusion of civil society in/through participatory engagement processes, however, may be a small crack in the ‘domination cycle’ through the strengthening of relationships and eventually trust between state apparatus and civil society. By focusing on relations (and conflict) and power, this may be an effective departure for the fight against domination (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). As something that cannot be held, Parsons (1986) brings about the idea that power is a medium that mobilizes commitment or obligation for effective action, which ties it closely to both participatory processes and trust. The first way in which this is seen is through networks which are necessary for power to be exercised and are based on trust (Allen, 2003). The second way has to do with Parsons’ conception of commitment or obligation. Commitment has been identified by some of the interviewees from the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee as a component of trust – when actors are committed to the full course of the participatory process, they have more opportunity to create social relationships, learn, understand, provide their own knowledge and build trust. This idea of commitment will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter, Analysis and Discussion. In turning briefly to Foucault, power is not an institution, structure or strength, nor is it about institutions, mechanisms, modes of subjugation or domination, power comes from

~ 107 ~ everywhere, not solely a central point, however, power is not in everything around us (Foucault, 1990; Gledhill, 1994; Allen, 2004). Foucault’s conception of power is that of a ‘structure of actions’ – it is the actions of individuals that determine ‘power’ (Hindess, 1996). As social relationships involve actions, social relationships therefore involve strategies of power (Gledhill, 1994). Power relations are the effects of “divisions, inequalities and disequilibria of all relationships” (Foucault, 1990: 94). If we then move to using Mann and Castell’s conception of networks and power, there is the mobilization of both tangible and non‐tangible resources along a network that produces power as an effect, rather than something that can be held (Allen, 2003). The power is not something that is generated at any one point, nor can it actually flow through the networks, hence, again it cannot be something held (Allen, 2003). Litfin (1994) proposes a spectrum of power relations that also suggests this idea of negative and positive in the modalities of power. Her spectrum of power relations starts with force, where there is no choice to act, then coercion, where there are threats made (Litfin, 1994: 18). Manipulation, which is action by deceit, then authority as the legal or moral right to impose to persuasion which is accomplished by evidence and argumentation (Litfin, 1994: 18) follow along this spectrum from more negative to more positive. How power is used comes down to whether power is seen as a quantifiable or non‐ quantifiable medium. The quantifiable notion of power is seen as a very simple view of power, but does give a good introduction to the power modality domination, most transparently through the idea of a state or sovereign power, a quantifiable form of power used to control territory, resources and/or the lives of citizens. However, an idea central to this thesis, is that power can also be considered a non‐ quantifiable medium including the mobilisation of commitment, obligation or other resources. This networked theory of power introduces the important notions of modalities of power, specifically the ways in which it can be exercised and how power may be classified (Allen, 2003). Modalities of power can therefore generally be seen as the way in which power is exercised. Following the general conception of power, where power can be seen as being able to do something significant or affect another in a significant manner (Lukes, 1974), there are any

~ 108 ~ number of ways in which this can be achieved. As an example, if we are trying to get someone to do something we want, we could simply tell the other person what they are going to do, we could conceal certain aspects or information in order to get the other to do something we want, we could use information and arguments to convince them to do this, or we could suggest something to pique their curiosity to do what is desired. In each of these ways or means to do something significant or affecting another in a significant manner, there are different ways in which power is exercised. In this thesis, each of these different ways of exercising power is considered as a modality of power. These modalities have been categorised following Allen (2003), into negative and positive ways. They are further described in the following section, with a summary presented in Chapter 6.

5.2 Negative Modalities of Power There are different forms of power, but there are also different modalities of how power is actually exercised – these modalities and their effects are often forgotten (Allen, 2003). These different modalities are distinguished by the effect that they are trying to achieve, as well as the conditions required for their exercise, i.e. spatiality (proximity and distance) or specific resources (Allen, 2003). Whatever the requirements, these modalities still establish their presence through social relationships, and not as something imposed by someone or something else (Allen, 2003; 2004). What then are the different modalities of power? There are more modalities of power than will be looked at here, but these are some of the most common ones, and so serve as good examples of what other modalities could be. Based on the work of Litfin (1994), these are negative modalities of power that are exercised, generally leaving a negative or unpleasant effect on others. The modalities including domination, authority, control, coercion (and inducement) and manipulation are examples of where these modalities, when exercised, have an overwhelming tendency to leave a negative feeling (Allen, 2003).

5.2.1 Domination Domination as a modality of power comes from a hierarchical, vertical conception of power as something that can be held and where one’s will is imposed on the actions of others (Allen, 2003). Weber (1978: 946) defines domination as “domination will thus mean the situation in which the manifested will (command) of the ruler or rulers is meant to influence

~ 109 ~ the conduct of one or more others (the ruled) … looked upon from the other end, this situation can be called obedience.” The characteristics that help define domination include an inequality in the relationship between actors (hierarchical relationship with some degree of imposition and constraint present) (Allen, 2003: 27‐8). The other core characteristics of domination, according to Allen (2003) are close discipline, continuous control and supervision. Some of these characteristics of domination may be seen in Calculus‐based trust, particularly where there may be continuous monitoring or supervision to ensure that contracts are being upheld.

5.2.2 Authority Similar to domination, authority has some negative connotations. Authority is a special modality of power that has been defined by Parsons (1986) as the right to exercise power and can only be lent to those that exercise it (Allen, 2003). This right would have been conferred through universal norms around higher education and educational credentials. Only those that either had or claimed to have greater knowledge or expertise were lent the ability to exercise authority through their knowledge. This modality of power has relied on episteme, or scientific and analytic knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2006b). This modality of power, however, can easily be ‘refused’ to people that may wish to exercise it, based on the knowledge, information, experiences or values of others (Allen, 2003). In the enlightenment, Bacon claimed that knowledge leads to power (Seini, 2003), however, with the advent of knowledge being much more available to those who are inclined to learn it, there then appear to be multiple points of authority, which then include governments, non‐governmental organisations (NGOs), private agencies and individuals themselves (Allen, 2003). This would appear to lend credence to the fact that authority is a mode of power that is only lent; lent to the individual or organization that appears to have the most legitimate knowledge. With the exercise of power still often predicated on the use of knowledge (Seini, 2003), there is some truth to this: Access to specific knowledge is still privileged for a time, but often others are able to access it soon after. This would suggest that the exercise of power through knowledge is only a temporary phenomenon.

~ 110 ~ Expert systems have been normalized as the dominant way of knowing and owning, while rationalizing and legitimizing action taken against other ways of knowing (Seini, 2003). Technical expertise and the authority associated with it is used to rationalize policy and the legitimization of power (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). While authority can be seen as something relegated to experts, with the opening up of knowledge and information, it is now a norm or modality of power that lay people can use to challenge these expert systems (Parsons, 1986). Often experts may have more knowledge about a subject, but this may be a more general knowledge, while citizens and lay people have extensive local and contextual knowledge. Munnichs (2004) suggests that the variety of knowledges and discussion/debates that surround them contribute to greater trust. This variety of knowledges where citizens are able to challenge expert authority also contributes to improved outcomes in participatory engagement practices through providing contextual information that may be lacking in ‘official’ realms, in addition to providing different perspectives that may lead to greater understanding of the situation by participants. With the explosion of new technologies of communication and information dissemination, knowledge that was once the domain of a privileged few is now accessible to a much wider audience. The internet, as one example, has an added benefit in providing a wide range of views, different sides of the argument or different knowledges. With even lay people armed with this information as well as their own experiences, they are able to exercise their own authority while challenging that of the experts. Participatory engagement processes, particularly if Habermasian principles are used, theoretically allow participants to use their own arguments and knowledge to persuade others rather than relying on expert authoritative power (McCoy and Scully, 2002). This is an example of where a more negative modality of power (authority) can be transformed into a potentially more positive modality (persuasion), resulting in better and more inclusive outcomes.

5.2.3 Control

~ 111 ~ Control is another modality of power that often has negative connotations, and is closely associated with trust at certain levels. Maguire et al. (2001) state that control and trust are intimately related. Control can be seen as a modality of power, however, control does go beyond the idea of being mere power. Control can be broken down into, for the purpose of this work, two different dimensions – formal control and control based on social structures. Formal control is a regulatory process that has been based on a particular set of rules or institutions (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005). Control based on social structures is also based on institutions, but is more based on norms and customs of human behaviour (Möllering, 2005). Control can also be broken down into how it is used in a particular situation. It can be either complementary or in a substitution relationship (Bijlsma‐ Frankema and Costa, 2005). These breakdowns will be discussed in more detail. Formal control can be seen to have a number of benefits. As it is based on institutions, it can be perceived to have more legitimacy than the softer forms of control based on social structures (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005). However, when there are great distances involved and different jurisdictions that have different institutions, this type of control and its benefits may break down. This is where trust and its positive expectations may then play a greater role in ensuring there is continued cooperation between actors and stakeholders (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005). Under the idea of complementarity, control and trust can be mutually reinforcing. Formal control would provide clear measures and standards upon which trustors and trustees would be able to base their assessments and expectations of each other (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005). Control based on social structures also has a number of benefits and takes Möllering’s (2005c) view of trust and control as a duality rather than a dualism, where one cannot have one without the other – each needs the other. When actors and stakeholders form positive expectations of others, on the path to creating or maintaining trust, control based on social structures plays a role (Möllering, 2005c). This is possible when the trustee is constrained in some way by social structures (norms and customs that they are living within), and use their ‘freedom’ to choose to follow or not these norms and customs in a positive way (Möllering, 2005c). Control, however, does have some more negative possibilities when associated with trust. Under the idea of a substitution relationship, formal control can be thought of as replacing

~ 112 ~ trust. With formal institutions in place, these could have the effect of reducing uncertainty and vulnerability to such a low level that trust is no longer needed. While this is speculation on a most extreme case, Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, (2005) do claim that in economic terms, where there is more formal control, there is a subsequent decrease in trust. The converse could also be true, where there is less formal control there is more room for trust to play a role. This way of thinking involves the more traditional thought of trust and control as a dualism, where these two notions belong together, but are present as distinct concepts (Möllering, 2005c). While trust and control have been studied extensively, the mechanisms that are at play between the two of them are not well understood (Möllering, 2005c). In the three types of trust discussed in the previous chapter (Calculus‐based [CBT], Knowledge‐based [KBT] and active trust), we can start to see the different ways that control plays a role in each of them. CBT is often based on written contracts between the trustor and the trustee. This is one obvious form of formal control. It can be taken further with monitoring and enforcement of the contract or contracts, which involves control, leaving very little if any, room for trust to be created. Conversely, this monitoring and enforcement aspect can be left as an ‘uncertainty’ requiring a leap of faith on the part of the trustor that the trustee will comply with the contract. When this happens, a state of positive expectation is reached, and trust is formed. Even in this example of where the monitoring and enforcement is left up to ‘trust’, there is still social control being exercised, particularly on the trustee who feels that either he must live up to social structures and norms and fulfill their end of the contract or where social control breaks down, declines to fulfill their end of the contract (Möllering, 2005c). In the stronger forms of trust, KBT and active trust, this control based on social structures is still being exercised. While information, knowledge and experience are all able to reduce the trustor’s uncertainty and vulnerability, they still need to take a leap of faith. In taking this leap of faith, they are hoping that the trustee will be ‘controlled’ enough by their social structures to mediate a positive expectation ‘on the other side of the leap of faith’.

5.2.4 Coercion and Inducement Coercion is yet another modality of power that can have negative connotations. Coercion has been defined by Allen (2003: 31) as the “ability to influence conduct through the threat

~ 113 ~ of force or negative sanctions.” This modality of power works through proximity – the closer the actors are, the more direct and intense the impact of coercion (Allen, 2003; 2004). Modalities of power often change over time to their mirror images. For example, coercion has a positive mirror image in the power modality inducement. Inducement is where people are won over to something through positive advantages (Allen, 2003). Inducement is a reward‐based modality of power and is often used by a central ‘point’ in order to obtain compliance or a particular outcome from actors or stakeholders that are normally outside its reach (Allen, 2003; 2004). While this is the mirror image of coercion, where there is a pre‐existing lack of trust or distrust between actors or stakeholder, inducement can easily be transformed into manipulation (Allen, 2003). This can come about when the ‘inducer’ offers incentives for a particular choice to be made, but does not reveal the true intent behind it. The actor or stakeholder being ‘induced’ is more fully focused on the reward than what is happening around them. Habermas (1986) also defines coercion similarly, but adds in that coercion can be a means to realize collective goals. This would appear to be at odds with his conception of communicative action, where all participants should be equal, and that agreement should come from the force of the better argument. In introducing coercion, the force of the better argument is now competing with the threat of sanctions or penalties if the actors or stakeholders do not turn towards one particular argument or view. The same could be said for inducement, where instead of threats, actors or stakeholders are promised rewards for turning towards a particular argument or view. When legitimacy in power relations is absent, as can be the case with some negative modalities of power, a system of sanctions and incentives, as can be seen in coercion and inducement then keeps power and obedience in place (Beetham, 1991). This system of sanctions and incentives, however, is more costly to maintain than when legitimacy is present.

5.2.5 Manipulation A fourth modality of power that often has negative connotations is manipulation. Allen (2003) describes manipulation as a one‐sided modality of power, where concealment of intent is the main objective. Manipulation, unlike authority and coercion, may be exercised over a significant spatial reach (Allen, 2003). This extensive spatial reach of manipulation is

~ 114 ~ due to its characteristics of concealment and indirectness (Allen, 2003). By its nature, people don’t even know that they are having this modality of power (or any modality of power for that matter) exercised over them. Governments and experts are often involved in the exercise of manipulation in concert with authority (Allen, 2003). Elites may be particularly able to manipulate situations where there are oppositional forces created (Gledhill, 1994). Any type of deliberate manipulation of institutions or actors can lead to a collapse in trust in those institutions or actors (Lewis and Wiegert, 1985). If there is already a lack of trust or pervasive distrust, people may gravitate towards the use of manipulation to hide their true intentions or selectively restrict the amount or quality of information that they provide to the engagement process, for example (Allen, 2003).

5.3 Positive or “Soft” Modalities of Power The previous modalities of power have been ones that are often associated more with negative feelings. The following modalities are ‘softer’, often have more positive connotations and generate more positive feelings, although they can and have been used in negative ways. These upcoming modalities of power are often concealed by thinking only of the predominant modality of power – domination, or in other cases negative modalities of power in general.

5.3.1 Seduction Seduction is a modality of power that is aimed at creating a particular will amongst many people, all the while allowing any individuals or all actors the possibility of opting out of the particular ‘program’ (Allen, 2003). Seduction is usually a spontaneous and impulsive action that uses suggestion and curiosity to arouse interest in ‘this rather than that’ (Allen, 2003). Seduction doesn’t try to introduce anything too ‘new’, rather it takes advantage of current values and attitudes and tries to proliferate these (Allen, 2003). Seduction and inducement have one ‘theme’ in common, according to Hannah Arendt; that is that because they don’t offer anything too new, rather they provide pre‐determined choices that allow power to be exercised over individuals once they have had their curiosity piqued (Allen, 2003).

~ 115 ~ Seduction may therefore have a larger role in the early stages of getting actors and stakeholders to participate in participatory engagement processes. The idea of participatory engagement, particularly on the Gold Coast has been in place for a number of years. By taking this idea and proliferating it to new areas or concern or interest, particularly one that piques the interest of people so easily as water, seduction can be used to encourage more and diverse participants. From the literature, seduction, however, does not seem to play a great role in the creation and maintenance of trust.

5.3.2 Persuasion Less intense, not as refined as and more robust than seduction is the modality of persuasion (Allen, 2003). Persuasion also works where the actors have choices (Allen, 2003). Persuasion is a modality that works well with a networked theory of power, as it is considered a driver behind the effective distribution and control of resources (Allen, 2003). The ability to persuade, through arguments ensures that actors or stakeholders are willing to share resources through a network so that the most beneficial exercise of power can be achieved. Persuasion can be linked to several ideas in participatory engagement processes. According to Arendt (Allen, 2003), persuasion assumes that all actors or stakeholders are equal and work through a process of argumentation. This is similar to Habermasian ideals of Communicative Action, where all participants should be equal, and an outcome is based solely on the force of the better argument. When arguments are used, Arendt (in Allen, 2003) states that authority, as a modality of power, is displaced by persuasion. This shift from authority to persuasion in argumentation, particularly in the ideal situation of Communicative Action, is through the use of the better argument. When participants in this type of Habermasian process communicate, it is not through who has the most ‘expert’ or authoritative knowledge or information, but who is able to argue their case the most convincingly and consequently persuade some, if not all, of the other actors or stakeholders of the merits of their position.

~ 116 ~ 5.3.3 Negotiation The next modality of power, negotiation, in the work of some authors, is not actually considered to be a modality of power, but simply the power to achieve an outcome (Allen, 2003). Whether negotiation is a modality of power or not depends on the conception of power that one uses – power over someone or something or the power to get things done (Allen, 2003). However, if we consider that it is a modality of power, it has a number of similarities with persuasion, and seems that it is well introduced by the question posed by Flyvbjerg and Richardson, (2002: 6) “is communication the exercise of power and rhetoric?” One possible affirmative answer to this may be found in negotiation. Negotiation is a two‐ way process of communication that can eventually lead to reciprocal benefits for both parties (Allen, 2003). Like seduction, negotiation provides the opportunity for actors to opt out if they choose. Negotiation seems to share some aspects of active trust, namely a two way communication process, and reciprocity in the form of reciprocal benefits.

5.3.4 Further Modalities and Synergies There are two modalities of power that are not usually very visible to the outside observer, or even those participating in political or community engagement processes. The first is influence, which is “power behind the scenes” involving people who themselves are not prominent, but are able to influence those that are leaders or are visible (Russell, 1986). Bhatia (2006) describes influence as the exercise of power used to steer an individual or organizations future actions in a particular direction. Influence is difficult to see and determine if or what role it plays in participatory engagement practices, and has not been covered in this work. The second modality of power that is not always visible is control, and this has previously been discussed. Single modalities are not the only way in which power can be exercised. There are, as mentioned above, instances where one modality of power can start to be exercised, then through changes in the process, the modality of power being exercised is also changed. This happens when a change in the process changes the resources being mobilized for the exercise of power. (Resources will be discussed below in the next section). There may also be instances where multiple modalities of power are being exercised at the same time. This

~ 117 ~ can be seen, for example, in Calculus‐based trust (CBT), where control, coercion and inducement may all be present together. While these are only some of the possible modalities of power that are already linked, albeit somewhat tenuously to participatory engagement processes and trust, there are potentially others. Some others may be seen coming out of the actors and stakeholders experiences in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy case study. This will be discussed in detail later in Chapter Six, Analysis and Discussion.

5.4 Networks and Spatiality The idea of a networked or spatial theory of power comes from authors that have a broader view of power than those that advocate a sovereign state view. This view begins with the idea that power is not something that can be held, and further, that power comes from the ground up and can be considered a system that is exercised by a group of people collectively coming together, and legitimized by the fact that this group has come together (Lukes, 1974). Thinking in human terms, a network can be considered a group of people that are connected through their interactions or relationships. These networks that are formed through interaction and association then bring together those particular actors in order to pursue a particular outcome or outcomes (Allen, 2003). These networks need not be static; actors or stakeholders are able to move between networks, change networks or belong to multiple networks depending on the specific or particular outcomes they desire. In this way, individuals acting together or sharing a resource are able to collectively exercise power. This collective network then is able to build a foundation upon which they are able to choose the person or people who are then empowered to exercise power, but are also able to take this ability away (Allen, 2003). This collective consent is considered by Arendt to be the greatest power (Hindess, 1996). This gives even the most marginalized people an opportunity or capacity to exercise power and it also gives people in far‐flung areas the ability to contribute to the exercise of power. These authors, particularly Allen (2003) have a positive view of power, where it is seen as something that is a collaborative exercise that can enable outcomes. Like Foucault, Allen (2003) finds that power comes from social interactions and relationships, and these

~ 118 ~ interactions and relationships allow individuals or institutions to exercise power. Unlike Foucault, however, in a networked theory of power, the exercise of power does not need conflict or opposition, it is simply a means of getting something done (Arendt, 1977; Allen, 2003). These social interactions and relationships can be seen as networks that not only allow power to operate (Allen, 2004), but also allow for the mobilization and flow of resources. How, though, is power produced through these social interactions? While Parsons argues that power flows through networks (Allen, 2003: 40), this is more in line with the idea that power is something held or is a quantifiable ‘thing’. This, as previously explained, is a narrow view of power, in other words; the view that it is something that can be used to get leverage over others rather than a means to achieve a specific outcome (Allen, 2003). Power, being something that cannot be held or quantified, does not actually flow through these networks. These networks permit the flow of resources, both tangible and intangible, that allow power to be exercised. Examples of tangible resources can include money, property and even people. Intangible resources can include such ‘things’ as knowledge, money, support, trust and communication capabilities (Hindess, 1996; Allen, 2003). Resources and capabilities themselves are not power, but a medium that allows power to be exercised (Hindess, 1996; Allen, 2003; 2004). Power is not spatial only in this more theoretical way; the actual physical locations, timing and use of meetings, etc. also contribute a spatial dimension to how power and influence is exercised and felt (Allen, 2003). How these spaces are represented and how they are shaped through their daily use can invoke feelings associated with various modes of power – domination – seduction – manipulation and others (Allen, 2003). These spaces provide cues through all of our senses on how we are supposed to act or what is expected of you as a participant (Allen, 2003). For example, the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee meetings were held in a number of different locations: in the boardroom of the Evandale Centre (one of the Gold Coast City Council administration buildings); in Gold Coast City Council Chambers; in the Nerang Bicentennial Hall (a community centre); and at the Gold Coast City Council Administration Centre at Nerang (Gold Coast City Council, 2006). With the majority of meetings held in City Council administration buildings, this could be seen, perhaps cynically, as an example where the organizers attempting to, as Kliger and Cosgrove (1999) wonder, assert their power and control through space, especially in light of some of the responses from interviewees.

~ 119 ~ Spatiality is not only related to space and location, but also time. More specifically, how is power sustained over time, and how does the timing of events influence the exercise of power? This regulation of the ‘spacing’ and ‘timing’ of (social) activities is what Allen (2003) refers to as Administrative power. In the case of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee process, the meetings were held in the evenings, once per month over a period of 17 months (Gold Coast City Council, 2006). By having the meetings in the evenings, this may have had some influence on who could actually attend the meetings and have their voices heard. There are some responses from some of the interviewees that reflect on the timing of the meetings and whether it had any influence on their attendance, and will be discussed further in the forthcoming chapter. This more physical idea of spatiality and power is closely linked to participation in participatory engagement processes, and has a number of potential links to trust as well. Huxley (2007: 190) states that “space is fundamental in any form of communal life; space is fundamental in any exercise of power.” Other authors in other areas, including human‐ ecological resilience have also found dialogue, trust and social relationships (power) are integral, particularly in the transition to participatory engagement processes, especially when actors, stakeholders and organizations are spread across scales (spatiality) (Folke et al., 2005). Proximity and spatiality, in terms of power, have links with trust. The more direct or close the presence, the more intense is any relationship (Allen, 2003). This is applicable for trust, as proximity allows these trusting relationships to form, as well as certain modes of power, particularly authority. While proximity plays a key role, power’s attributes of proximity and reach can certainly make the far‐off seem close at hand and vice versa (Allen, 2003). This is something that was somewhat secondary to this thesis, but where the Queensland State Government stepped in to take over all water infrastructure from local councils in 2006. This action by the nearby State Government in Brisbane certainly made many people involved with the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process feel very distant from the power being exercised. Power derives its spatial reach from the complex interactions of our daily rituals, routines and relationships, without us really being aware of it (Allen, 2003). These interactions and relationships start to show us that power may be exercised through

~ 120 ~ networks and that resources flow along these networks in order to allow the exercise of power.

5.5 Resources What resources are and how they are mobilised is different from the actual exercise of power, but yet they are intimately related to each other. Resources are, for the most part, ‘things’ or capabilities that can be mobilized and flow across these networks and enable people to exercise power. In this sense, even the collective itself can be considered a resource (Arendt, 1977; Allen, 2003). The quantity of a resource does not necessarily have an influence on how power is exercised. For example, the collective power discussed by Arendt comes solely from association and/or other qualitative resources, not sheer numbers (Allen, 2003: 53). This allows even small or weaker organizations to exercise power in many cases. However, as Allen (2003: 5) notes, as one has an expansion of resources, in this case not only the amount of a particular resource, but the number of different resources available, one can then exercise power over an extended space or time frame. Bacon equated knowledge to power, however, in a Foucauldian sense, knowledge is not considered power, although it can be a resource that can be mobilized in order to exercise power. However, in somewhat circular logic, power is what defines what counts as knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). While there traditionally was some merit to the idea that knowledge is power, this is much less discernable today, as knowledge is widely available to just about anyone and everyone who takes the time and effort to learn (Russell, 1986). Power and knowledge are very closely linked, and it is not easy to separate them (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). While noting earlier that power itself is not knowledge, power ‐‐ in the form of authority ‐‐ does get to decide what counts as knowledge, and produces that knowledge that serves its purposes best or supports its position (Flyvbjerg, 2000b; 2003). This use of authority to regulate what counts as acceptable knowledge has lead to the marginalization of some types of knowledge, particularly local, lay and traditional knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2000b). This gets to the heart of Young’s arguments presented previously in Chapter Three, that power plays a role in determining what knowledge is acceptable and hence who may or may not be able to participate in participatory engagement processes. With power and knowledge relationships constantly transforming and never static (Foucault, 1990), this

~ 121 ~ presents an opportunity for change in participatory engagement processes through the study of resource and power dynamics. Personality may also be considered a resource. Galbraith (1986: 214) finds that personality is a “source of power”, as it is one component of the ability to persuade or create belief in something. How an individual actor or the collective are able to present an argument, employ persuasive and negotiating techniques are also mobilized resources that can result in the exercise of power by getting their position or idea accepted as the collective decision. Already established networks of friends and colleagues and contacts are also possible resources. Connections to the media, for example, can be used to manipulate or influence knowledge and information that is then mediated by the media, and hence manipulate or influence decisions (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). This exact scenario was not apparent in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process, as all participants of the Community Advisory Committee agreed that all contact with the media would go through the committee chairman (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). This however would not preclude members of each stakeholder group from taking information that they received from the committee and going to the media on behalf of their stakeholder. This did happen during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, resulting in misinformation being spread by the media. It was rectified through extra effort on behalf of the Community Advisory Committee’s independent chair in educating the stakeholder group member, the stakeholder group representative on the committee and the local media (Gold Coast City Council, 2004f). One idea that seems to be supported in the previous chapters is the idea that reflexivity can be considered a resource in the exercise of power. It may not be a resource in a more traditional sense, but one that is internal to each individual. It might also be considered, still internal, as a meta‐resource. This is a resource that allows an individual to evaluate other resources. This internal meta‐resource allows an individual to evaluate other resources and exercise their power to make a decision, such as changing their identity or finding new ways in which to present their improved argument for their position. Other potential resources that can be included here are many of the ideal components of participatory engagement processes. These can and do include knowledge (discussed above), verbal communication capabilities (i.e. personality and charisma), non‐verbal

~ 122 ~ communication, commitment and active participation in problem solving. Trust can also be considered a resource for the exercise of power.

5.6 Power and Participatory Engagement Processes When looking at power in the context of participatory engagement processes, the questions of what power is exercised by social groups and representational actors and how they exercise it need to be posed (Allen, 2003: 134). Spatiality, and in particular proximity is an important aspect of power; space is required for power to be exercised, allowing some actions, but denying others (Fischer, 2006). We see this, for example in the exercise of authority. For authority to work, the actor exercising it needs to be in close proximity to the others, otherwise it decreases. People need to be close to feel, see, sense the resources that the actor exercising authority is mobilizing. When power is exercised over a distance, there are differences of interpretation that can arise (Allen, 2003: 136). In the case of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, it was set up by the Mayor and Council to solicit advice from the community on an overall city water strategy. The Terms of Reference, expectations and logistical details were set up by the Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water (Gold Coast City Council, 2004a; Gold Coast City Council, n.d.). The agenda and the issues that were to be discussed during the meetings were planned out in advance, but decided on by the members of the advisory committee during the first meeting. Should there be new issues put forward, they would be added where feasible to be discussed at other meetings. This approach allowed the members of the Community Advisory Committee to take ownership of the agenda within the larger framework of the process. This is one of the ideals behind participatory engagement processes where participants are able to take ownership of the agenda. One of the biggest contradictions in terms of power and community engagement is that participatory processes depend on the power of a central authority to create them, yet they are often a direct challenge to the power of that central authority (Lawrence, 2004). When something is set up through the exercise of power, it cannot be free from power (Flyvbjerg and Richardson, 2002). The source of that power comes from organization (Galbraith, 1986). This does not mean that power is absent from these participatory processes, only that how power is exercised changes, becoming more ‘diffuse’, and not only in a traditional top‐down fashion (Allen, 2003). It is now dispersed through networks that include a number of new

~ 123 ~ actors – the state, civil society and citizens; giving these other groups the semblance of power to effect changes (Hajer, 2003; Lawrence, 2004). A second aspect of this larger structural power present is the issue of the independent chair for the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee. Gold Coast City Council had decided that to make the process as transparent and free from bias as possible, they would engage an independent chairperson for the committee. While this is admirable, there is the possibility that the Council could have selected someone that they knew, someone that could be susceptible to their influence, or susceptible to other modalities of power exercised by the council or other actors. By ‘delegating’ some power to the independent chair of the Community Advisory Committee, the Council was effectively lending the chair authority to run the committee meetings in a way that reflected the Terms of Reference. Another aspect where power plays a role in public engagement processes is the issue of who participates. While generally civil society groups are interested in participating, Sharp (2002) found that it is not always easy to find participants, and those that do not volunteer may be either coerced or induced with sanctions or incentives to participate. They may also be persuaded to participate through the effective use of argumentation. They may also have their own arguments they want to persuade others of. Formal control and social structures may also be exercised in participatory engagement processes, in the decisions on who will participate. Formal control can include having the organizing authority decide or regulate who to invite to participate. Control can also be seen in when and where the meetings are scheduled to be held. Choices made by the organizers on location and time can potentially exclude those without adequate transport to or from venues, those that may be working in formal or informal employment or education, among others. These may often be marginalized groups to begin with. In the case of the Gold Coast Water Waterfuture process, Gold Coast Water invited a variety of stakeholders to participate after conducting a formal stakeholder analysis. Initially this could be seen as Gold Coast Water controlling who would participate, potentially influencing the outcome of the process. This, however, was taken into account during the first meeting, where the participants were invited to nominate members from sectors of the community

~ 124 ~ that they felt may have been missing (Gold Coast City Council, 2004i). Control during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy can also be seen through the Council’s use of the Terms of Reference, both initially and through changing it during the process, as a way to keep control over the committee. Influence, while it may have been ‘taken care of’ during the first meeting could still potentially be seen in which experts were invited to present to the committee (Gold Coast City Council, 2004b). The experts were invited in by the Project Team, even when investigating member led issues. Various modalities of power may be exercised in the inclusion or exclusion of participants, both in terms of the overall process and during the process itself. Inducement can be used in some cases to encourage people to participate in public engagement processes. This may be increasingly necessary as people have increasing demands and pressures on their time. This could be done through both tangible rewards and possibly more altruistic rewards. Initially in the Gold Coast Water Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee, inducements to participate could have included the possibility of groups feeling they would have some measure of influence on the outcomes, or possibly the dinner provided at each meeting. Whether inducement or coercion played any role in actor’s decisions to participate will be discussed in the next chapter. Seduction may have played a role in getting participants to participate in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. People may have been presented with choices – whether to participate in the Waterfuture process or remain with the general status quo of public consultation. Seduction may also have been exercised in the ways that information was communicated. It may not have been new knowledge or information, but simply presented in a subtly new way, and in the broader context of the Waterfuture Strategy process, giving the participants the option to agree or disagree with it. One aspect of participatory engagement processes that is shown to encompass power is in any actual dialogue. Those participants with fewer resources and consequently less able to exercise power often resort to reason and rationality to influence others (Flyvbjerg, 1998b). This is a weak form of power. Examples of this were seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture process, where at least one participant felt that they were unable to persuade other participants about the importance of the environment, resorted to producing a short documentary film so that the others would be able to see for themselves the issue that they

~ 125 ~ were trying to have understood by the others. In sum, the entire exercise of communicating during the process was each of the committee members attempting to exercise power in the form of persuasion and/or negotiation, attempting to get their views or positions accepted by the committee as a whole. Coercion as a modality of power espousing sanctions and penalties is at odds with the egalitarian ideals of Communicative Action. Habermas, (1990), states that coercion can be used to attain collective goals. Where there are great differences in power or control over resources between actors and stakeholders, coercion may work towards one particular position or outcome being achieved where threats of force may make other members capitulate and follow the dominant desire. This, though, is hardly the realization of collective goals. Inducement, however, as a modality of power may be more prevalent where actors argue for the rewards that their particular stand can provide, as part of the force of the better argument. In several different ways, power is involved in the understanding (van de Kerkhof, 2006) aspect of public engagement processes. The movement of resources such as knowledge is involved, as is the creation of new networks between different actors and stakeholders as they obtain a better understanding of each others position through communication and knowledge. True understanding can then be used by the actors and stakeholders to ‘counteract’ the exercise of manipulation by others. As actors and stakeholders gain better and deeper understanding of what is taking place, they will be better placed to pick up when other actors are attempting to hide or provide misleading information to furtively further their own goals. Finally, it is important to address the role of power in the briefly mentioned third possible understanding of participatory engagement that ties with Arendt’s conceptions of power. Power, according to Arendt, comes into being through association and holds people together in pursuit of a common goal (Allen, 2003). Arendt herself (1986 [1969]: 68) states that “Power needs no justification, being inherent in the very existence of political communities, what it does need is legitimacy.” She suggests that power is absolutely necessary in governing (including the creation of plans and policies), and that without power, violence and terror ensue (Arendt, 1986[1969]). This suggests that grassroots groups or communities can use their associational power to ‘give’ power to a group or individual to

~ 126 ~ exercise in appropriate ways (through the creation of policies or plans that the community desires). They can just as easily take this power away from that individual or group. Examples of the exercise of two other modalities of power potentially exercised during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process include domination and manipulation. Elements of domination can be seen in one particular member who put constant pressure on the committee through being in a ‘higher’ position than the rest of the members and through ensuring that this issue was continuously brought up and debated/accepted under his supervision (Gold Coast City Council, 2004f). Manipulation is potentially seen when the Mayor supported the Community Advisory Committee at all of the meetings and in correspondence with the committee chair, yet seemed to give contradictory information to the media (Gold Coast City Council, 2004f; 2005c). Some members of the committee felt that there was some sort of hidden agenda through this and were justifiably confused as to the role of the committee (Gold Coast City Council, 2005c).

5.7 Power and Trust In the trust literature, there is very little mention of how trust relates to power, and the same can be said for the power literature in how power relates to trust. Allen (2003: 122‐3) mentions trust and power in terms of a resource and the outcome of the mobilization of this resource, but only in terms of one modality of power, authority. Far more common is the association of trust with risk and the use of trust to mitigate uncertainty (or when there is uncertainty about a particular issue, distrust may be formed) (Dunn et al., 2008). Trust, however, does have a number of commonalities with power. One of the first to be discussed is that trust can be negotiated through social and spatial interaction, the same as power (Banks et al., 2000). As relationships and understandings are key components of trust, it is no wonder that there is minimal trust in governments, particularly around policy and plan development (Swain and Tait, 2007). In fact, Hajer (2003) claims that there has never been trust in ‘normal’ politics and policies; it has been placed there and sustained by myths of government authority. Authority, as a special modality of power has been used to convince people into believing that trust was present. Policy development is often seen as just new or restructured financial arrangements, ignoring people, their relationships and understandings that are needed for its implementation (Gilson, 2006). This would generally describe the current status quo, where civil society is not involved in the policy or planning

~ 127 ~ process. Where participatory planning exercises are used, trust is an important element in the relationship between citizens and experts (Munnichs, 2004) as people don’t automatically trust experts or authority figures – they are often sceptical of what is portrayed as truth (Allen, 2003). This is not in the realm of ‘lack of trust’ as scepticism fits between trust and distrust on a continuum. Secondly, Parsons, (1986) states that power is associated with the binding of obligations to performance. This shows that the idea that power (in general) is built on the idea that expectations are met, which could be, to some people, is an obligation to perform the expected task. This idea in power that expectations are to be met is something that makes it deeply tied to trust, as the central idea of trust is that positive expectations are met. In the case of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, and the processes involved, trust can be seen as the belief by the participants that the project/plan would be implemented as proposed by them (Winter et al., 1999), ie having their expectations met. There were a number of areas where expectations were not met, where the exercise of certain modalities of power may have been at the root of it. Third, different modalities of power play roles in the different types of trust – CBT, KBT and active trust. While not explicitly stated in the trust literature, coercion and inducement are both large components of CBT. Maguire et al. (2001), among other authors, point out that control is a large component of CBT. With formal control comes the use of coercion and inducement. In formal contracts, which are a form of formal control, there are often rewards or incentives for meeting the positive expectations of the ‘trust’ relationship. There are also sanctions and penalties for parties that do not meet the positive expectations expected. As one moves through each of the three different types of trust, coercion as a modality of power seems to play less and less of a role as the trust becomes stronger. Inducement, however, may be seen in KBT. In KBT, the increased reliance on knowledge as one possible mechanism to reduce uncertainty and vulnerability in making the ‘leap’ to trust could be considered an incentive to go forward with trusting, as the risk or uncertainty has been reduced sufficiently to allow trust. As society becomes increasingly complex, there is also increasing uncertainty (Hajer, 2003). Trust has been introduced by various authors as a mechanism to decrease the amount of uncertainty, as well as being introduced as an

~ 128 ~ important aspect of the policy‐making and planning sphere, where the focus is not only on creating solutions, but actually creating and maintaining trust (Hajer, 2003). As seduction embodies the idea of similar values and presenting ‘nothing new’ as choices to actors and stakeholders (Allen, 2003), this ties nicely with Uslaner’s (2002) conception of moral trust, where people who have similar values spend more time together and as a consequence come to trust each other more than outsiders. While not a modality of power in the sense used in this thesis, Foucault introduced the idea of discipline and disciplinary power which sets up individuals for self‐regulating conduct through the spatial arrangement of a particular area (Barnett, 1999). This discipline is a form of power that provides individuals with the skills to develop self control and modify their character or behaviour (Gledhill, 1994; Hindess, 1996). This is directly related to taking on a new identity in active trust. People are able to control their own interests to a certain extent, modify their positions and move towards a more collective identity. This would be achieved through the idea of disciplinary power. Another, extreme example of the use of disciplinary power is seen in the agency of prisons, which maximize the exercise of disciplinary power through the set‐up of space, rules and norms (Barnett, 1999). Discipline also has connections to trust. It requires knowledge of the human character (Gledhill, 1994; Hindess, 1996), similarly to trust where knowledge of the trustee is key to a trust relationship. When there is what Hindess (1996: 115), calls “disciplinary failure” it is suggested that more knowledge about the person is needed to further refine one’s approach. This is similar to trust, where the failure of trust to happen suggests that more knowledge is needed about the subject, which affects our experience, and refines how or when we trust again in the future. If we are to use Mann’s and Castell’s conception of networked power (Allen, 2003), we can see trust or distrust being an outcome from the exercise of power, as it is the outcome of the trustor’s expectation of the trustee’s behaviour or actions (Gilson, 2006). Koehn (1998: 83) goes on to describe “manipulative trust” as a modality of power, however, he appears to describe a reserve that is mobilised, making trust a resource that can be mobilised in the exercise of power.

~ 129 ~ 5.8 Conclusion This chapter has introduced more thoroughly what is meant by power, from the ‘older’ ideas of power as something held to more recent conceptions of power as something that is not held, but can be exercised through the mobilisation of resources. The idea that does not exist solely in negative forms of domination, but actually can have numerous modalities, some of which are positive and contribute to improving the context in which they are exercised has been introduced. The modalities of power introduced in this thesis are domination, authority, control, manipulation, coercion, inducement, seduction, persuasion, negotiation and influence. These modalities take shape out of a networked theory of power where there is a network of relations that assist in the mobilisation of resources in order to exercise power. These resources can be both tangible and intangible ‘goods’ such as money, time, knowledge, etc. The idea of resources is also a key connection between participatory engagement, trust and power. Trust has generally been seen and analysed through the context of reducing risk or uncertainty for the actors involved. Trust, however, has not been actively associated with power in an analytical sense, particularly how modalities of power are intertwined with the creation of trust. Power is much more than the crude face of domination, to which it is often stereotyped. Power has quite a number of modalities that do include domination and coercion, also include manipulation, influence, negotiation, persuasion and seduction. The exercise of power through these distinct modalities and potentially others that are not mentioned in this thesis has an influence on the course that public engagement processes take, whether trust or distrust is formed and potentially the type or level of trust that is created. The second issue with silence and power is that the various positive modalities of power in participatory engagement processes are often silenced by the dominant discourses of power that involve domination, manipulation and coercion. Once planning practitioners and academics realize that these other modalities of power are around and actually play a potentially useful role in participatory engagement practices, the hope is that the silence will become a little less deafening.

~ 130 ~ This is the beginning of trying to see how modalities of power work through participatory engagement processes and contribute to the creation and maintenance of trust or distrust. The next chapter will attempt to show that the mobilisation of resources that emerge from participatory engagement processes and the resulting exercise of power works on trust.

~ 131 ~

Chapter Six: Analysis and Discussion 6.0 Introduction Fifteen narrative‐type interviews were conducted between May and December 2008 with individuals involved in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee. The interviews were transcribed verbatim using Dragon Naturally Speaking 9.5 software as described earlier in Chapter Two, and the written transcripts were used for the thematic analyses presented in this Chapter. The chapter is structured around each of the modalities of power that were described in the previous chapter. Each of these modalities as sections provide a brief re‐cap of that modality of power before providing several examples of how this modality of power was exercised during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. This will be supported by direct quotes from the individuals interviewed and interpreted through the previous chapters as each of these exercises of power strengthened or weakened the development of active trust with significant for participatory engagement processes. This thematic analysis of the interview data collected will attempt to provide answers to the research questions posed in the beginning of this work: 

What forms of trust and distrust are developed through community engagement in the policy and planning process?



What mechanisms are at work in the development of trust or distrust between stakeholders in the process of community engagement? And



What underpinnings or undermining of trust by power come to light through engaging the community in the policy and planning process?

Themes that have been taken from the literature and elaborated in Chapters Three through Five of this thesis (Participatory Engagement Processes, Trust and Power) were used to classify the interview data. The data have been interpreted through these themes, and a discussion about how they answer or relate to the research questions ensues. There were a number of themes introduced by the interview respondents that were not found in the literature surveyed. These new themes are introduced where appropriate, and discussed as

~ 132 ~ to how they may or may not contribute to the creation or maintenance of trust. Although this is only one case, it could serve as a stepping stone for further research in this area. These themes and the data gathered during the interviews have been used to answer each of the research questions posed above. Systematically working through each of the components of trust and the components of participatory engagement processes that impact on trust, this chapter then discusses what role power plays in each of these areas drawing from the responses of the interviewees. This will be integrated to reduce the amount of repetition in the interviewee responses presented in this chapter.

6.1 Approach to the Chapter Using the same approach as the previous chapter, this chapter starts with what Litfin (1994) classes as the negative modalities of power, and then explores the positive modalities. It also provides some insight into different modalities of power that the participants in the Community Advisory Committee felt that they saw or experienced during the process, including instances where there are multiple modalities of power working together to achieve an outcome. These will also be brought together to form some broad summaries that lead to overall conclusions. When using a networked theory of power, there is an advantage to using modalities of power to help us understand trust relations. An analysis of the resources that are mobilised and how they are mobilised in the exercise of these different modalities or ways to exercise power can provide a way to determine whether or how trust is being created or not. The resources needed and mobilised in the exercise of these different modalities of power are different or different combinations based on the way in which power is to be exercised. Many of these resources that are used in the exercise of power are components of either trust or participatory processes, discussed in chapters 3 and 4.

In order to use these different modalities of power as a tool to analyse trust relations, it is essential to understand how to recognise them in practice. There can be many different ways of ‘defining’ these modalities of power in practice, and this is dependent on the

~ 133 ~ context in which they are being used. The following table presents the practical definitions are those that have been used in this thesis. Table 2. Practical definitions of the different modalities of power with a contextual example where possible.

Modality

Definition and Source

Domination

Where a particular will is

Practical, contextual example Council changing the Terms

imposed on another based

of Reference to suit their

on an inequality in the

agenda.

relationship (Allen, 2003). Authority

Coercion

Where the ability to exercise

Providing the chair the ability

power is lent to someone

to exercise power to keep

based on their background,

the committee functioning

qualifications or previous

properly; chosen on the

achievements (Flyvbjerg,

basis of their qualifications

2006b).

and experience.

Influence or imposition of a

Members of the committee

particular will through the

using their position to

threat of negative

threaten others to adopt a

repercussions (Allen, 2003).

certain position or it would be put in place by council anyways, making the committee irrelevant.

Inducement

Influence or imposition of a

No contextual example.

particular will through offers of incentives to adopt the choice offered (Allen, 2003). Control

A type of constraint imposed The Terms of Reference for on someone; there is still the the Community Advisory ability to choose, but you are Committee – the committee constrained in some way

was free to investigate many

(Mollering, 2005c).

issues around water, but only within the terms that council set.

Manipulation

Guiding someone to a

Inviting certain presenters to

~ 134 ~ particular outcome through

meetings to provide a single

the selective release of

position without revealing

information or the reasoning why that presenter or behind it; concealment of

organisation was invited.

intent (Allen, 2003). Persuasion

Using facts, arguments and

Members of the public and

information to convince

committee communicating

others that it is the best

their knowledge and

option; the actors have the

experiences in order to

choice to accept or reject the convince others that their

Seduction

option (Allen, 2003).

position is a valid one.

A spontaneous or impulsive


action that uses curiosity or suggestion to arouse interest; perception that others have the choice to accept or reject (Allen, 2003). Negotiation

Trade‐offs in discussions


between actors in order to get something done; joint problem solving

6.2 Summarising the Theory for Analysis Drawing on the previous three chapters, this brief section will summarise the relationships between participatory engagement, trust and power and provide a rationale for the subsequent analysis. Power is seen to be prevalent in participatory engagement processes – in those that follow Communicative Action Theory there is an attempt to eliminate or severely limit the differences in power between participants, and in Communicative Democracy, these power differences are taken into account and attempts made to compensate for them, smoothing out inequalities. The components that make up participatory engagement processes – communication, reflexivity, inclusion, knowledge and legitimacy – are all tightly linked to the creation of active trust.

~ 135 ~

According to some literature on trust, there are a number of tensions between components of participatory engagement processes and the creation of trust in general. These tensions are then evident between different types of trust. Swain and Tait (2007) argue that accountability, openness, transparency and reflexivity are reasons behind the lack of trust found today. However, these components that have a negative influence on the building of trust actually are necessary for the creation of active trust, which is seemingly a pinnacle of trust. Trust and power are also linked in a number of ways, not least of which is their common roots in sociology and social relationships. Luhmann (1979) claims that trust is a basic fact of social life, and occurs within social interactions. Stein and Harper (2003), in analysing Foucault, describe this approach as one where everything is enmeshed in relationships of power. While Stein and Harper (2003) argue against using a Foucauldian approach to planning, this thesis instead uses the idea that power is inherent in social relationships, but approaches it from a network theory. Castells (2006) describes networks as the most adaptable form of organisation, transcending boundaries. Networks, in terms of power, are formed through interaction and association in order to pursue particular outcomes (Allen, 2003). By using a lens of different modalities of power, we can start to see what different resources are being mobilised by actors and how the mobilisation of these resources and the resulting exercise of power contribute to the creation of trust or not.

6.3 Negative Modalities of Power 6.3.1 Domination The exercise of domination is where someone’s will is imposed on another in an unequal relationship. This relationship can be characterised by close discipline, continuous control and supervision (Weber, 1978; Allen, 2003). Domination is not only something that can be carried out by a particular actor or stakeholder; it also can be exercised through a physical space or place. Allen (2003) discusses this in depth, relating not only domination to spatiality, but other modalities of power too. Young (1995) also relates domination to space

~ 136 ~ when she claims that in Communicative Democracy participants need a safe and accepting space in which to present their ideas and positions in their own way (mode of communication). A number of expressions from members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process outline how they felt that, at least initially, some sort of domination or intimidation was taking place through the meeting space itself. The first issue was with the initial meeting space. [T] was a bully. And at one of the meetings, ‘cause we used to hold them in the newly refurbished council chambers at Bundall before we moved to Nerang, and I can remember that this is the bloody, this is the councillor that put up glass walls in the public area so that none of the public could be heard by the councillors. This is a council that wanted to insulate itself from you know, from, from the democratic process. Committee Member 10 By isolating themselves from the committee and the community in general, the council created an unequal relationship between themselves and the committee and the community, the first characteristic in the exercise of domination. While the meetings later moved to different locations, this initial location possibly set up the feelings within the committee as to where they stood in the bigger picture of helping develop the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. Even these later official meetings of the Community Advisory Committee were not held in ‘neutral’ locations, but in other council appointed locations. [T]hey started it off in the boardroom, and it was all very stark and official, but as things went on, they moved some of the meetings out to Nerang, Bicentennial Hall or whatever it is called, you know, just a community room, and far more relaxed, far less stressful. Committee Member 4. The location of the official meetings may have also contributed to the widespread response that the meetings were extremely formal, especially during the early meetings. It was interesting because it was all very, very formal to start with, and I guess that was a reflection of the fact that they were taking it all very seriously, ahhm, they were, I guess you go through the sort of storming and norming phase with any sort of community group that you set up. Um, it, yah it was, I found it quite tense to start with, and maybe that was more from my perspective, just being on a new group as well. Committee Member 4.

~ 137 ~ As this committee member wonders, perhaps feeling tense was to do with being new to the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, not having participated in any previous Community Advisory Committees. The initial formality of the process may have been the result of domination, ensuring that the committee knew its place in the bigger picture of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. On the other hand, it could simply be that formal meetings are conducted formally and possibly a ‘foreign’ feeling to many of the community members. The locations of where meetings were held may have been planned in order to dominate the Community Advisory Committee in to their place in the hierarchy, ensuring that the participants knew that this was not an exercise in participatory democracy, but simply the status quo with a better image. This would not have contributed anything positive to active trust as the Community Advisory Committee members did not know if their positive expectations would be met, where the positive expectations would be having their final recommendations accepted by Gold Coast City Council. The second way in which domination may have played a role in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy was even before the process started. This occurred during the process that formulated the actual Community Advisory Committee. Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water maintained control and supervision over which stakeholders would be invited to participate in the process. The stakeholder analysis that the Project Team undertook to identify appropriate stakeholders was subject to approval of the director of Gold Coast Water before being approved by Gold Coast City Council. [W]e needed representation from quite a broad range of key stakeholders but not over representation or allowing anyone to have a majority in that, it, it was the way it was done. We initially generated, the team generated the list, then the team would take it to the director of Gold Coast Water and he would say yes, that's reasonable or you're missing this key stakeholder or something like that and then eventually that was taken to the council, because these started with a terms of reference and in that terms of reference included such things as, who was being represented. Each of those steps could result in the addition of people. Very rarely, the deletion of a stakeholder group, there was always an addition surprisingly. So until it went the council it was never absolutely utterly fixed. They always had the opportunity of changing the representation. Project Team Member. The additional features of domination in this part of the strategy, especially the unequal relationship is visible between Gold Coast Water, Gold Coast City Council and the

~ 138 ~ independent members of the Project Team. The main players of the Project Team were from a private company under contract to Gold Coast Water to perform all of the technical work for the Community Advisory process. As the company is being paid by Gold Coast City Council, there is an unequal relationship whereby the contractor may feel obligated to follow the explicit wishes of the Gold Coast City Council. The second unequal relationship here is between the Project Team, Gold Coast Water, Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast stakeholder groups. By not being included in the initial decision on participation in the Community Advisory Committee, the stakeholder groups initially had their participation or non‐participation dictated to them by Gold Coast City Council. This was later rectified to a certain extent once the Community Advisory Committee had their first meeting, allowing the chosen members to decide if there were any additional stakeholders that should be invited to participate in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process (Gold Coast City Council, 2004g). At least one of the Community Advisory Committee members felt that one of the other members of the committee was perpetuating an unequal relationship between themselves and others on the committee, one of the main characteristics of domination. Um, I thought he thought I was beneath him. Um, I just think he was an arrogant person. And that’s, um yah, I just thought he, other people, he, no, yah, I, I, think he just looked down on us. Like we were just the little plebs, I really, I just avoided him after that. Committee Member 11. The issue that this member felt with the unequal relationship has to do not only with domination, but is also related to authority, which will be discussed in the next section. Domination, with its supervision, control and close discipline has a number of common components with Calculus‐based trust (CBT), a weak form of trust. These components are the antithesis of active trust, a strong form of trust that is built without contracts or close control. These components would also have some links with what O’Neill (2002) calls the audit society. Having contracts and close supervision are hallmarks of accountability – the actors’ roles, outcomes and processes are well defined so that there is limited or no possibility to circumvent them for personal gain.

~ 139 ~ Domination may have longer term implications for Knowledge‐based trust (KBT), a slightly stronger type of trust than CBT. If the dominator continually experiences getting their way with the dominated individual they may begin to trust them further based on the experiences they have had, having their positive expectations met (albeit through the exercise of domination). This could eventually lead to the creation of KBT, as both parties become intimately familiar with each other. As suggested by Giddens (1994), active trust is built and maintained through the discussion, debates and dialogue that take place around actors’ views, positions or arguments. It does not come about through the arbitrary exercise of power, such as domination. These aspects of domination also have ramifications for participatory engagement processes. Having the participants dictated by the organisers means that there is the potential for marginalised groups to be excluded from the process, silencing their voices. While this may not have been the intention in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, there were participants that wondered ex‐post why certain groups were not part of the Community Advisory Committee. There was representation by indigenous groups on the Pimpama‐Coomera Waterfuture strategy and they had some pretty interesting things to say but I don’t know where they ended up on this one. Committee Member 8 [J]ust loaded up by Council, Council orders, were people who they want to stay friendly with or groups that they want to stay friendly with, they might not necessarily have been the best people. Committee Member 13

6.3.2 Authority The modality of power authority is a temporary modality of power conferred through universal norms, based on credentials, knowledge or position (Allen, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 2006b). While this may be conferred through universal norms, whether it is accepted or recognised is dependent on the context in which those over whom it is being exercised find themselves in. This context may be the current situation or it may be based on their previous life experiences.

~ 140 ~ While authority has been classified in this thesis as a more negative modality of power due to its potential for abuse and its close association with domination, there are, however, examples from the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee that have a much more positive outcome in terms of active trust and participatory engagement processes. The more negative example will be discussed first, moving on the positive examples. The first aspect of authority addressed is the volume and detail of the information presented to the participants. All of the information presented to participants was put together by an outside firm contracted to Gold Coast Water and other experts were invited to present and clarify further aspects at the actual meetings of the Community Advisory Committee. The Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Project Team had a huge number of experts in particular fields that were called upon to provide more information or further detail on previously presented information that exercised authority during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. Because these members had numerous credentials and were presented as experts, there was an unequal power relationship between them and the Community Advisory Committee members. At least one member of the Community Advisory Committee felt almost helpless in the face of all of the experts and their Authority Like it was more they told us like okay, okay, like they told us and we sort of assented to what they what the experts sort of presented to us, because like come to think of it there was no one really in a position of like that kind of authority, to say well, I don't really agree because everyone just sort of assumed that [S] or [N] or whoever was speaking that they, that they obviously knew what they were talking about, and no one was, no one had the authority to go and say actually, that's not right. Do you know what I mean? Committee Member 9. Despite the feelings of helplessness on the part of this committee member, authority and the comprehensive information that was presented by the experts allowed them to have enough knowledge to make a leap of faith and trust those experts. This member went even further, finding that the professional set up and organisation of the process also engendered trust. [J]ust probably the professional set up of everything, yup, it was always, it ran smoothly, and it was something authoritative. You always sort of trust in authority, something that has been really so well organized, people put money,

~ 141 ~ like time and money into, people are often more willing to trust something like that that seems to be like correctly set up, obviously it is worth it if someone put in the time and money to make something work, it’s probably worth it. Committee Member 9. While Committee Member 9 accepted much of the information provided at face value based on the authority they felt the presenters had, there were others who felt that while they may not have the authority to challenge or ask questions of the experts, there were members of the Community Advisory Committee that did have the authority and expertise to challenge the Project Team and Gold Coast Water. This also demonstrates the highly individual nature of trust as it depends on the individual perceptions and experiences of the individual trusting. I was just so impressed with them as a team and the way that the information was presented ah to us, and the advice and the discussion and the discussions that [N] lead us through, and often putting [S] on the spot, putting him on the spot you know to get the right satisfactory explanations. Committee Member 6. And from a different member, similar sentiments about yet another member of the Community Advisory Committee that was not associated with Gold Coast Water. And yet there was someone from um, DPI, um, no, he’s EPA, and he made a lot of sense, this particular bloke, and I really liked him because he said it as it was, and he, um questioned, he questioned. It was great because they listened to him, and, and he articulated himself the way what we were thinking, but because they listened to him, we thought great. Well I did anyway. He’s verbalising what we are trying to say, but they won’t listen to us, just fob us off. Committee Member 11. The major issue with authority that can be seen in the above quote is how provisional authority really is. One expert’s view may be challenged by another expert that has equal credentials (Giddens, 1994). Other experts may also have additional knowledge or know that certain knowledge has become obsolete in the fast‐moving pace of today’s knowledge society. On the more positive side, the exercise of authority provided some benefits for the participants. While some of the participants felt overwhelmed in the early stages of the process, this did not mean that they did not have anything to say or contribute to the discussion, they simply did not feel comfortable in presenting their views or thoughts.

~ 142 ~ However, the independent chair of the Community Advisory Committee was able, for the most part, to detect this, and use his authority to ‘break in’ and lend members enough authority so that they could express their views. I would say that, I would say that within two meetings. They were, they were on fire. They were feeling empowered even those that didn't normally express themselves in public were able to put their hands up and even, even with their body language, or whatever. We would try and pick up, I would try and pick up if they were needing to say something. And it's about generally cutting people off if they are banging on too much. Committee Member 12. By ensuring that everyone was able to speak when they needed or wanted to, in an appropriate manner, the independent chair ensured that the participants were and felt included in the process. To have this ability, the Gold Coast City Council took a huge step and agreed to an independent chair, lending this individual authority to act in the best interests of the committee: By allowing all members of the committee to speak and explain their view or positions, they are providing knowledge and information about themselves, their group and their values. This can contribute to Knowledge‐based trust. Further, by discussing and debating this information and the issues, participants are able to gain a better understanding of each other, perhaps finding that they have areas of common interest or common values and can build or further develop strong social relationships, leading to active trust. You have got the structure with an independent chair that is able to defend the committee and the process against all comers, including Gold Coast Water. And you have got to understand that it was in very big risk for gold coast water, putting an independent chair, in. Huge risk. Not, not, this is something that they had never done before. Pimpama Coomera Waterfuture was not independently chaired. But for them, it was a, this was a big risk. I was given the authority by Council resolution to deal with the council officers, to deal with the press on behalf of Council, even though I was the independent chair, by resolution, I was given that authority and, and that made the process, the committee process actually a lot easier. Committee Member 12. The independent chair also used their authority to invite members of the community at large to participate and present their ideas and proposals to the committee in addition to the Project Team and committee members’ own ideas (Gold Coast City Council, 2004nn – Meeting minutes). One of the committee members remarked:

~ 143 ~ At the committee meetings with members of the public were there, we invited them to dinner as well, was always food at the committee meetings. If people had a brilliant desire to ask questions from the public gallery than we would let them ask questions and we would always invite them to come and eat with us, and sit with the committee members as well and so it was as inclusive as it could be for the whole Gold Coast community. Committee Member 12. This particular exercise of the independent chair’s authority had two large impacts for participatory engagement processes. The first is that it did open it up and make it inclusive for a wider number of people from the Gold Coast as certainly not all of the community would have been represented by the stakeholders present on the committee. This then leads to one of Tebble’s (2003) critiques of Communicative Democracy: that the stakeholders officially involved in any participatory engagement process are not the entire repository of knowledge in the community. By allowing not only the official stakeholders to participate, but also the members of the wider community to present their ideas, the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy (or any participatory process) can get closer to the ideal of considering the knowledge of the whole community. This second aspect of how authority was exercised had several positive impacts on active trust and participatory engagement processes. In relation to participatory engagement processes, this exercise of authority allowed all of the members of the Community Advisory Committee the opportunity to present their views and be able to use other modalities of power, for example persuasion or negotiation, and allowing the other members to reflect on that particular view and respond. This would have also allowed those that did not feel able to speak out initially the confidence to ask questions and clarification from the other members as well, leading to greater understanding. Third, reflexivity as a component of active trust is a point that should be made here. By giving people the authority to speak up, the independent chair allowed more and/or different information to be presented, allowing a greater range of information that the participants could reflect on Fourth, the perceptions and experiences of each individual actor highlight the importance of contextualism in participatory engagement processes. As the two examples show, actors had different perceptions about accepting authority and using that to determine whether they would take the leap of faith and trust. Contextualism in participatory engagement

~ 144 ~ processes forms part of what Young (1995) argues, that every participant should be allowed (within reason) to express themselves and communicate in a way that they feel comfortable.

6.3.3 Control Control is a the process of exercising power based on a particular set of institutions, rules or norms, or based on norms of human behaviour (Bijlsma‐Frankema and Costa, 2005; Mollering, 2005c). Control played a role throughout the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process, mostly to do with the City Council and the independent chair of the Community Advisory Committee. This section addresses several instances of control, starting with the council and moving to the independent chair. The first exercise of control by the council set the stage for almost all of the subsequent times when control was exercised throughout the process. In this instance, it was the Gold Coast City Council who exercised control in determining what the Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Committee would be. This included the composition of the committee, the issues that they were to look at and discuss and present recommendations to council, the time frame for doing this, the rules for the meetings, i.e. voting and the right to amend the Terms of Reference at any point during the process (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.). The following statement gives a sense of the council retaining control by setting the Terms of Reference and the membership of the Community Advisory Committee. [T]he council determined the terms of reference and the membership of the advisory committee. Committee Member 13. The determining of the Terms of Reference in some areas has an impact on participatory engagement processes. By limiting the scope of what is to be discussed or planned in too much detail denies the participants the opportunity to build the agenda, potentially giving them less of a sense of ownership over the process and the final outcome. This was evidenced at least several times during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy where members of the Community Advisory Committee wanted to discuss or incorporate aspects they felt were important, but could not because the Terms of Reference would not allow it.

~ 145 ~ There is a possible solution to this, however it would require the Council to have given up yet more control than they already had. By providing a broad Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Committee and allowing them to adjust it through consensus or other mutually agreeable mechanism, the committee could have been able to explore the aspects that they felt were important and linked to the main ‘theme’. By strictly limiting the Terms of Reference, the Council could be seen as attempting to steer the committee to a pre‐ determined recommendation rather than having a full and frank discussion covering all aspects of the topic at hand. This would improve the robustness of the participatory engagement process by allowing the committee members to have greater ownership of the agenda (c.f. Edwards et al., 2008). Initially in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee, all of the participants were equal – all were able to present their ideas, positions and views to the rest of the committee. They were all equally allowed to discuss and debate the presented ideas, positions and views, and at the conclusion of discussions, all were allowed to vote on whether something would be included in the official ‘outputs’. With City Council retaining the ability to amend the Terms of Reference at any time during the process, one of the councilors put forth a motion to council to amend the Terms of Reference with respect to voting rights. [T]wanted to raise the Hinze Dam, and we said whoa, I don’t think we can do that because we don’t have enough facts. I want to have the Hinze Dam raised, then it went to a vote, and ah, he lost, so what he then did, he then passed a motion at council that removed the voting power of everyone except the external people, so anyone that belonged to a government or quasi‐government organisation lost their ability to vote. So they disenfranchised us. Committee Member 10. This disenfranchisement of some members of the Community Advisory Committee created something of a power hierarchy within the committee – there were some members who could vote and have their positions officially recorded and there were some who could say their piece, but may or may not have had their positions recorded officially, depending on whether they were able to persuade the voting members of the validity of their views. This is where consensus may be a ‘good’ thing for participatory engagement processes – by negotiating between all members of the group, a solution acceptable to all, that incorporates all views or ideas can be presented as the official outcome, still including all members. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that it can lead to a stalemate

~ 146 ~ when consensus cannot be achieved. Often, this is resolved through a majority vote, as in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. This creates something of a paradox, since a consensus cannot be achieved in an ‘equal’ environment, the vote in order to come up with an outcome creates ‘winners and losers’, and a power hierarchy. This has implications for active trust as well. Throughout nine meetings, these members had the expectation that they could vote, and over half way through, at meeting 10 of 17, this ability was stripped from them without warning. The councillor that initiated this ensured that their positive expectations of the role that they could play were not met. The members of the Community Advisory Committee felt that the issue had been dealt with in October 2004 at meeting six through the adoption of a compromise proposal for the raising of the Hinze Dam (Gold Coast City Council, 2004f). There was no further communication from this particular councillor on this issue, and in fact, this individual attended no further meetings of the Community Advisory Committee. In March 2005, the independent chair of the committee announced that he had received from Council notice that the Terms of Reference had been changed, disallowing certain members the right to vote (Gold Coast City Council, 2005a). This may be particularly intriguing for the creation of active trust and the subsequent distrust. Does it affect the creation of active trust or distrust more when a certain amount of time has passed, and people may feel that this is a positive experience, their expectations were met and have been met for some time and then to have those positive expectations shattered? Not only might time play a factor in this, but also communication. There had been no communication from the member involved to the committee, and may make it an especially poor experience when the entire premise of the committee was to discuss different options, opinions and views. A second issue within the Terms of Reference is the time that Council allotted to the Community Advisory Committee to come up with recommendations. Initially the council requested the recommendations within one year (March 2004 to April 2005) (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.). The actual process spanned 18 months. One member of the Community Advisory Committee suggests that the process should have been run over three years:

~ 147 ~ This process should have really been run over three years, in my view, but we couldn't run it in three years because of the drought, politically it would not have worked. Committee Member 12. The length of time that these processes are run over have implications for both participatory engagement processes and active trust. The longer these processes go on for (within a reasonable amount of time), the more opportunity there is for participants to gain new knowledge and understand the positions and ideas that the other members of the committee have. With greater understanding comes the possibility of participants taking on a new identity, leading to active trust. With active trust, the more time the process takes, the more opportunity there is for participants to build solid relationships with each other, gain more experience with each other and thus build a stronger form of trust. The third area within the Terms of Reference where the City Council exercised control is over the composition of the Community Advisory Committee. The Project Team had to have all of the proposed stakeholders approved by council before invitations to participate could be sent out. One of the members of the Community Advisory Committee states: So this was a bit of a loaded committee. Just loaded up by Council, Council orders, where people who they want to stay friendly with or groups that they want to stay friendly with, they might not necessarily have been the best people. Committee Member 13. This suggests that the representation on the Community Advisory Committee may not have been as broad as it could have been. This could have the effect of decreasing the legitimacy of the committee in the eyes of the community as a whole. It would also affect the number of perspectives and different knowledge brought to the committee for consideration. The second broad way in which control was exercised throughout the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee process was with council retaining the final decision‐making authority. While the Community Advisory Committee could come up with recommendations, it was ultimately up to council to approve these recommendations or not. But you, you had that thought that maybe no matter what we did or thought or put forward in the end. It's the elected councilors and the mayor and their opinions that rule the day. Like we’re not a constituted power of group. We

~ 148 ~ were just there is the old us and the two kids and the rest of us and we had, we had the interest but not the responsibility. Committee Member 6. No, it is a difficult thing, you’ve got sort of, well, I’ve got a very simplistic view of things, there’s informing the public, there’s consulting the public, and there’s engaging the public, um, I don’t think the whole process was a sophisticated engagement process, because councils don’t tend to engage with the community in the sense of the community having a real decision making input, it’s, it’s, and it was an advisory committee, it wasn’t a deciding committee or anything like that. That certainly would have influenced the council, but nevertheless, it was just advice. Um, so, um, while it was an attempt to engage with the community, it was only a partial engagement, it was really about informing and consulting and using community representatives to assist in the informing and consulting process. Committee Member 7. With the Community Advisory Committee not having the final decision‐making authority, when one looks at Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of community engagement, this in not robust community engagement. This process falls into the placation stage rather than the citizen power stage. While conceptually the citizen power idea is highly regarded by some, practically it is a different story. Uh, and that’s an issue with a lot of government, whether it is state, federal or local, There’s yet to be a sophisticated level of engagement with the community in terms of decision‐making on issues, as distinct from informing and consulting. Committee Member 7. A third aspect of control that is more positive for the members of the Community Advisory Committee is the control over the meetings that the independent chair exercised. While some participants may have been somewhat shy, overwhelmed or unsure at first, others took to getting their views across to all of the committee members. A participatory engagement process does not ‘work’ if there are some participants who are not able to communicate their positions or views. In this case, the independent chair of the Community Advisory Committee ensured that all participants were able to join in the discussion and debate and get their ideas and views out. I would say that within two meetings they were, they were on fire. They were feeling empowered even those that didn't normally express themselves in public were able to put their hands up and even, even with their body language, or whatever we would try and pick up, I would try and pick up if they were needing to say something. And it's about generally cutting people off if they are banging on too much. Committee Member 12.

~ 149 ~ This exercise of control is beneficial as it ensures that all participants are able to communicate, bringing yet different knowledge into the mix. This can only help with understanding, as well as with creating active trust (Munnichs, 2004). The final area in which control was exercised was through Gold Coast City Council allowing an independent chair to run the Community Advisory Committee meetings. This was the first time something like this had been trialled in a community advisory committee on the Gold Coast. You have to be aware that the bureaucracy does not like loss of control, and you, bureaucracy has to be moved into a comfort zone on as well as the community representatives, so that they are not going to get damaged by this process, but they are actually going to be improved and empowered by the process as well because lack of control is a bureaucrat worst nightmare. Committee Member 12.

6.3.4 Manipulation This modality of power is where the actors exercising it conceal their intent (Allen, 2003). The participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process made numerous comments that indicate to them that the City Council was attempting to manipulate the outcome of the process to get something that the Council wanted so that it could be passed and thus the process be heralded as a success. The first time that we can see potential manipulation is during the selection of the members to sit on the Community Advisory Committee. This is one area where there is some blurring between the different modalities of power being exercised here and this will be discussed later in the chapter. A number of the members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee felt that the composition of the committee was strange or not as broad as it could have been. Yah, it was a strange combination, I think they could have broadened it. Committee Member 11.

~ 150 ~ Other members of the Community Advisory Committee have mentioned that a large number of the members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy already knew each other from having participated in the Pimpama‐Coomera Waterfuture Masterplan process on the Gold Coast. (This was similar to the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy but only for a small sub‐ region of the Gold Coast City that was undertaken prior to the ‘main event’.) Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water felt that the Pimpama‐Coomera process was very successful and adopted the recommendations of that committee. By inviting many of them to participate in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, council may have been starting to conceal their intent to get a politically palatable strategy from these committee members. This could be further tested through several methods. By looking at the composition of the Pimpama‐Coomera Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee, the source of the information that was provided to the participants, the recommendations that that committee provided to Council and whether Council accepted those recommendations. This could also be tested through a similar exercise, moving forward, and investigating the same components in the Gold Coast Recycled Water Community Advisory Committee. I was fairly comfortable with it because a lot of the people involved had been on the previous Pimpama‐Coomera process, so everybody knew everybody to a large extent. Everyone knew everyone’s point of view and every one knew everyone’s I suppose, eccentricities, and um, yah, it worked quite well. … I mean many of the committee members had been through the learning curve on the Pimpama Coomera exercise. Committee Member 7. Although this actor stated that the majority of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee already knew each other from the Pimpama‐Coomera process, they did feel that the committee represented a good cross‐section of the Gold Coast community. It represented the development industry quite strongly, and the finance sector that was funding a lot of the work going on, there were a lot of community groups as well as lobby groups, like the environmental lobby people and so on. Committee Member 7. One of the members of the Community Advisory Committee that was interviewed early on made the following statement: I basically got nominated, sent the thing back, and that got accepted, because I think they did some vetting themselves. Committee Member 4.

~ 151 ~ When interviewing a different member later on, they made statements that clarified this, suggesting that there may have been some manipulation of the composition of the committee, or at the very least some influence on who was invited to participate. (This is discussed later in the influence section). Recycled water stuff was never honoured by Council, the flood mitigation stuff was not really honoured by Council, but the stuff on the Waterfuture, pretty much was that, I think it was pretty much safe territory and not having the voices from left or right, necessarily creating an unacceptable outcome. As I said, I think Council got what it wanted from the outset and probably could have done the same thing without spending all of that money and time. … I think to a large extent, the council got the answers that they were looking for by making the committee representation safe and by feeding them lots and lots of information, much of which was probably never properly absorbed and the responses from the committee were all fairly bland in the sense that the really high technical knowledge and so it was a well‐managed process that ultimately delivered the kind of answers that council felt would be supportable and so, by and large the outcomes of the work done were supported by the council. Committee Member 13. There was at least one member who felt that the committee was quite representative of the wider Gold Coast community and through this felt that they could trust the committee and the process. This member had difficulty explaining exactly why they trusted the process, which is understandable given trust in general is quite a difficult and personal topic. I suppose that was something that earned my trust, that was something that contributed to me having trust was that there was there seemed to be such a wide range of community representatives there, I thought, yah, sort of everyone who should be here seems to be here. Committee Member 9. The second way in which manipulation may possibly be seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy is through the use of extraordinary volumes of detailed technical information. If the members of the committee did not fully understand this information or where the information was coming from, they may have missed details that were concealed in the volumes of information. This can be summarized by the following statement from one of the Community Advisory Committee members: All these committee people had no technical skills, so the only person that brought technical arguments to the committee was me. Pretty much that was all I took an interest in because [S] would, if you are technically, technically

~ 152 ~ competent, you can guide the committee in a direction that you want it to go. And they trust you. Committee Member 10. Upon further reflection, manipulation may not have been exercised in this case, but it did and does have the potential to be exercised here. In the case of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, there was the opportunity to ask the experts from State Government departments that were members of the committee for clarification and elaboration. The Project Team was also available for questions at any time during the entire process. I believe they put a lot of resource allocation in to it. For the actual meetings, but there were a lot of people available that you could talk with about things and it was regularly mentioned to us that that the opportunity to talk with the technical experts. As part of the committee and the project team was certainly there is well and some of us made use of that resource at various stages of the process so that was good. Committee Member 2. The committee chair also ensured, where they could, that all of the members present at any given meeting were able to understand what was being presented. The role of the State Government committee members is also highlighted in that they questioned the Project Team and other contracted experts at great length, ensuring that the Project Team and the organizers could not hide in the immense technical detail. You know, we have a number of presenters, who just couldn't explain themselves. And we would have to say stop, what he means is this, does everybody understand this? And they would say, woops, he wasn’t saying that at all. He was saying this, he's got the wrong end of the stick because no well, the figures say this so it was. … . I know enough to know that we are not being smokescreened on, because there was a very robust debate and the, and, and the DNR officer really gave the KPMG consultant a very difficult time over the issue of net present value, there was blood all over the floor, and now that is what the community wants to hear, that somebody is looking after their interests, and they had to go away redo the modeling because so and so says that it was, it was all wrong. Committee Member 12. The third area where manipulation could be seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process came from members of the council. While the members of the Community Advisory Committee were discussing and debating the issues, members of the council were speaking with the media about the process, sometimes contradicting what the committee was doing or eventually recommending. This might suggest that the council was getting the committee to do one thing while they already had plans and ideas in place that were not apparent to the committee until they were revealed in the media.

~ 153 ~ The frustration happened almost as soon as the endorsement of the actual strategy had occurred. We had a session where it was basically, the final session it was a dinner saying thank you etc, etc, the mayor was there, congratulated everybody great strategy blah, blah, blah and not many days later he was in the press suggesting that there were parts of it that they didn't agree with and that we had come up with the wrong answer, despite an absolutely unanimous resolution from every councillor to the I don't know how many recommendations that were put forward as a part of the strategy tens and tens, about 50 or 60 recommendations, there was not one, there is not one recommendation that was changed by any Councillor. And yet a couple of days after thanking everybody and congratulating us and all that sort of stuff, things had been stated to be turned around already. Then that frustration continued with the, I guess the announcement of the Tugun desal plant at that stage, which was a part of the strategy, but not for another 25 years, and it was certainly not at the capacity of what was proposed down there. Committee Member 2. The final place where manipulation may have been seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process is fairly broad, in that one member was very certain that there were hidden agendas on the part of Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water. A second member of the Community Advisory Committee who had previously worked for the Council stated unequivocally that the Council and Gold Coast Water knew exactly where they wanted the committee to go from the beginning. There were also hints of this from other members of the committee, particularly from one member who mentioned that the Council invited people (groups) who would give a politically palatable strategy to council to participate in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee. [K]nowing Council as I do, because before this came up I did some work there, 16 years, they knew which direction they wanted to go right from the word go. They knew what they wanted and I said to [S] who was at the time the head and still is, and I said you already know what you want and what you are going to do and you want us to basically rubberstamp it. Committee Member 1. This member suggests that the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process could have been manipulated by the Council or Gold Coast Water. Knowing where they wanted to go and what they wanted as an outcome, while leading the Community Advisory Committee members to believe that they were the ones developing the strategy recommendation is definitively manipulation. This committee member further suggests a motive behind this manipulation:

~ 154 ~ That was brought up to no end, they got sick of me bringing it up, but I said I am not going to give up because it is the way to go. I said why I can’t convince you people, well, I know why, they don’t want you to not buy water. They want the water; that is why they are bringing in desalination and all the rest. They want the water so that they can charge you, they want the water for revenue. As soon as we save water, their revenue goes ooooooooop, down the drain. That is why, because a pressure regulator is a permanent thing, where most of these other things, everything else is not. Once their desalination plants and everything else are up, they are not going to worry if you save water or not. Committee Member 1. I trusted the process; I didn’t trust the agenda, and not necessarily the agenda that was given to us on the night. I believe there was hidden agendas, and, yah, I trusted the process, but I don’t believe, again, I say we were corralled. So, you know, it, it, you know, if you, if you paint a picture nice enough, you will agree to it. … [T]hey wouldn’t entertain an alternative once their mind, they were blinkered. Very blinkered, because that wasn’t part of their agenda, they obviously done a deal, well we all agree, the one’s that were against it, they have obviously done a deal. Committee Member 11. This member later relates this hiding of details or hidden agenda to trust: I would trust any of them [committee members] because their intentions weren’t personal, and so with that I could trust them. And I would trust [T3]because his intentions were purer. Um, whereas sometimes the council, no I couldn’t trust them, I couldn’t trust that they weren’t telling us all the details, just what they wanted us to hear. Committee Member 11. This last quote relates to what O’Neill (2002) explains about transparency reducing levels of active trust. While the process and the other members of the committee were open and didn’t appear to be hiding anything from each other, active trust was created. Where there was supposed openness but the member(s) found that information or other things were being hidden from the members of the Community Advisory Committee, or that the whole story was not being told, there was a resulting decrease in trust. One member of the Community Advisory Committee had this to say about already having a plan in mind: An [sic] that sort of thing so there has been a whole range of issues that have been run though that particular engagement model and there is no question that the key to it is to genuinely engage, that is to, to not go to the public with a solution. That is absolutely, you have to actually involve the public in the decision‐making process. The public accept that you have to do a lot of background work and that you will come to the table with the facts. It’s not like you are coming to the table completely naïve on the topic and not having any

~ 155 ~ background information. But the minute the public smell that you have a preconceived idea in your head or what to head in a particular direction, they will lose trust straight away. That is the absolute key to it, it is as simple as that, and as long as you remain open, you will get through it. Committee Member 14.

6.3.5 Coercion Coercion can be best summed up as “influence conducted through the threat of force or negative sanctions.” (Allen, 2003: 31). This is a modality of power that operates through the use of threats by one party to the trust relationship. In this case, there are two trust relationships that may be at work. The actor issuing the threat is trusting that the other actor will do what they request rather than face the possible sanctions, while the other actor performs what the other actor requests, trusting if they don’t, the other will carry out the sanction. Coercion can be seen in two instances during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. The first of these instances is when at least one member of the Community Advisory Committee stated that they felt intimidated. The second instance is where one member felt that the raising of the Hinze Dam wall was of the utmost urgency and used a number of means to ensure that this project was included and approved before the entire Waterfuture Strategy. Coercion does not have to only be verbal threats by an individual actor. The actual space that participants are placed in can create the same type of threat in some actors. One actor in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process felt intimidated by the whole process. I was like I was quite shy and I don't know and like really intimidated by the whole thing. Committee Member 9. This committee member describes what exactly made them feel intimidated: So um like I felt a bit intimidated, there were all these older people and there were all sorts of councilors and all sort of well‐respected people in their professions and I just sort of felt like oh god, a little high school student, um yah it did. Committee Member 9.

~ 156 ~ While other actors that were interviewed did not mention feeling intimidated, this same committee member had the sense that there were other members on the committee that felt the same way as they did. It was sort of, it took me a while, after like after months and months went on, that I kind of realised I wasn't probably the only one who felt that way. I think some of the others also felt a bit that they didn't have a thorough grasp of what was going on. Committee Member 9. The second way in which coercion could be seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process was in the quest to have the Hinze Dam wall raised early on in the process. While there were no direct threats to any of the members of the Community Advisory Committee in this case, there were broader threats of catastrophe to the entire community if this proposal was not endorsed. [T] referred members to the memo that he had handed out and explained that due to some political processes the committee may have to adjust their schedule and bring forward certain items saying that it could be Council related issues or State Government for example (Gold Coast City Council 2004f: 4) [T] noted that the committee needed to be practical and decisions needed to be made. He went on to say that sometimes the timetable for the members might need to be changed and this was such a case. The Advisory Committee needed to endorse Hinze Stage 3 and say to the community that this was the recommendation and that further investigation into timing, when the dam would be built, costs and that Council would be approaching the State Government for funding (Gold Coast City Council, 2004f: 13‐14). The proposal put forward by this Community Advisory Committee member was modified so that it did not lock the Hinze Dam stage three as the only option available [B]ack right at the beginning of the whole process he really pushed to um have Hinze dam raised like to a certain he wanted some certain do know what am talking about? Yah so that was a pretty big thing, because he was like no we have to do this now this committee needs to reach a decision you know we need to do this now you know it's like we don't have time for the next over like the duration of this committee, like the proceedings are going to take too long so we need to do it now and he really pushed for that. Committee Member 9. I think apart from [T], like when he was really pushing all that stuff, like his own agenda like that sort of, yah, that wasn’t necessarily in the best interests of everybody else. Committee Member 9.

~ 157 ~ There was one particular incident that did though, um disappoint the committee, and that was the fact that not all people could vote, the only people who could vote were community members. Um, and everyone went along with that, but there was some indignation about the fact that um, that was to a certain extent again trying to force the committee into adopting particular positions, but it didn’t really change anything, because, um, it just made the committee members more determined to get input from the non voting section. So they didn’t ignore them, as really was the intent, they, it spurred them on to make sure that they, they got all the views of these people as an input to their own. Committee Member 7. [T] wanted to raise the Hinze Dam, and we said whoa, I don’t think we can do that because we don’t have enough facts. I want to have the Hinze Dam raised, then it went to a vote, and ah, he lost, so what he then did, he then passed a motion at council that removed the voting power of everyone except the external people, so anyone that belonged to a government or quasi‐government organisation lost their ability to vote. So they disenfranchised us. Committee Member 10. A discussion took place on the disappointment felt by the members over the action to prohibit the voting by Council Officers and State Government representatives. … The Advisory Committee recommends that: The State Government Officers and Council Officers continue to attend the Gold Coast Waterfuture Advisory Committee meetings, having the same input and with the same vigour as before the Terms of Reference were amended by Council (Gold Coast City Council, 2005a: 2‐3). This seems to suggest that while the committee members lost confidence in some of the people behind the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process (namely city councillors) they did not lose confidence in the actual process. While confidence is not the same thing as active trust or even trust, it can be a component when considered faith or belief, as in the leap of faith. A loss of confidence does not necessarily mean distrust (Cook and Gronke, 2005). In this instance, the participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy were able to differentiate trust‐wise between the individuals fronting the process and the process and its backing institutions. Coercion relates more directly to the creation or not of Calculus‐based trust where it may be necessary to ensure that one’s objectives are being met. In this case, however, the participants were able to see that the process was actively supporting and working for them, and able to retain their trust in the process, while decreasing their trust in certain elements or individuals.

~ 158 ~ In terms of participatory engagement processes, the exercise of coercion would appear to give participants the sense of disappointment. This was apparent when a negative sanction was imposed on the Community Advisory Committee, the entire committee felt disappointed, and those that were disenfranchised felt that there was now no incentive to continue to participate. Should this have happened, the process would have been less inclusive, not representing a broad segment of the community as these State Government and Council Officers are also a part of the community.

6.4 Positive or ‘Soft’ Modalities of Power This section turns to the more positive or ‘soft’ modalities of power, again coming from the work of Litfin (1994). These may not be the only positive modalities of power, nor the only positive ones exercised during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. As with the negative modalities of power, the presence of power and its modality are very dependent on each individual person.

6.4.1 Inducement Inducement as a modality of power can be considered the ‘softer’ side of coercion, where compliance is obtained through rewards rather than threats (Allen, 2003). As with coercion, there are only limited uses of inducement visible in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. These were used to improve participation and the inclusiveness of the process. The first example of inducement can be seen in how Gold Coast Water provided access to and from the monthly meetings for actors that required it. Where actors needed transportation to and from the meetings, Gold Coast Water provided taxi vouchers, particularly for the two youth on the Community Advisory Committee. Yah, I often went home after um, like after dinner, and the Council would pay for me to get like a taxi or someone would come pick me up. Committee Member 9. Edwards et al., (2008) found that one access to be able to participate in these engagement events was a key issue for expanding the reach of the process and making it as inclusive as

~ 159 ~ possible. In their case study, the organisers provided travel funding and options for those actors that wished to attend who could not afford transport or who did not have transport available from their location. This ensured that the greatest number of voices was heard. The second way in which inducement could be seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy is through the actual invitation to participate in the Community Advisory Committee. This did not appear to be because of any notions of grandeur on the part of the committee members that were interviewed, but more for a sense of community, coming together to collectively solve a pressing problem that not only affected them, but also their children and grand‐children. For some, the inducement was the opportunity to return to an interest that they had previously had prior to retirement. Some had previous experiences in water or in urban planning. I loved the job, and have been interested in water, I love to see you know, things being built, from a nothing to a structure, water being pumped, farmland being irrigated. And so I, didn’t deliberately miss one meeting and I went to all the meetings and visits or stuff in the exercise of , I did them all and only a couple of us did that particularly the field inspections, because being retired at least, I had the time to go and that had a few people handicapped with jobs. Committee Member 6. [A]nd the most important thing when you are going through this process is, it is that the committee itself develops, an esprit de corps, and you are a part of the committee because you have been to 17 out of 17 meetings in the, in the overall strategy. Committee Member 12. This may not have been enough to keep all members of the Community Advisory Committee attending meetings. Near the end of the process, there were less and less members that were attending. In the last two meetings of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee, only 14 out of 23 members attended. This was noted by Committee Member 6: There was drawing near the end when there was a lot of the tough, tough or responsible decisions to be made, there was a falling off with in attendance of some, they weren’t as interested as some. Getting towards the end, we just made the quorum in the last couple of meetings. … I was a little bit disappointed that some of the, some of them didn't have the interest to follow through to the end. Committee Member 6.

~ 160 ~ Part of the inducement in participating may have been the initial short timeline that was proposed for the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. Initially it was to run over the course of one year from March 2004 to April 2005 (Gold Coast City Council, n.d.). However, the process actually commenced in April 2004 and finished in November 2005. [Y]ou don't want to leave those things to run too long, it has to have a fairly tight timeline. Otherwise, you get tired of the whole process and you are engaging people on an entirely voluntary basis. Committee Member 13. The third way in which inducement can be seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy is through the provision of dinner at each meeting. This was not only a ‘reward’ for attending and participating in the meetings, but also provided an opportunity for the divers actors on the Community Advisory Committee an opportunity to meet and socialise with each other in a more relaxed, social setting. This provides the opportunity to create stronger, deeper relationships with each other, one of the components of active trust. I was going to say, an important, interestingly important part of the process is that they provided a meal, and a really, I mean their catering was fantastic. Again, something I’ve learnt is that if there is a good way to get people engaged is to feed them well. Committee Member 4. Um, so, it’s not the fact necessarily that they provided food, it was that they provided an opportunity for people from the community to sit and talk, rather than them turning up, having a three hour meeting and maybe them having a coffee and then going home. And I actually think that was a really important part of the process to be quite honest, in terms of that relationship, um, building, getting to know people and there was, as I said, I can clearly see the evolution of the group over that time. Committee Member 4. A Fourth way that could be considered inducement is through the provision of such extensive and detailed information by the Project Team. Not only was the information provided, but when participants had questions, they were always answered and explained thoroughly. By having the opportunity to improve their knowledge, this may have been enough of a reward to continue attending the Community Advisory Committee meetings. I am intrigued how well it kept rolling, and I think it is because they very clearly had the ability to go back and answer the questions that were being asked, and give a response. … [T]hey had the ability to be able to actually respond and each meeting there was new information, there was answers to questions, there was,

~ 161 ~ um, um, um, the outcomes, the information that people needed was provided in a timely manner. Committee Member 4. Another thing that we would do is if I didn't know the answer to a question. I would say I don't know the answer to the question. I would not try and bullshit the answer. And we would often say we'll come back to you on that. And so therefore it would be like a question with notice and again if we said we would come back to someone, we would come back to someone or we would give them an update as to our investigation if they were expecting it next week. And we couldn't get it to them in that time, we didn't ignore it we said, we were in the process we will give them an update, and we expect the result to be available on such and such a date. Again, that allows them to have the trust in, the fact that as long as it was a valid question, we didn't answer all questions, we would still be there if we did, but if it was agreed that it was a question that needed a response by the committee process then they were ensured that we would actually do it. Project Team Member. By ensuring that the participants had the answers to the questions that they raised, there is an important component of active trust (and trust in general) being taken care of – the meeting of expectations. When participants’ expectations are positively met, then trust is created. So, as participants would ask the questions, taking the leap of faith that they would receive an answer, and when they received that answer, their positive expectations were met (Möllering, 2001). During the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process, where inducement was exercised, it played a significant role in the creation of active trust and improved the participatory process for all. With respect to active trust, this modality of power was connected with the meeting of positive expectations and the creating of stronger relationships between the participants. In terms of participatory engagement processes, inducement played a small role in ensuring that the event was as inclusive as possible through the organisers helping ensure that participants could get to and from the committee meetings.

6.4.2 Seduction As previously discussed, the modality of power seduction is seen as something spontaneous or impulsive. In general, seduction uses curiosity to arouse interest in something being considered by actors. This modality however, does not introduce anything new to the process (Allen, 2003). There may be a fine line between seduction and manipulation, where manipulation is the pre‐planned hiding of intent, seduction is more spontaneous. Seduction

~ 162 ~ as a modality of power may be seen in two ways within the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. While it is difficult to find the ‘background’ to presentations by experts and the Project Team, how they presented information to the Community Advisory Committee may have been subtle enough to seduce members of the committee to their point of view or spin on the facts. Committee Member 13 notes this in general terms: It is pretty much if you provide the people with the information that you want them to see and give them the kinds of answers that you want them to respond to or the kind of recommendations that you want them to endorse, then if they don’t have any really strong knowledge of the topic they won’t give you anything else, they might tinker around the edges a little bit. Committee Member 13. Just different times, when they, the council had obviously spent a lot of money doing a lot of data and research, so they were presented in such a way that it made it look real good. It made it look real good, and people said yah, look that’s great … if you want a group of people to vote on that, well, you don’t steer them over there, you steer them towards that and how to get it. Committee Member 11. Much of this research was information that many of the actors involved in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process could have obtained from various other sources (some obviously could not be easily sourced from elsewhere). The way in which it was presented appears to have played on the curiosity of the committee members in particular ways, leading them towards a particular outcome or choice. The committee members always have the choice to dissent or go in the opposite direction if they so choose, one of the key aspects of seduction. A second way in which seduction may have been exercised during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process is through the different stakeholder groups that were invited to participate. The names of the stakeholder groups and the often vague descriptions of what they do may have seduced both the project team and the members of the committee themselves into believing that the committee was balanced and represented the broadest selection possible of the Gold Coast community.

~ 163 ~ [I]t represented the development industry quite strongly and the finance sector that was funding a lot of the work going on, there were a lot of community groups as well as lobby groups. Committee Member 7. When exercised in a spontaneous way during a robust participatory engagement process, seduction can be valuable. By provoking curiosity in participants from the way issues are communicated or through the types of information that are presented, participants can begin to question information. By questioning the information presented and how it is presented, the participants may gain a deeper understanding of other knowledge and knowledge systems. This builds on reflexivity, allowing the participants to reflect on these different knowledges, possibly leading them to choose to create a new identity (Maguire et al., 2001). This may happen in a similar but more passive manner to persuasion which will be discussed in the next section. The exercise of seduction in this way also has ramifications for the creation of active trust. By generating questions and allowing participants to gain a deeper understanding of the issues present, the reflexivity involved allowed participants to move towards creating a new identity along the path to creating active trust. Seduction would have played a small role in this way during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process, but persuasion was clearly the major modality of power that was exercised having a profound impact on the participatory process and the creation of active trust.

6.4.3 Persuasion Persuasion is one of the main modalities of power exercised during robust participatory engagement processes. Persuasion works where actors have choices and where arguments are used to change positions that actors may have previously held (Allen, 2003). The exercise of this modality of power is the prime location where Meadowcroft’s (2004:184) force of the better argument can be found. Four examples are evident when persuasion was exercised during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. These examples include the presentation of views and ideas by each member of the committee and the community; the times when each member would argue their point or stance, usually linked to the background presentation of their group; bilateral

~ 164 ~ discussions between members of the committee before meetings and at dinner; and technical competence and the guiding of the committee. The first and best example of persuasion can be found in the numerous opportunities that the members of the committee presented other ideas that could be investigated, usually around the topic of discussion for each meeting. The Community Advisory Committee members were not the only people allowed to present their ideas. There were members of the public invited to present their ideas towards the Waterfuture Strategy to the Community Advisory Committee. The best example of this is where the committee invited Capt. [S] to present his ideas. [N] introduced [PS], explaining that this project welcomed innovative and different ideas. For example, some suggestions have included putting a pipeline from the Coomera catchment to the Hinze catchment, wherever there was excavation on the Gold Coast e.g. road works, purple pipes should be installed or opening a hard rock quarry in the base of the Hinze Dam during drought to increase the capacity of the dam. [N] handed over to [PS]. [PS] gave his presentation on ‘Damming the Broadwater’ (Gold Coast City Council, 2004d: 4). In this case, the Community Advisory Committee was not persuaded and felt that the idea was too radical to be seriously considered. [N] summarised by saying that the overall concept of stormwater collection has some merit as part of a sustainable water supply but that this was too radical a proposal. After Capt Stockel had left, [N] noted that the committee didn’t seem to approve of the idea but asked if they would be happy for him to write a thank you letter to the Captain (Gold Coast City Council, 2004d: 7) The Community Advisory Committee members would have generally read the detailed information that would have been sent to them prior to the meetings, there would be a presentation of the information on the night by the Project Team, and then the committee would debate the issues around the particular topic or topics discussed that meeting. [S]o a lot of it was you proceed through papers, the committee would wade through them then you would have further presentations summarising all the raised issues, then there would be a discussion on the table, that was the core. Committee Member 7. Well, we had a chairperson, who was extremely good, and we all went through the chair when we spoke on different issues. We weren’t held back on time at

~ 165 ~ all or anything like that, we would say what we wanted and try to get our message across and have, people would reply to it all or add to it or say whatever they liked. Committee Member 1. The members of the Community Advisory Committee were able to communicate their ideas or positions freely. Debate and discussion about these ideas was welcomed in what would be an open process. This statement by Committee Member 1 starts to set the scene for the use or force of the better argument, discussed below. The presentation of arguments to persuade other members of the committee could be done in whatever media or way the proponent felt comfortable or was appropriate. Some, we had verbal presentations, some people had put some written letters to gather and some, and there were others. Also other people outside the committee itself from the general public who were able to, to put presentations forward into the committee structure as well. They were handled in various ways, but yah, there was certainly, or I had the feeling that there was ample opportunity for them. Members of the committee, to put forward their thoughts in whatever media they thought was appropriate for them. Committee Member 2. While the members of the public did not have the opportunity to participate in the discussion or debate around the committee table like the members of the committee, they were invited to join the committee and present their views and ideas for debate. In fact, one member of the committee mentioned that committee members themselves sometimes brought others along to discuss issues and potentially help persuade the others of their position. People came along as specific things arose, but generally speaking it was a pretty stable core group, um, certainly, people brought other people along to discuss issues, particularly some of the community groups, you could sit people in the audience, so there was the people at the table and there was the people sitting around the table, and there were quite often lots of extras sitting around the table, and they certainly were given an opportunity to join in depending on the issue, so people in the background could stand up and present their point of view or ask questions, and they didn’t quite participate in the debate around the table, but certainly they had opportunities to provide input and comment. Committee Member 7. One of the committee members who was an architect of the process felt that information and the force of the better argument was one key way in which participants were equal.

~ 166 ~ The other interesting thing is that these processes involved bringing a range of different stakeholders from environmental groups, developers, general community, members of the public, all that sort of thing together. A lot of these people are diametrically opposed in their opinions. The other rule of engagement in my mind is that information is the great leveller. If you infuse the debate with robust information and stop them from talking about high level principles, that will level the debate and inevitably I never saw it not occur, is that they came to the same opinion over time. And so, these processes take some time, they typically take 18 months to work through. Committee Member 14. Members of the Community Advisory Committee did come to the meetings well prepared to present their position(s) and refute those of the others with well thought out arguments. This is one of the cornerstones of persuasion. While this committee member states that one particular group was not always successful, it makes one wonder what the better argument was – the environment upon which we depend or our need for water. The next question is then whether the better argument was successful in persuading the rest of the committee to adopt a particular position. As I mentioned before, the greenies were well organised group, they came back very well documented and thought out opposition to things, everything even the use, we were talking one of the proposals for the desal plant. The inlet may have been at the seaway and so their first, their first thing was to worry about the fish life or the plant life at the bottom of the ocean. And they were always well‐prepared, well‐documented, and they stated the case, always strongly and trying to convince the rest of the meeting that that we shouldn't go at it that way. But they weren’t successful. It was always the comment against them, you know, we've got to have water, and that stopped them. Committee Member 6. There were also instances where there was vigorous debate about certain issues between the Community Advisory Committee Members without finally persuading the other of their position or point of view. This ‘stalemate’ is not negative as there is at least one positive aspect that strengthens both participatory engagement processes and helps lead to the creation of active trust. With respect to participatory engagement processes, this debate, where all sides are presenting views and counter views, all participants are benefiting through gaining increased knowledge and also understanding the multiple sides in the debate. If and when an agreement is reached, there is a greater possibility of having trust due to the presentation, debate and understanding of these multiple ‘truths’ (Munnichs, 2004).

~ 167 ~ The presentation of these multiple ‘truths’ as Munnichs (2004) calls multiple knowledges, also allows the participants to reflect on all of the arguments and their own position through reflexivity, another component of active trust. There was one guy, he used to be an ex‐plumber, he really hated water tanks, and I really believed, this was early, before water tanks, and we would argue, this is a resource, why let the water go down the drain and go out to the ocean, and he would argue this point and it was good healthy debate you know. Um, but it was really good, and then, ah, we would just say something like we agree to disagree, and that’s fine, that’s ok. You don’t have to agree with someone. And um, so that was, to me that is healthy you can debate a point. Committee Member 11. The second example of persuasion being exercised, is termed here the ‘background’. At each of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee meetings there were one or two presentations from the participating stakeholder groups to the rest of the committee. In these presentations, the stakeholder group would present their group and thus the context of where their positions came from. There would also be a concise presentation of their group’s views and positions when it came to water provision on the Gold Coast. This was also an opportunity for each of the groups to start to persuade the others of the merits of their position. There were one or two big presentations at each of the committee meetings by each of the representative groups. Just purely in terms of what their thoughts were on water. That was good in that it was the formal position statements from each group. It may have been, it may have been better to try and get that upfront, because obviously with the number of people who were on there, we were sort of halfway through the process by the time people and people who were presenting later had the benefit of the information that we had been getting in the time leading up to it. Committee Member 2. Not only were the participants able to bring in their group’s background, a number of the members brought their own personal experiences to the table with the support of their constituent group. The best example of this is where several members of the committee used their personal experiences of water supply overseas to attempt to persuade the other members of the committee to adopt recycled water as a component of the strategy. In the political climate that was surrounding the Gold Coast as part of South East Queensland, this was not an easy task.

~ 168 ~ Towards the end, [F] and [T2] … and [D] had changed overnight almost with recycled water. He went on a trip to Europe, and when he came back he couldn’t get to the meeting quick enough to tell us about the use of, people, you know, using sewage from the Danube somewhere. People use the water, put it in the Danube and downstream they pump it out and use the same water over and over and over again, so they all drink water that's been probably put back in 10 times. And so on, at the end, he and [F] and [T2] became very strong advocates for the use of recycled water for drinking water, and that was the biggest turnaround in what was unmentionable, poo water at the beginning. It had gained that popularity. Committee Member 6. The third area in which persuasion could be seen is during ‘bilateral’ talks between individual members of the Community Advisory Committee outside of the formal meetings. In some of these cases there would have been persuasion taking place, however in others it may have been negotiation which will be covered in the next section. There were also bilateral discussions and not only between the Gold Coast and the individual members, but also between members themselves, particularly between members that knew each other, given that some of us had been involved in this area for some time, and we knew each other, and we didn’t have any problems picking up the phone and having a conversation about certain things and quite often we did anyway, because given the nature of the business we are in, we tended to communicate on those issues anyway. Committee Member 7. By getting together for additional meetings, even bilateral meetings, this contributed to the building of relationships between members of the Community Advisory Committee. There may also be the potential for an ‘abuse’ through collusion and/or manipulation being exercised over the other members of the Community Advisory Committee at subsequent meetings. In the fourth example of persuasion there may be some blurring of lines between modalities of power. This example is where it is suggested that technical competence can sway people towards a pre‐determined goal or direction. This is not necessarily manipulation because intentions are not hidden per se, presentation and arguments are being used to guide people in a certain direction. If those members were as technically competent as those doing the guiding, they would be able to ‘see’ this and be able to choose not to go along with being guided. Just different times, when they, the council had obviously spent a lot of money doing a lot of data and research, so they were presented in such a way that it

~ 169 ~ made it look real good. It made it look real good, and people said yah, look that’s great. If you want a group of people to vote on that, well, you don’t steer them over there, you steer them towards that and how to get it. And it was very, once you are aware of it, it was very evident what they were doing, and, and that happened a number of times, a number of times. Small things, big things, it didn’t matter, um, they presented their presentation to look favourable on their issues that they wanted to push forward. Committee Member 11. If you are technically, technically, competent, you can guide the committee in a direction that you want it to go. And they trust you. Committee Member 10. The exercise of persuasion is able to strengthen active trust and participatory engagement processes in several ways. With respect to active trust, the presentation of multiple arguments or truths in order to persuade others that one position or view is better than others allows committee members to engage in debate and in reflexive practice leading to active trust. Persuasion also plays a role in the changing of identities (Maguire et al., 2001). By engaging in debate and hearing multiple positions after engaging in reflexivity, actors are able to adapt and adjust their positions, moving closer to consensus. In terms of participatory engagement processes, persuasion can strengthen these practices in two different ways. The first is through allowing for multiple modes of communication. As mentioned by some participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee, all participants were able to present and argue their positions in ways that best suited them or their group. Second, through allowing actors to bring along others to help present ideas or positions, the process became more inclusive and representative of the community.

6.4.4 Negotiation Negotiation is a two‐way process that can lead to reciprocal benefits for both parties (Allen, 2003). There are differences of opinion on whether negotiation is really a modality of power. In this thesis, however, it is used as a separate modality although it is very closely related to persuasion. Three very closely related examples are provided of the use of negotiation in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. These include the negotiation of additional members to the Community Advisory Committee in the first meeting; how members of the committee were able to work towards consensus and how members of the

~ 170 ~ committee responded to the ideas of others, even if they were not exactly what were desired. At the first meeting of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee, the members that had been identified by the Project Team were asked to identify any possible gaps in the representation on the committee. This was done with several gaps identified. The Community Advisory Committee members, the Project Team and Gold Coast City Council agreed to add several members to the committee to fill the identified gaps – industry and business (Gold Coast City Council, 2004g). I think it was, I think it was pretty well structured. I know, initially there or if you there are a few people that were added to the committee after the first or second meeting, and we had the discussion about who else should be involved. Committee Member 2. So, you will find the committee was a lot smaller at the start, and it grew, so I think we identified people as this process went a long that we were able there was a need to bring a few more on than there was. Committee Member 3. While the actors involved in the first meeting put forth persuasive arguments, the agreement reached seems to demonstrate negotiation as it had reciprocal benefits for three ‘parties’. First, the benefit for the members of the Community Advisory Committee and to some extent the Project Team, was that they would get access to new or different information, ideas, views or positions which would improve understanding and provide increased breadth during reflexive practice. The community at large would also benefit, even without being a party to the negotiations. The community would benefit from having a broader representational base on the Community Advisory Committee and also potentially benefit in the end from a better outcome that had considered additional information and knowledge. Finally, the Gold Coast City Council would have benefited from a perception of increased legitimacy for the process. James and Blaney (1999) put forward that legitimacy can be directly related to the number of people that participate in a participatory engagement process. By increasing the number of people involved in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy, the strategy could be perceived as having greater legitimacy. The second area where negotiation can be seen is in the development of consensus during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. A number of the Community Advisory Committee

~ 171 ~ members mention how actors pushed their positions quite forcefully, but usually in the end the group could agree on a consensus. They often pushed, but as I said, if it wasn't the general consensus, then it didn't get too many legs or some people gave them a little bit of we acknowledge that is your point of view, and we will agree to disagree on five of your 10 points. But we take on board your other five, and we've moved our views a little bit more central. Committee Member 3. Consensus, achieved through negotiation and discussion is not necessarily a good thing for participatory engagement processes. On the other hand, it could have positive impacts on the creation of active trust. By negotiating a consensus within the group, actors are demonstrating that they have reflected on the information presented by all parties and in consultation with their constituent group are willing to change their identity slightly so that a common decision can be made. This changing of identities is one mechanism that works to create active trust. There are some questions around whether negotiation towards a consensus actually happened. The following quote from one of the members of the Community Advisory Committee suggests that there may have been some other modality or modalities of power at play in reaching a consensus. Depending on the context of the situation, other modalities of power being exercised could have been domination or coercion. [A]nd everyone, pretty well accepted the consensus view, in the sense that they would put forward their case, it would be debated, if the group came up with a view that was different to theirs, they would express their disappointment, but they would go along with the group, and that I think was a matter of the maturity of the group. Committee Member 7. There is [sic] a lot of diverse views, but I think there was a healthy respect and some pushed a certain line for a long time. But it just boiled down to, well hang on, it’s your point of view, the consensus of the committee is we don't really want to go to that end of the spectrum. But we don't want to be down this end, so we looked at something in the middle. Committee Member 3. While there was consensus on the part of the Community Advisory Committee, contrary to the assertions of Committee Member 3, there was always a formal vote at the end of discussions on a unified way forward. Generally the votes were unanimous, although there was one vote in particular that did have some dissentions.

~ 172 ~ No look, over a period of time, I think it was more of a consensus, there was no such thing as take a vote, it was more a consensus and then at the end, if we wanted to formalise something we would, we’d just say, that would be the case. Committee Member 3. [D] noted that for the most part, the votes had been unanimous and the disenfranchised members added a great deal of experience and knowledge to the debate. [N] noted that there had only been one vote that was not unanimous (15 to 3 against the motion) and everybody would remember that one (Gold Coast City Council, 2005a: 3‐4) The third broad instance of negotiation appeared to happen outside of the formal meeting spaces. Different members of the Community Advisory Committee would meet up with each other in between the regular meetings to discuss topics and issues that they had. These meetings were not discussed in depth during the interviews, but the feeling is that they involved negotiation and presumably reflection on the positions and views of each other. Yup, there were, I met with various different people at various different times to discuss, particularly when we were asked to put forward and put together responses to points, and certainly there were other meetings that occurred and people made themselves available to, and so that was quite good. Committee Member 2. Other actors involved in the Community Advisory Committee arrived early on meeting nights and used this time to discuss issues with other members of the committee. You did, because I think you, we all went there, some of us a little bit earlier than others and you’d just sit in the sort of lounge there at Nerang and just talk, and how’s the weather and all this sort of stuff, but then you would get down to, especially if it was contentious, “oh, did you read that? What do you reckon?” you know, and so that was good. So, in actual fact, those sort of discussion periods I believe are more productive. It just sets the scene and tone, ah, for you, know, I mean I am sure you have been to many, many meetings that you’ve actually sorted it out over a cup of coffee, and then um, sat through a committee, a meeting it’s made it complete because it doesn’t need any more discussion. Committee Member 11. The further benefit of these more informal meetings between formal meetings and in the time just before the committee meetings was that it contributed to a more social atmosphere to build up and improve the social relationships between the members of the

~ 173 ~ committee. This strengthens active trust in that as people spend more time together and get to know each other better, they are able to understand the positions, views and values of the other people. Combined with collective reflexivity on these issues, members of the committee soon realised that they all had essentially the same goals, leading to active trust (Uslaner, 2004). I think the people there had a reasonable acceptance of other people's views, and that sort of thing, and at the end of the day, everybody was therefore one purpose in the sense, whatever but we were all there to ensure that water supply for 50 years time. So I think you push a lot of things aside to make sure that we achieved that. Committee Member 2. A corollary to the idea that as people get to know each other better, they begin to develop active trust is that as people get to know each other better, they become more open minded. This is perhaps in part due to reflexivity and the associated greater variety of knowledge that each actor brings into their reflexive practice. Because if some one is familiar to you, um and you meet them on a reasonably regular basis, you have a much more open, you tend to have a more open attitude, and this seems to be in a confrontational type thing, even then you tend to have a friendlier anti‐ type approach to each other than, I’ve never seen this person before, what’s their position, I’ll need to be a bit careful of what I am going to say, I don’t know how they are going to report back to their group, so people who don’t know each other or comfortable with each other, it becomes a very formalised and ah, stilted process, if people know each other and are comfortable with each other, even if they are not necessarily agreeing with each other, you tend to get a more open, I think a more open process and a more open discussion. … One of the good things about the Gold Coast Water Futures was that people were prepared to move away from the positional point of view and adopt an open point of view that says well, I think this, but I am prepared to hear what you have got to say. And that is a form of trust. Committee Member 7. With negotiation being a two way process that would involve understanding the other party’s position in order to give or take to eventually reach an agreement, the ‘trading’ of information between different actors could be seen as negotiation. This ‘trading’ of information would involve the parties asking questions and getting responses from the other party or parties. When those responses have been delivered, this can be seen as the fulfilling of positive expectations, the final step in the creation of trust.

~ 174 ~ I think there certainly was and I guess I see one of the key things with trust is actually the people who were the people that you are actually trying to develop that trust with, responding to your requests and suggestions, and even if you're not getting what you want, at least putting time in to actually consider what you're talking about. Committee Member 2. In summary, the exercise or process of negotiation has a number of benefits for both participatory engagement processes and active trust. The first possible benefit to participatory engagement is that it can bring parties to a consensus or closer to a consensus. One of the main critiques of consensus, however, is that it may not be the best possible outcome, but simply the most palatable to the decision‐makers.

6.4.5 Influence Influence is a generally ‘invisible’ modality of power that is exercised by actors who are behind the scenes, attempting to move a more prominent actor in a particular direction (Russell, 1986; Bhatia, 2006). As demonstrated in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy after the fact, the process or the output pushed other organisations in a similar direction as the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. While some participants were excited and enthused, there were others who were not so enthusiastic about the Waterfuture Strategy influencing others. Several participants on the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee felt that the strategy and the process used to come up with the strategy should be disseminated to others, but with proper recognition of the source.

A lot to get upset about. There are some councils, other councils, I won't mention any names who did very little in forward planning and now they want our water. So, the supply of water in this city is a success story and it should be told just how the city went about it and how they coped and what was achieved. I mean that and it is not acknowledged by upstairs. George Street [Executive offices of the Queensland State Government] does not acknowledge that. Committee Member 5. Um, now look, they feel empowered, a sense of ownership, and they feel as though its ratepayers money very well spent. And it's being used around the country by poorer councils who haven't been unable to spend that money; our experience is being used elsewhere. And that's very, very, constructive for the community as a whole, and also for the city, because again Gold Coast is leading

~ 175 ~ the way in water cycle management in a way that's, that's really been acknowledged and look it's been done in the best kind of way. Committee Member 12. And so they are picking up on the benefit of it there and it is not ands, and obviously since the committee, since the water futures committee came up with a strategy that has been the lot of changes with the southeast Queensland level, I see we just got report the other day from the water commission coming up with their 50 year strategy, and it looks very similar actually in its outcome and its approach and methodology to the water futures strategy came up with. Committee Member 2. So, as far as they were concerned, the stuff that [S] was doing you know and organised in Gold Coast had enormous implications for the rest of Australia, they used to think that Gold Coast was just streets ahead. In that, all of the other, more context, every state over the last five years has released a policy about Water Futures. If you go to each of the water companies, you will see some document that says Water Futures or Water 2020 or Water 2015. So they are all saying that we are running out of water because of climate change or reduced rainfall or population growth, what are we going to do? And they all had this view of doing something. So [S] actually didn’t just write a full scale document, he was getting into deep, quite detailed scenario planning, far more that any of these other big water companies had done. Committee Member 10. I don't think they've actually grasped the concept of what we were trying to achieve and I only think it really has hit home now with the likes of the Queensland Water Commission with the Brisbane problems. I think all the work that we had done from 2004 on to late 2005 was taken up by the Queensland Water Commission with the Brisbane problem. They stole all of our ideas and made them their own and branded them their own and then stole our water assets, bulk water assets and all because of the failing of the likes of Brisbane not being able to plan. Committee Member 3. The second way in which influence was exercised during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process is through the selection of stakeholders to sit on the Community Advisory Committee. There are several ways in which this happened. The first is because of the history that some of the members had with respect to their past or present employment. Some of them had connections to the council while others were involved in the water industry. Now, recently I was a member of the water, what do they call it? Yah, water future strategy as a representative of the catchment Association. Also, I was selected because of past involvement in the council, because during my term we built, we resumed all of the land for the dam in the early 70s, and we built the first stage, and the second stage. Committee Member 5.

~ 176 ~ Well, in my working life I was tied up with the Queensland state government in the water resources. They designed and built the major dams, weirs, pipelines, and Cox Basin in Queensland. And even though have been retired 21 years now. I was 30, 34 years with the department. I loved the job, and have been interested in water. This became very obvious to Daphne McDonald our local councillor she is currently the deputy mayor. And she knew that I was a member of the neighbourhood watch and at the monthly meetings Daphne would always come along and give a talk about what the council were doing and I was always asking her questions about the water supply and construction and so when they formed this committee she asked me if I would like to be on it and I told her that I would be very interested, and she nominated me. Committee Member 6. While actors’ backgrounds may have influenced their inclusion on the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee, there was the suggestion that there was a substantial amount of political influence from the Gold Coast City Council over who was included on the committee. The first quote here gives some context to who was on the committee, while the second quote from Committee Member 13 suggests that there was political influence. But I also did recognise from the membership side of it, it seemed to be very biased towards retiree’s, and I found that quite intriguing, they had their token couple of school students there, but I just thought there was a huge slice of the community that was missing. I think that you know, we had a lot of older people, for the want of a better term, and these couple of young, I mean the token school students that in actual fact didn’t manage to get to too many of the meetings, but there was nothing in that middle area at all. And there was certainly no indigenous, from what I could see, representation, yah, it seemed extremely polarised, from what I could see. Committee Member 4. I’m just looking in the committee membership, yeah, there were perhaps groups or individuals who were not included in the committee membership by Council who probably should have been and there were people who were included, but perhaps shouldn't have been. There is perhaps some political interference there in that factions within the council elected on to the advisory committee, friends or they came from the right part of sectors or impart the right kind of voice and yes. … Just that initial selection would be a bit less than desirable I could say. Committee Member 13. The effect that this example of influence has on participatory engagement processes is generally negative. When organising authorities start to narrow or restrict who or what sectors of the community are invited to participate, there is less inclusiveness and there is a great chance that less diverse knowledge will be presented, discussed and debated. With this decreased diversity of knowledge or positions, the greater possibility that a consensus will ensue, giving the most palatable outcome rather than the most appropriate.

~ 177 ~ With respect to active trust, this type of influence in the selection of participants may actually have the effect of improving trust. This would be due to what van de Bunt et al. (2006) call the homophily effect where like actors are able to trust other like actors because they have the same backgrounds and or values. This is akin to Uslaner’s (2002) particularised trust. A third way in which influence can be seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process is through the influence that outside organisations would have had on the committee, the issues that it considered and the recommendations that were put forward. So [S] was on a national committee, he was the deputy chair of WSAA, Water Services Association of Australia. That is the big boys’ water club. You had to have more than 50 000 customers to be a member. … Remember, every time [S] had a view it was always strongly influenced by the exposure he had at WSAA. Now WSAA is a top notch organisation, gets all of the information from the whole of Australia, so [S] sort of filters this and brings this back to the committee, pretty hard guy to argue with you know, because he has all this new knowledge. And if he said something, you sort of, you know that he didn’t just pull it out of his back pocket you know. Um, so the WSAA people were saying ah, yeah, water, if you get a desal, you basically remove the water limitation for growth, and the penny was starting to drop. Committee Member 10. The exercise of influence also occurs through the ‘medium picture’. This is whether the Community Advisory Committee actually did have any influence over the outcome of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. From the comments of Committee Member 13 on the previous page about the composition of the committee and the following comments by other committee members, there is some doubt as to whether the committee had any real influence on the outcome. Whether the group did influence change, I doubt it, what they probably did was put some rigour around you know Gold Coast dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s in terms of going out into the broader community. It was probably a litmus test of the style of requests or questions they were going to get from the community. Committee Member 4. Yah, but, I think the relationship between the committee and the Gold Coast Council needed to be, ah, needed improvement. I really do believe that , and I think, um it annoyed me quite a number of times, um, that we were as a committee, we were the token gestures, ah, we were, um, ah look, just feed

~ 178 ~ them anything, as long as they say yes at the end of it, it doesn’t matter. Committee Member 11. This possibility of influence has ramifications for participatory engagement processes and active trust. By promoting the outcome as something that was developed through a participatory community engagement process and championing that the community themselves developed the policy, plan or strategy, the organising authorities are usually looking to then have increased community support and buy in to the policy, plan or strategy. If or when the general community discovers that they really did not have any or much influence over the outcome, there may be increased opposition to the policy, plan or strategy. Whether the committee actually has influence over the outcome is also connected to active trust. Going into the process, the committee reasonably expects to be able to influence the final recommendations that they will put to council. This is the positive expectation that they have. If or when they find out that the really do not have any influence over the final recommendations, the organising authorities have not met their positive expectations, and thus distrust is created between the committee and the organising authorities. (This has been explained previously in the section on manipulation.)

6.5 Other Modalities of Power There were two instances where members of the Community Advisory Committee mentioned what appeared to be different modalities of power. In the first case, one member mentions the term ‘railroaded’. In the context that it was used, this suggests being forced along a path or in a direction that the participant does not wish to go. The modality of power that fits this description would be domination. If, if, if for example you have got meetings where people have not spoken for the first five meetings, and then they get very passionate about an issue, it's very important that you, this may be their one issue that they're absolutely passionate about, and you have got to get to the bottom of them and then you invite discussion and if it means pushing back other issues or shaving other parts of the meeting it, it is imperative for the running of the committee and the process that people feel they have had their say. And they can’t be, and they can’t be railroaded. Otherwise they go away with the feeling that they have not been included. Committee Member 12 (emphasis added).

~ 179 ~ The second instance where a member of the Community Advisory Committee mentioned a ‘new’ modality of power was with respect to how Gold Coast Water and the Project Team steered or guided the committee towards something that they wanted with the outward appearance that the committee had a choice, but in reality they didn’t. This use of corralled suggests that there are elements of a number of different modalities of power at play here. There is suggestion that seduction may be exercised through making something ‘old’ look attractive, elements of manipulation may be exercised here through not giving a complete picture of what is happening and elements of control and coercion may be seen through guiding the group to one outcome, there may be implied threats but no outright threats seem to be seen. I felt that there was, at times, we were corralled, corralled, um, I think that would be the right word. You know, on a couple of major issues. Maybe I felt that way because I opposed those issues, and I felt that they didn’t, they didn’t do it right. Committee Member 11 (emphasis added).

6.6 Synergies Between Modalities As should be evident by a number of repeated quotes with differing interpretations in the above sections, there may have been a number of different modalities of power being exercised at the same time. There are, however, several examples of the exercise of power where multiple modalities have been exercised at the same time to ensure a particular outcome. One of the examples of where several different modalities of power appear to be exercised and working synergistically is where one of the members of the Community Advisory Committee states that there were some problems with some of the councillors during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. In this instance, councillors exercised modalities of domination, coercion and manipulation, trying to get the committee to provide exactly what they wanted without a more thorough investigation. Sometimes some of the councillors got a bit… uhhh, we had some problems with some of the councillors in terms of the views or some of the constraints that were put on the committee, with council sort of pre‐empting the advice that we gave or trying to force the committee to adopt a particular point of

~ 180 ~ view, so we had councillors come along and attempt to, quite bluntly coerce the committee into adopting their particular point of view um, and the committee was pretty good at resisting it – we hear what you have got to say, but we are taking this broader view, and we don’t agree with that, that’s not necessarily a given at this stage, in some cases we were forced by the council to accept something, and the committee expressed its views on that and said ‘we don’t like this’ but you’re the council, and you’ve adopted that position and we don’t agree with it, but so be it. And so that happened a couple of times, I think again that it is a sign of a good process, um, you could accuse the Gold Coast sometimes of I suppose presenting information in a certain light to try and steer the committee in a certain direction, but, um there wasn’t too much of that, um so it worked pretty well. Committee Member 7. The second example of several modalities of power working together comes to light with the information presented and how it was presented to the committee. In some cases top experts were invited in to give presentations to the committee with very technically detailed information and analyses that may or may not have been comprehensible to the majority of the members of the Community Advisory Committee. From the following quote, there are elements of authority, seduction and persuasion that are evident. Very sophisticated analysis that underpinned this. You know, [S] bringing in or the group would bring in these various experts, you know you have all these sophisticated economic models and you know, you are tracking expenditures when it happens and net present value and different discount rates, and this all sort of started to be brought into the mix. Committee Member 10. Following from the introduction of this section, determining what modalities are actually present in a given situation is somewhat tricky. It is very much based on the researcher and their background. There are a number of examples in this case study where this fuzziness between the different modalities of power shows up. For example, in the section on persuasion discussing technical competence as the exercise of persuasion, it could also be considered manipulation or authority, depending on the viewpoint taken. Should the individual performing the analysis ‘see’ that the Project Team or any particular member of the Community Advisory Committee was purposefully hiding information or misleading the other members of the committee through ‘technical competence’ then manipulation could be the modality of power exercised. On the other hand, should the presentation of that particular information be seen as more authoritative rather than persuasive, authority may be the modality of power being exercised.

~ 181 ~ Other areas of blurriness can be seen in whether a particular modality of power is considered negative or positive. In this case study, authority is one such example. Often in the literature it is classified as a negative modality due solely to its close association with domination. However, in this case, authority appeared to have a positive impact on the creation of active trust and strengthen the engagement process. From the meeting minutes and the stories of the members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee there have been a variety of different perspectives, knowledge and information. All of this knowledge and information that was communicated to the members of the committee are what Munnichs (2004) calls multiple truths, and has found that these multiple truths are able to create trust between individuals. When looked at in terms of power, these multiple truths are conveyed through the exercise of various modalities of power, as seen above, including negotiation, persuasion, domination and manipulation. On further reflection, these multiple truths, combined with reflexive practice on the part of the committee members, may have assisted in some committee members ‘discovering’ the manipulation or hidden agendas that they felt were present. This begs the question, are these different knowledges combined with reflexivity enough to bring manipulation to light and hence more effectively ‘target’ trust to those individuals or institutions that deserve it?

6.7 Conclusion There are several conclusions that can be made from the interview evidence presented here. These conclusions will be summarised here, demonstrating how they work towards answering the research questions posed in the beginning of this thesis. In the negative modalities of power, domination does not contribute to active trust, but may contribute to CBT, a very weak form of trust. In terms of participatory engagement, domination contributed to the exclusion of actors and information from the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. Authority, when exercised appropriately was useful in allowing stakeholders to express their views and positions, as well as those from the wider community. Authority also allowed some members of the committee to trust the information presented and the process, particularly when they determined that there was no hidden agenda.

~ 182 ~ Control as a modality of power created tense relations between council and members of the Community Advisory Committee, creating a power hierarchy that destroyed positive expectations that certain members of the committee had. Control also limited the number of participants and the amount of discussion and related topics that could be covered by the Community Advisory Committee during the process. The best example of control is where the Gold Coast City Council retained final decision‐making control ensuring that the Waterfuture Strategy was not a theoretically strong participatory engagement process (Arnstein, 1969). The final two negative modalities of power seen in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process are manipulation and coercion. Manipulation did not contribute to the creation or maintenance of active trust, nor did it provide any support for participatory engagement processes. Likewise, the exercise of coercion produced a threatening environment and provided sanctions against several members of the Community Advisory Committee. The positive modalities of power had either no effect or positive effects on the creation of active trust and participatory engagement processes. Inducement was seen in several ‘small’ instances, providing a positive effect on active trust through the meeting of expectations. Conversely, seduction had a positive effect on participatory engagement through its contributions to deeper understanding, but no effect on active trust. Persuasion was the major modality of power that was exercised in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. Persuasion introduced new knowledge and deeper understanding for the participants, strengthening the participatory engagement process. The exercise of persuasion also contributed to the changing of identities, strengthening active trust. Negotiation also had a positive influence on active trust and participatory engagement processes through adding new members, information and ideas, improving legitimacy and relationships. The final positive modality of power, influence appears to have had quite a different effect than the other modalities of power. In this case, influence was felt more outside of the committee rather than within the committee. This is through the influence that the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process and the outcomes had an effect on other local

~ 183 ~ governments and the Queensland State Government. This is a positive, albeit small, step forward as participatory engagement processes gain traction in more jurisdictions. One broad conclusion that comes out of the exercise of coercion is the idea that information, knowledge, understanding and reflexivity involved in the active creation of active trust may allow participants in participatory engagement processes to be more ‘selective’ with their trust. By having a broader understanding through reflexivity, they are able to differentiate out what is ‘working’ for them and engenders trust from what does not ‘work’ for them and decreases trust or creates distrust. Because each individual is different and each situation in which these actors participate in engagement processes is different, the context in which each situation is found is of great importance. A second broad conclusion that is drawn from this analysis is that the effective and appropriate exercise of certain modalities of power do not have negative consequences, but have the effect of increasing participatory levels and inclusiveness in these types of processes (inducement, persuasion). It would also seem that more negative modalities of power can have positive consequences for the creation of active trust (authority, control). This of course is still very context dependent and may not be applicable to other situations. The different modalities of power that are exercised and discussed here can be quite difficult to analyse, as each possible modality can be seen in a different way depending on the person. This is where contextualism plays a large role, as there is no one universal way of seeing

or

determining

modalities

of

power.

~ 184 ~

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

7.0 Theoretical Summary In the early chapters of this thesis, three seemingly disparate concepts were introduced – participatory engagement, trust and power. In each of these chapters a broad overview of these concepts was given. Participatory engagement can be seen as the state involving civil society in knowledge exchange, in this case for policy, planning or strategy development. Trust has been described by a number of authors as a psychological state where the intention is to accept vulnerability based on the positive expectations of the behaviour of another individual or group (Rousseau et al., 1998). Power has many different conceptions, but in this thesis, it follows a networked theory of power that brings together spatiality and resources along with a variety of different modalities. Theoretical and practical examples of the different components of participatory engagement processes have been presented, using the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. The theoretical basis behind participatory engagement has attempted to provide some context for this thesis’ three key debates, namely Communicative Action Theory versus Communicative Democracy; Power as a methodology – the communicative action theorists versus critical realists; and the extent to which participatory engagement processes are genuinely participatory. Through integrating relevant theoretical perspectives with these applied debates, the first connections between participatory engagement processes, power and trust were introduced. In assessing the relationships between participatory engagement processes, power and trust, three types of relevant trust were identified: Calculus‐based trust (CBT); Knowledge‐ based trust (KBT); and active trust. While some scholars view these types of trust as overlapping and not distinct, an alternative view seeing them on a continuum of varying strengths, from weak trust (CBT) to very strong trust (active trust) was presented. This delineation of trust, including the distinction between interpersonal and institutional trust, also demonstrated and confirmed the links between participatory engagement processes and trust, as the two concepts are comprised of the same or very similar components, especially active trust.

~ 185 ~ Swain and Tait’s (2007) persuasive argument that there is a crisis of trust in planning and policy‐making, nonetheless does not seem to apply to active trust nor to situations where the public or community is actively engaged in developing policy, plans or strategies through participatory engagement processes. However, the concept of power as a ‘force’ holding trust and participatory engagement processes together is compelling given both the evidence behind perceived crises of trust and the fact that trust and participatory engagement processes have so many similar components. The networked theory of power is what links participatory engagement processes to trust. Many of the components of a robust participatory engagement process are resources that are mobilised in the exercise of various modalities of power. The end result of this exercise of power is either trust or in other cases, distrust. Examples from the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy case study have been used throughout the theoretical chapters on participatory engagement, trust and power to illustrate practical examples of the theory in action.

7.1 Case Study Summary The whole Gold Coast Waterfuture process went on for approximately two years and this thesis has examined several specific aspects of the process. However, the question may be asked “What was the actual outcome of the Gold Coast Waterfuture?” The answer to this question will not only bring closure to the case study itself, introduced in Chapter 2 but also present some practical aspects of this thesis. In late 2005 the Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee presented their final recommendation to Council on the best water strategy for the Gold Coast. This strategy was unanimously accepted with all of the committee’s recommendations unamended. There were concerns raised by some committee members about comments that the mayor had made to the media that made them feel that council may not actually implement their recommendation. In short, the recommendations have been implemented, albeit with some minor adjustments due to changes in State Government legislation and regulations. One recommendation ‐ on the amount of recycled water that was to be a part of the water strategy ‐ was not implemented at the time. Instead, Gold Coast Water convened another community advisory committee to determine the exact way that this component would be distributed and implemented, simply due to the community and political sensitivities around

~ 186 ~ recycled water at the time. Some committee members were also quite pleased that the State Government took up some of their work and used it in the South East Queensland regional water plan. It can be difficult to speculate what other possible decisions could have been made by Council outside of rejecting the committee’s recommendation or accepting it with amendments. One member of the committee noted that the recommendation presented to Council was a “safe” outcome that even the most conservative councillors could accept. This member also felt that the committee membership had been carefully chosen so that they would actually arrive at the “safe” outcome, Council would adopt it. Some of the members of the committee attempted to have certain recommendations drafted to favour their interests. These obvious attempts by some members to force their positions on the whole of the committee did decrease the trust that others may have had in those members and the organisations that they represented. Overall, the committee members appeared to be satisfied with the role of the community advisory committee. There were concerns raised during the interviews about whether the time and effort that they put into it would be worth it through having council adopt their recommendations or whether it would have been a waste of time with council ignoring the recommendations. Some divisions arose amongst the committee members about how the committee was directed by council and councillors, with some claiming that the organisers directed the committee in a pre‐determined direction, while others felt that the committee was unfettered in the directions it could take within the Terms of Reference.

7.2 Analytical Summary It has been argued that a selection of different modalities of power either strengthened or weakened both the creation and maintenance of active trust and participatory engagement processes. With one exception, the negative modalities of power (domination, control, manipulation and coercion) had a negative impact on the creation of active trust. Authority was the exception to this generalisation where it appeared to have a positive impact on the creation of active trust. The same pattern was seen when the analysis turned to participatory engagement processes, with all of the negative modalities except authority having a negative impact on participatory engagement processes.

~ 187 ~ By contrast, the positive modalities of power had either no discernable effect on active trust or a positive impact on active trust. From the interview responses, seduction and influence did not appear to have any effect on active trust within the confines of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. However, influence may have played a role in other jurisdictions beyond the Gold Coast who actively trusted both the process and the outcomes from that process. Influence may have played a role overall in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy. By selecting the experts that presented information to the Community Advisory Committee, the Project Team composed of officers from Gold Coast Water, may have been able to exert influence over what type of information was presented. To balance this, there was at least one member of the Community Advisory Committee who was able to challenge or question much of this information presented by the experts. However, this member was not able to attend all of the 17 official meetings (Gold Coast City Council, 2006). The potential for Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water to influence the outcome that the Community Advisory Committee produced was certainly there. Inducement, persuasion and negotiation all had positive impacts on the creation of active trust. All positive modalities of power had a positive impact in strengthening participatory engagement processes with the exception of seduction and influence, which had no discernable effect. Generally, power relationships in participatory engagement do have an impact on the creation of active trust, whether it be coercion and the threat of force only permitting Calculus Based Trust or no trust at all to be created or the use of authority, for example, to mediate the creation of active trust. (Ensuring all input is considered equally towards joint problem solving). The analysis of trust through the modalities of power would seem to show that power does have a significant impact on active trust and participatory engagement processes. More specifically, different modalities of power have vastly different effects on active trust and participatory engagement processes. This would seem to highlight the ability of power to be used as a sophisticated tool to investigate the inner workings of trust creation and participatory engagement processes. By using power as a tool at the level of individual modalities of power, one is able to look at the power mechanisms involved in the creation of active trust. Furthermore, by looking at the resources that may have been mobilised in the exercise of each modality of power, we may be able to see a pattern of which resources (in this case, components of participatory

~ 188 ~ engagement processes) are affecting the creation and maintenance of active trust. There are, however, two dangers associated with this. First, within each instance of the exercise of a particular modality of power there may be different resources or combinations of resources mobilised each time. Second, depending on the observer, the modality of power seen may not be the same. Each observer may see something different. Both of these constraints only seem to highlight the highly contextual nature of power and trust. Overall, it can be concluded that there was an increase in the amount of trust between members of the community advisory committee. There were some notable exceptions that have been mentioned in Chapter 6, where individuals were alleged to be attempting to manipulate the direction of the committee. The committee members also appeared to trust the actual process of engagement. In this way, engagement itself can be seen to be a catalyst for the creation of active trust. By bringing people together and providing them the opportunity to gain increased knowledge of each other, their positions, views and values, this can contribute to the early development of Knowledge Based Trust. As the engagement process continues and becomes more of an ongoing process with a stable membership participating in open discussion and debates, aimed at solving a joint problem, the more relevant the definition of active trust by Agyris (1999) and Hornig‐Priest (2005). By actively participating in engagement processes which allow joint problem solving, whether through verbal or other means, active trust can be developed and maintained.

7.3 Meeting the Aims and Answering the Research Questions In the beginning of this thesis several research aims were put forward. Broadly, these aims include attempting to bring together disparate disciplines in a interdisciplinary if not transdisciplinary study; attempt to fill in some of the perceived gaps in the debates around participatory engagement processes and trust; highlight the presence of power in the creation of trust; and seek to fill in some of the gaps in the methodological debate between Communicative Action theorists and critical realists. With these aims in mind, three questions that this research would attempt to address were posed: 


~ 189 ~ 




What underpinnings or undermining of trust by power are evident through engaging the community in the policy and planning process?

This research has successfully met the majority of each of the research aims set out in the introduction of this thesis. This thesis has brought together a variety of disciplines to provide a robust view of trust and the implications for future practice in these disciplines. The disciplines that have successfully been brought together in this thesis include sociology (through the detailed look at the relationships between members of the Community Advisory Committee, Council and the Project Team); Political Science (through looking at participatory engagement processes as a way to improve decision‐making); and Policy Studies (by looking at possible implications to policy‐making and planning arising from investigating trust in great detail). There were two other disciplines that were included to a lesser extent. Human Geography appears through the analysis of which stakeholders were included or excluded from the participatory process. It is also evident in the analysis of domination and the locations and structures involved in the Community Advisory Committee meetings. Urban Planning also makes a tangential appearance through the use of this particular case study – how community actors and stakeholders were involved in the design and functioning of water delivery on the Gold Coast. The concepts of trust, power, and community engagement that are a part of these disciplines have successfully been brought together in this thesis. Addressing mechanisms of trust in participatory engagement, while all of the gaps in the debates around participatory engagement processes may not have been filled, some have been refined. Participatory engagement processes as currently set up by elected governments may not be truly participatory when looking at the guidelines that Arnstein (1969) has set out, but here again contextualism appears. If the participants feel that they have been engaged in a satisfying way, even though it may fall short of recommended guidelines, then the process may still be seen as successfully. Put more simply, the success of participatory processes is largely in the eye of the beholder. Power is clearly shown to play a significant role in participatory engagement processes, especially when assessed modality by modality. This is also true when power influences

~ 190 ~ communication, including allowing people to communicate and the modes that they are able to use to communicate. The analysis of power in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy seems to have shown quite clearly that the context in which participatory engagement processes take place is of critical importance and that universal norms cannot be applied to these situations. In addressing trust, the thesis has sought to refine the arguments of Swain and Tait (2007) and O’Neill (2002) who point to a crisis of trust and why and how people have lost trust in planners, government or institutions. Certainly O’Neill’s (2002) assertion that the audit society has precipitated a decrease in trust seems to be true in terms of trust on an interpersonal level. Individuals are the ones that attempt to manipulate and exploit loopholes to get themselves ahead. On the level of institutional trust, these audit mechanisms are necessary for people to be able to have trust in the processes and activities that they underpin. However, participants in the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process seem to be able to differentiate between these two levels of trust. Reflexivity has been seen as a contributor to declining trust, yet found to be a crucial component of active trust. Reflexivity may cause a decline in trust at lower levels of trust, where actors may not carry through with obligations or expectations when they think or reflect ‘too much’ on the position that they may be in. One of the ways in which actors may reflect ‘too much’ on the position that they are in is when they look at the political and media sensationalism that is produced to show that there is some enormous crisis, but not to worry, the experts have a plan or a policy that is going to work. When this policy or plan is introduced and actors reflect on it in light of the prior sensationalism, they begin to realise that what ever the plight, it is ‘too big’ and no amount of local, state or national policy is going to correct it. The previous paragraph may explain how Swain and Tait (2007) envisage how reflexivity decreases trust. The key point is that Swain and Tait (2007) and O’Neill (2002) are looking at an entirely different conception of planning and trust. These authors are analysing the expert planner or expert planning and policy framework. There is certainly a decline in trust when experts or politicians are the only actors involved. There are however, very different dynamics and forces at play when community or public actors are involved in participatory planning or policy‐making. By looking back at some of the components of participatory

~ 191 ~ engagement processes, this thesis demonstrated that there needs to be certain boundaries around the issue being discussed so that participants are able to focus on the core issues and develop both trust and acceptable outcomes. Reflexivity is yet another aspect in the crisis of trust where Swain and Tait (2007) claim that reflexivity actually decreases levels of trust. Yet in participatory engagement processes and active trust, reflexivity is a key component (Giddens, 1994). This paradox may simply require a refinement of the terms in which trust is discussed. Reflexivity may decrease weaker types of trust within a population, yet it could actually increase levels of active trust (strong trust). The first research question posed asked what types of trust are created or developed in participatory engagement processes. The simple answer to that is all three types that were discussed in Chapter Four (Calculus‐based trust, Knowledge‐based trust and active trust) are created during participatory engagement processes. They seem to be created at different times during the process and in different circumstances. Both levels of trust, institutional and interpersonal were also developed during the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process. The differentiation between the levels of interpersonal and institutional trust was only made clear by one respondent, although they suggested that there were other members of the committee that did the same. The second research question asks what mechanisms were at work in the development and maintenance of trust or distrust during participatory engagement processes. Calculus‐based trust can be created through the exercise of power, particularly negative modalities of power. These modalities (domination and coercion) on a practical level include continuous oversight, contracts and sanctions for non‐compliance or rewards for compliance. Knowledge‐based trust is created through knowledge and experience. Active trust, the main focus of this work can be created and maintained through continuous dialogue or communication between the members interspersed with reflexive opportunities. This continuous communication helps promote the building of social relationships, another building block of active trust. Along with social relationships comes the exercise of power. The exercise of positive modalities of power and in this case authority, have been seen to build and maintain active trust in participatory engagement processes.

~ 192 ~ The question of how power underpins or undermines the creation of active trust during participatory engagement processes can be answered for two types of trust that are discussed here, Calculus‐based trust (CBT) and active trust. CBT is underpinned by negative modalities of power including control, coercion and domination. Because CBT relies on contracts and other instruments to ensure that positive expectations are met, these modalities of power facilitate the use of these instruments. Domination consists of constant supervision, coercion suggests threats of sanctions for non‐compliance and control ensures that people can be steered in a suitable direction. Active trust is underpinned by a number of positive modalities of power including persuasion, negotiation, inducement and even authority in some cases. These modalities work through continuous dialogue and communication and periods of reflexivity. These are crucial for the development and maintenance of active trust according to Giddens (1994). Active trust is undermined through the exercise of domination, manipulation, coercion and control. Through the exercise of these modalities of power two way communication, dialogue and discussion are not encouraged. Participants come to participatory engagement processes with preconceived ideas of what their expectations are based on their interpretation of any terms of reference. These modalities of power tend to change or negate those positive expectations that participants have.

7.4 Analytical Meta Conclusions Emerging from this thesis are two ‘meta conclusions’ that are broader than the conclusions from each individual modality of power. The first meta conclusion emerges from the exercise of coercion and manipulation, namely that information, knowledge, understanding and reflexivity involved in the active creation of active trust may allow participants in participatory engagement processes to be more ‘selective with their trust. By having a broader understanding through reflexivity, they are able to differentiate what is ‘working’ for them and engenders trust from what does not ‘work’ for them and decreases trust or creates distrust. Participatory engagement processes may harbour a mechanism to provide actors with an ability to selectively trust, rendering O’Neill’s (2002) audit society argument and the crisis of trust moot in participatory engagement processes. By allowing Munnich’s (2004) multiple

~ 193 ~ truths in the form of different knowledges, actors and stakeholders are able to see the big picture and have a greater capacity to determine if others are concealing a particular intention behind the knowledge they share. When manipulation through concealment comes to light and actors realise that their expectations from a particular individual, group or institution are not being met, they can choose to either withdraw their trust or not trust at all. The trust or distrust is then specifically targeted to the individual or institution rather than being generalised. This focus on generalisation may be one issue that is driving a general decrease in or the crisis of trust. The second meta conclusion is that the effective and appropriate exercise of some modalities of power, including certain negative modalities, do not have negative consequences, but have the effect of increasing participatory levels and inclusiveness in these types of processes (inducement, persuasion). It would also seem that more negative modalities of power can have positive consequences for the creation of active trust (authority, control). Both of these meta conclusions are demonstrably based on contextual information and knowledge. As such, they may not be applicable to all situations. The same may be said for individuals who each have their unique worldview and experiences. Given how crucial that contextualism is in considering analyses of trust, power and participatory engagement, one needs to remain highly cautious in seeking universal application of these meta‐conclusions or indeed even considering them through the lens of universal norms.

7.5 Critical Reflections There are several limits to the applicability of this study and its ability to make broader statements. One of the principle limitations is the small sample size, and the relative homogeneity of the committee. With increasing multiculturalism around the world, there are multiple differences in the development of trust in a multicultural environment, highlighted by Child and Mollering (2003) and differences where gender is specifically studied. There are also design limitations with the applicability of this study, for example no arrangements made specifically for young people (see Edwards and Grant‐Smith, 2009). One of the larger constraints of the wider applicability of this study is that it was conducted under one unique legal and legislative framework in the Australian State of Queensland.

~ 194 ~ While these limitations may seem to be enough to limit the wider applicability of this study, there are, however, a number of facets that make this study applicable in a broader context. The first is that it highlights the practical use of power as an analytical tool in being able to drill down to the ‘micro’ aspects of how the process actually worked. Again on a more practical level, this study can highlight the benefit of using participatory processes to build trust in the community and with this trust gain better buy‐in or compliance with policies or plans. These ‘lessons’ do not only apply to the field of water management. If this type of process can have even a moderate amount of success in such a ‘life‐critical’ area as water, especially in the highly politically charged atmosphere of South East Queensland in 2003‐ 2004, when the Australia was in the grip of one of the most severe droughts ever experienced, then this type of process should have some success when it is used in most other planning or policy situations that are not as life‐critical or highly politicised. This thesis, by unpacking some of the more detailed workings of trust in participatory engagement processes, has acknowledged several shortcomings in both its methodological approach and analysis. In particular, future research could well elaborate in response to the question ‘What underpinnings or undermining of trust by power are evident or come to light through engaging the community in the policy and planning process?’, by completing a more thorough analysis of exactly what resources are being mobilised and how exactly the mobilisation of those resources cause specific modalities of power to be exercised. More critical reflection is also encouraged in assessing the different modalities of power. Only a small number of modalities that have been highlighted by Allen (2003) have been investigated in this thesis, but there are two ‘caveats’ to this. Firstly, these modalities are ones that he has elaborated based on his worldview and the context that he finds himself in. There may be many other modalities of power with even slightly different meanings for different people, dependent on their worldview or their own personal context. Secondly, and related to the first point, how are these modalities of power in practice exercised? In this thesis the idea of a networked theory of power in its simplest form is highlighted, but there are other theories of how power is exercised that could bring out different conclusions than those reached in this thesis. Other modalities of power were evident in the words of one of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee members: “corralled”. This ‘new modality’ does not seem to fit any of the modalities presented in this thesis and yet was the most salient form of power for this participant. The quest to discover

~ 195 ~ new or different modalities of power and how they influence the creation and maintenance of either trust or distrust is but one direction that can and should be taken further from this thesis. The area that this thesis has arguably most wrestled with is reconciling trust as it plays out within a participatory engagement process and the widely perceived crisis of trust in contemporary society. The work of Rose (1999) and others on this topic focussing on the rise of the audit society with its accountability, transparency and openness as general causes of a decline in trust appears to be discussing a highly centralised system of where power operates. This contrasts with the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy process which although centralised structurally (power was retained by the City Council to a great extent), was a genuine attempt at decentralising decision‐making power. Systems that are decentralised have noticeably different power dynamics than systems that are centralised. In turn, differentiating between institutions and processes that were seen in this case study is likely to similarly create different power dynamics in a more decentralised, participatory model of governance. It may be that the institutions and the authorities created by these institutions need accountability, transparency and openness for actors and stakeholders to trust them enough to engage with them. The actors and stakeholders may not trust individuals or groups that are a part of the institutions or authorities who attempt to circumvent the audits and controls. Essentially, there is the possibility that active trust needs a bedrock of institutional formality ‐ the audit society ‐ from the outset to flourish. Undoubtedly the issue of institutional authority requires further investigation and research, particularly the extent to which it affects the relationship between trust and participatory engagement practices. Robust participatory engagement processes clearly need institutions and mechanisms in place to ensure transparency, accountability and openness. On one hand, the ‘audit society’ is required for participatory processes that can create and maintain active trust, yet on the other hand, it perpetuates a decrease in trust. The mechanisms at play in this situation require further research in many different participatory engagement contexts before the full complexities of truth manifested might be revealed.

~ 196 ~

Chapter Eight: References ALGATE, J. (2007) SEQ Will Have Purified Recycled Water but No Vote: Premier. Brisbane, Government of Queensland. ALLEN, J. (1996) Our Town: Foucault and Knowledge‐based Politics in London. IN MANDELBAUM, S., MAZZA, L. & BURCHELL, R. (Eds.) Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ, Center for Urban Policy Research. ALLEN, J. (2003) Lost Geographies of Power, Oxford, Blackwell. ALLEN, J. (2004) The Whereabouts of Power: Politics, Government and Space Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 86, 19‐32. ARENDT, H. (1977) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, London, Penguin Books. ARENDT, H. (1986 [1969]) Communicative Power. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. ARGYRIS, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. Oxford, Blackwell. ARNSTEIN, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216‐224. ASR RESEARCH & RED ROAD CONSULTING (2002) Growing Up in Cities Projects ‐ Evaluation Report and "How To" Guide. City of Whittlesea and Hume City Council. AUSTIN, P. M. (2006) Planning for an Ageing Population. IN THOMPSON‐FAWCETT, M. & FREEMAN, C. (Eds.) Living Together: Towards Inclusive Communities in New Zealand. Dunedin, University of Otago Press. AYRES, S. & STAFFORD, I. (2008) Exploring the Quality and Validity of Voice Recognition Software: Lessons From the Field. British Academy Annual Conference. BANKS, M., LOVATT, A., O'CONNOR, J. & RAFFO, C. (2000) Risk and Trust in the Cultural Industries. Geoforum, 31, 453‐464. BARNETT, C. (1999) Culture, Government and Spatiality ‐ Reassessing the 'Foucault Effect' in Cultural‐Policy Studies. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 369‐397. BECK, U. (1992) Risk Society Towards a New Modernity, London, Sage. BECK, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge, Polity Press. BECK, U. (2008) Climate Change and Globalisation are Reinforcing Global Inequalities: High Time for a New Social Democratic Era. Globalizations, 5, 78‐80. BEETHAM, D. (1991). The Legitimation of Power. London, The Macmillan Press.

~ 197 ~ BHATIA, A. (2006) Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Press Conferences. Discourse and Society, 17, 173‐203. BIJLSMA‐FRANKEMA, K. & COSTA, A. C. (2005) Understanding the Trust‐Control Nexus. International Sociology, 20, 259‐282. BOLOGNESI, N. (2006) A Question of Trust. Nature, 443, 626‐627. BONNY, E., & BERKES, F. (2008) Communicating Traditional Environmental Knowledge: Addressing the Diversity of Knowledge, Audiences and Media Types. Polar Record, 44, 243‐253. BÄCKSTRAND, K. (2002) Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Scientific Experts, Policy‐makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance. IN BIERMAN, F., CAMP, S. & JACOB, K. (Eds.) Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change "Knowledge for the Sustainability Transition. The Challenge for Social Science". Berlin, Global Governance Project. BÄCKSTRAND, K. (2004a) Science, Uncertainty and Participation in Global Environmental Governance. Environmental Politics, 13, 650‐656. BÄCKSTRAND, K. (2004b) Scientisation vs. Civic Expertise in Environmental Governance: Eco‐ feminist, Eco‐modern and Post‐modern Responses. Environmental Politics, 13, 695‐ 714. BÄCKSTRAND, K. (2006a) Democratizing Global Environmental Governance? Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development. European Journal of International Relations, 12, 467‐498. BÄCKSTRAND, K. (2006b) Multi‐Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness. European Environment, 16, 290‐306. CAROLAN, M. (2006) Ecological Representation in Deliberation: The Contribution of Tactile Spaces. Environmental Politics, 15, 345‐361. CASAGRANDE, D. G., HOPE, D., FARLEY‐METZGER, E., COOK, W., YABIKU, S. & REDMAN, C. (2007) Problem and Opportunity: Integrating Anthropology, Ecology, and Policy through Adaptive Experimentation in the Urban U.S. Southwest. Human Organization, 66, 125‐139. CASTELLS, M. (2006) The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. IN CASTELLS, M & CARDOSO, G. (Eds.) The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington, DC, John Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations. CHARTIER, B., LAPOINTE, S. & BONNER, K. (2005) Get Real: The Art and Power of Storytelling

~ 198 ~ in Workplace Communities, Ottawa, Government of Canada. CHECKER, M. (2007) "But I Know It's True": Environmental Risk Assessment, Justice, and Anthropology. Human Organization, 66, 112‐125. CHILD, J. & MÖLLERING, G. (2003) Contextual Confidence and Active Trust Development in the Chinese Business Environment. Organization Science, 14, 69‐80. CHRISTENSON, S. (2005) Truth and Trust: In Iraq War Coverage, They've Become Casualties. Nieman Reports. CLARK, A. (2006) Challenging the Yuck Factor: The Role of Trust in Advancing Public Acceptance of Water Reuse Projects. Honours Thesis, Faculty of Environmental Science. Brisbane, Griffith University. CLEGG, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London, Sage. COHEN, J. (1989) Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. IN HAMLIN, A. & PETTIT, P. (Eds.) The Good Polity. Normative Analysis of the State. Oxford, Blackwell. CONNELL, N. A. D. & MANNION, R. (2006) Conceptualisations of Trust in the Organisational Literature: Some Indicators from a Complementary Perspective. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 20, 417‐433. COOK, T. & GRONKE, P. (2005) The Sceptical American: Revisiting the Meanings of Trust in Government and Confidence in Institutions. The Journal of Politics, 67, 784‐803. CUTHILL, M. (2004) Community Visioning: Facilitating Informed Citizen Participation in Local Area Planning on the Gold Coast. Urban Policy and Research, 22, 427‐445. CVETKOVICH, G. & WINTER, P. (2002) Social Trust and the Management of Threatened and Endangered Species: A Study of Communities of Interest and Communities of Place. Berkeley, CA, USDA Forest Service. CVETKOVICH, G. & WINTER, P. (2004) Seeing Eye‐to‐Eye on Natural Resource Management: Trust, Value Similarity, and Action Consistency / Justification. IN TIERNEY, P. T. & CHAVEZ, D. J. (Eds.) 4th Social Aspects and Recreational Research Symposium. San Francisco, CA, San Francisco State University. DAHL, R. (1986) Power as the Control of Behavior. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. DAVIS, W. (2006) Our Ethnosphere at Risk. Shift, 11, 32‐33. DONEY, P. M., CANNON, J. P. & MULLEN, M. R. (1998) Understanding the Influence of National Culture on the Development of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 601‐620. DOVERS, S. (2005) Environment and Sustainability Policy. Sydney, Federation Press.

~ 199 ~ DREXLER, J. M. (2007) Politics Improper: Iris Marion Young, Hannah Arendt, and the Power of Performativity. Hypatia, 22, 1‐15. DUNN, C. E., CROWLEY, P., BUSH, J., PLESS‐MULLOLI, T. & MCKINNEY, P. A. (2008) Expertise and Scientific Uncertainty: Understanding Trust Amongst Professional Stakeholders in Environment and Health. Environment and Planning A, 40, 696‐714. EDWARDS, P. & GRANT‐SMITH, D. (2009) Engaging Young People – Reflections from a Participatory Water Planning Exercise. Australian Planner, 46(4), 11‐12. EDWARDS, P., HINDMARSH, R., MERCER, H., BOND, M. & ROWLAND, A. (2008) A Three‐stage Evaluation of a Deliberative Event. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4, Article 6. EKETONE, A. & SHANNON, P. (2006) Community Development and Empowerment. IN FREEMAN, C. & THOMPSON‐FAWCETT, M. (Eds.) Living Together: Towards Inclusive Communities in New Zealand. Dunedin, University of Otago Press. ESHUIS, J. & VAN WOERKUM, C. (2003) Trust and Monitoring in Governance Processes: Lessons from Landscape Management by Farmers in a Dutch Municipality. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5, 379‐396. ETHOS FOUNDATION (2006) Ethos Foundation Fact Sheets. IN MACKINNON, S. (Ed. Binna Burra, QLD, Ethos Foundation. EVERINGHAM, J.‐A. (2007) Democratizing Governance in Australia's Regions. IN CHESHIRE, L., HIGGINS, V. & LAWRENCE, G. (Eds.) Rural Governance: International Perspectives. London, Routledge. FIELDING, N. & THOMAS, H. (2001) Qualitative Interviewing. IN GILBERT, N. (Ed.) Researching Social Life. Second ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. FISCHER, F. (2006) Participatory Governance as Deliberative Empowerment: The Cultural Politics of Discursive Space. American Review of Public Administration, 36, 19‐40. FISHKIN, J. S. & LUSKIN, R. C. (2005) Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 40, 284‐298. FLYVBJERG, B. (1996) The Dark Side of Planning: Rationality and "Realrationalitat". IN MANDELBAUM, S., MAZZA, L. & BURCHELL, R. (Eds.) Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ, Center for Urban Policy Research Press. FLYVBJERG, B. (1998a) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. FLYVBJERG, B. (1998b) Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society? British Journal of Sociology, 49, 210‐233. FLYVBJERG, B. (2000a) Ideal Theory, Real Rationality: Habermas Versus Foucault and

~ 200 ~ Nietzsche. Political Studies Association 50th Annual Conference, The Challenges for Democracy in the 21st Century. London School of Economics and Political Science. FLYVBJERG, B. (2000b) Bringing Power to Planning Research: One Researcher's Story. Planning Research 2000. London, Aldershot. FLYVBJERG, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. FLYVBJERG, B. (2003) Rationality and Power. IN CAMPBELL, S. & FAINSTEIN, S. (Eds.) Readings in Planning Theory. Oxford, Blackwell. FLYVBJERG, B. (2006a) Five Misunderstandings About Case‐Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219‐245. FLYVBJERG, B. (2006b) Social Science That Matters. Forsight Europe, 2, 38‐42. FLYVBJERG, B. & RICHARDSON, T. (2002) Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory. IN ALLMENDINGER, P. & TEWDWR‐JONES, M. (Eds.) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London, Routledge. FOLKE, C., HAHN, T., OLSSON, P. & NORBERG, J. (2005) Adaptive Governance of Social‐ Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 441‐473. FORESTER, J. (1996) Argument, Power, and Passion in Planning Practice. IN MANDELBAUM, S., MAZZA, L. & BURCHELL, R. (Eds.) Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ, Centre for Urban Policy Research. FORESTER, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. FORESTER, J. (2006) Policy Analysis as Critical Listening. IN MORAN, M., REIN, M. & GOODIN, R. E. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford, Oxford University Press. FORESTER, J. (2008) Are Collaboration and Participation More Trouble than they're Worth? Planning Theory and Practice, 9, 299‐304. FOSSATO, F. (2001) The Russian Media: From Popularity to Distrust. Current History, 100, 343‐348. FOUCAULT, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality ‐ An Introduction, London, Penguin. FREEMAN, C. (2006) Creating Welcoming Communities for Children and Young People. IN THOMPSON‐FAWCETT, M. & FREEMAN, C. (Eds.) Living Together: Towards Inclusive Communities in New Zealand. Dunedin, University of Otago Press. FREEMAN, C. & THOMPSON‐FAWCETT, M (Eds.) (2006) Living Together: Towards Inclusive Communities in New Zealand. Dunedin, University of Otago Press. FRIESEN, W. (2006) Planning for Cultural Diversity. IN THOMPSON‐FAWCETT, M. & FREEMAN, C. (Eds.) Living Together: Towards Inclusive Communities in New Zealand.

~ 201 ~ Dunedin, University of Otago Press. FUNG, A. (2004) Deliberation's Darker Side: Six Questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge. National Civic Review, 47‐54. GALBRAITH, J. K. (1986) Power and Organization. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. GAMBETTA, D. (1998) Claro!: An Essay on Discursive Mechanisms. IN ELSTER, J. (Ed.) Deliberative Democracy. New York, Cambridge University Press. GIDDENS, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford CA, Stanford University Press. GIDDENS, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge, Blackwell. GILSON, L. (2006) Trust in Health Care: Theoretical Perspectives and Research Needs. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 20, 359‐375. GLEDHILL, J. (1994) Power and Its Disguises: Anthropological Perspectives on Politics, London, Pluto Press. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004a) Gold Coast Waterfuture Advisory Committee Information Paper. Gold Coast Waterfuture. Gold Coast, QLD, Gold Coast Water and Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004b) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2. May 25, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004c) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #4. July 20, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004d) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #8. December 16, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004e) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #5. August 12, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004f) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #6. October 6, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004g) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #1. April 20, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004h) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #7. November 11, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2004i) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #3. June 17, 2004. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2005a) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory

~ 202 ~ Committee Meeting #10. March 3, 2005. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2005b) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Community Advisory Committee Meeting #13. June 9, 2005. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2005c) Minutes of Gold Coast Waterfuture Commnuity Advisory Committee Meeting #12. May 12, 2005. Gold Coast, Gold Coast City Council. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2006) Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy 2006‐2056. Gold Coast, QLD, Gold Coast City Council, GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2009a) About the Gold Coast. Gold Coast City Council. http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?PID=1. Accessed June 3, 2009. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2009b) Gold Coast Water. Gold Coast City Council. http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_gcw.asp?PID=301. Accessed June 3, 2009. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2009c) Community Consultation. Gold Coast City Council. http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?PID=6615. Accessed June 3, 2009. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2009d) Our Waterfuture. Gold Coast City Council. http://www.goldcoastwater.com.au/t_gcw.asp?PID=3132. Accessed June 3, 2009. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (2009e) Gold Coast Catchment Association. Gold Coast City Council. http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?pid=7455. Accessed July 2, 2009. GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (n.d.) Gold Coast Waterfuture Terms of Reference for Advisory Committee. Gold Coast, QLD, Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water. GOLD COAST WATER (2009a) Gold Coast Water Awards. Gold Coast, QLD, Gold Coast City Council

and

Gold

Coast

Water.

http://www.goldcoastwater.com.au/t_gcw.asp?PID=6265. Accessed July 13, 2009. GOLD COAST WATER (2009b) Delivering a Sustainable Waterfuture: The Gold Coast Waterfuture 2009. Gold Coast, QLD, Gold Coast City Council and Gold Coast Water. GOLDMAN, A. I. (1986) Toward a Theory of Social Power. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. GOLDTHORPE, J., LOCKWOOD, D., BECKHOFER, F., & PLATT, J. (1968‐1969) The Affluent Worker. (VOLS 1‐3) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. GONZALEZ, S. & HEALEY, P. (2005) A Sociological Institutionalist Approach to the Study of Innovation in Governance Capacity. Urban Studies, 42, 2055‐2069. HAAS, T. (2004) The Public Sphere as a Sphere of Publics: Rethinking Habermas's Theory of the Public Sphere. Journal of Communication 54, 178‐184.

~ 203 ~ HABERMAS, J. (1986) Hannah Arendt's Communications Concept of Power. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. HABERMAS, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. HAHN, T., OLSSON, P., FOLKE, C. & JOHANSSON, K. (2006) Trust‐building, Knowledge Generation and Organizational Innovations: The Role of a Bridging Organization for Adaptive Comanagement of a Wetland Landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology, 34, 573‐592. HAJER, M. (2003) Policy Without Polity: Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175‐195 HARDING, R. (1998) Political Structures and Institutional Change. Environmental Decision‐ Making: The Roles of Scientists, Engineers and the Public. Annandale NSW, Federation Press. HEALEY, P. (2000) Planning Theory and Urban and Regional Dynamics: A Comment on Yiftachel and Huxley. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 917‐ 921. HEALEY, P. (2006). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London, Palgrave Macmillan. HENDRIKS, C. M. (2006) When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation. Politics and Society, 34, 571‐602. HEYWOOD, A. (1997) Politics, London, Macmillan Press. HINDESS, B. (1996) Discourses of Power: From Hobbes to Foucault, Oxford, Blackwell. HOCH, C. J. (2007) Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 272‐283. HOPPE, P., RICKSON, R. & BURCH, D. (2007) Governing Rural Landscapes and Environments: The Strategic Role of Local Community and Global Corporate Partnerships. IN CHESHIRE, L., HIGGINS, V. & LAWRENCE, G. (Eds.) Rural Governance: International Perspectives. London, Routledge. HORNIG‐PRIEST, S. (2005). Room at the Bottom of Pandora's Box: Peril and Promise in Communicating Nanotechnology. Science Communication 27(2): 292‐299. HUMPHREY, M. (2007) Ecological Politics and Democratic Theory: The Challenge to the Deliberative Ideal, London, Routledge. KETTL, D. F. (2000) The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution and the Role of Government. Public Administration Review, 60, 488‐497.

~ 204 ~ HUXLEY, M. (2007) Geographies of Governmentality. IN CRAMPTON, J. W. & ELDEN, S. (Eds.) Space, Knowledge and Power ‐ Foucault and Geography. Aldershot, UK, Ashgate. HUXLEY, M. & YIFTACHEL, O. (2000) New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 333‐342. INNES, J. E. (1999) Evaluating Consensus Building. IN SUSSKIND, L., MCKEARNAN, S. & THOMAS‐LARMER, J. (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. INNES, J. & BOOHER, D. (2004) Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5, 419‐436. JAMES, R. & BLANEY, R. (1999) Citizen Participation ‐ Some Recent Australian Developments. Pacific Science Congress. Sydney. JASANOFF, S. (2003) Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41, 223‐244. JÜRGENS, I. (2002) Science‐Stakeholder Dialogue and Climate Change: Towards a Participatory Notion of Communication. IN BIERMAN, F., CAMP, S. & JACOB, K. (Eds.) Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change "Knowledge for the Sustainability Transition. The Challenge for Social Science". Berlin, Global Governance Project. KASPERSON, R. E., GOLDING, D. & TULER, S. (1992) Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 161‐187. KETTL, D. F. (2000) The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution and the Role of Government. Public Administration Review, 60, 488‐497. KIERKEGAARD, S. A. ([1843]1983) Fear and Trembling; Repetition, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. KLIGER, B. & COSGROVE, L. (1999) Local Cross‐Cultural Planning and Decision‐Making with Indigenous People in Broome, Western Australia. Cultural Geographies, 6, 51‐71. KNIGHT, P. (2000) Relationship to Place and Land Tenure. IN WHIGHAM, P. A. (Ed.) SIRC 2000 ‐ The 12th Annual Colloquium of the Spatial Information Research Centre. Dunedin, New Zealand, University of Otago. KOEHN, D. (1998) Rethinking Feminist Ethics ‐ Care, Trust and Empathy, London, Routledge. KOHRING, M. & MATTHES, J. (2007) Trust in News Media: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale. Communication Research, 34, 231‐252. KVALE, S. (1996) Interviews ‐ An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Thousand

~ 205 ~ Oaks, CA, Sage. LAWRENCE, G. (2004) Promoting Sustainable Development: the Question of Governance. XI World Congress of Rural Sociology. Trondheim. LEWICKI, R. J. & BENEDICT BUNKER, B. (1995) Trust in Relationships: A Model of Development and Decline. IN BENEDICT BUNKER, B. & RUBIN, J. Z. (Eds.) Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch. San Francisco, Jossey‐Bass. LEWIS, J. D. & WEIGERT, A. (1985) Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces, 63, 967‐985. LINDEGGER, G. (1999). Research Methods in Clinical Research. IN TERRE BLANCHE, M & DURRHEIM, K. (Eds.) Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. Cape Town, University of Cape Town Press: 251‐268. LITFIN, K. (1994) Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York, Columbia University Press. LUHMANN, N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York, John Wiley and Sons. LUKES, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, London, Macmillan Press. LUKES, S. (1986) Introduction. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. MACKIE, G. (1998) All Men are Liars: Is Democracy Meaningless? IN ELSTER, J. (Ed.) Deliberative Democracy. New York. MAGUIRE, S., PHILLIPS, N. & HARDY, C. (2001) When 'Silence = Death', Keep Talking: Trust, Control and the Discursive Construction of Identity in the Canadian HIV/AIDS Treatment Domain. Organization Studies, 22, 285‐310. MARKS, J. (2006) Taking the Public Seriously: The Case of Potable and Non‐Potable Reuse. Desalination, 187, 137‐147. MCCOY, M. & SCULLY, P. (2002) Deliberative Dialogue to Expand Civic Engagement: What Kind of Talk Does Democracy Need? National Civic Review, 91, 117‐135. MCLEOD, K. (2007) The Wollumbin Collaboration: A Bioregional Partnership Program – Informing

Inspiration.

http://wollumbin.wikispaces.com/file/view/TWC+program+overview‐v3.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2009. MEADOWCROFT, J. (2004) Deliberative Democracy. IN DURANT, R. F., FIORINO, D. & O'LEARY, R. (Eds.) Environmental Governance Reconsidered ‐ Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press. MISHLER, W. & ROSE, R. (1997) Trust, Distrust and Scepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil

~ 206 ~ and Political Institutions in Post‐Communist Societies. The Journal of Politics, 59, 418‐451. MISZTAL, B. (1996). Trust in Modern Societies ‐ The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Cambridge, Polity Press. MUNNICHS, G. (2004) Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 113‐130. MÖLLERING, G. (2001) The Nature of Trust: From Georg Simmel to a Theory of Expectation, Interpretation and Suspension. Sociology, 35, 403‐420. MÖLLERING, G. (2005a) Rational, Institutional and Active Trust: Just Do It!? IN BIJLSMA‐ FRANKEMA, K. & WOOLTHUIS, R. (Eds.) Trust under Pressure: Empirical Investigations of Trust and Trust Building in Uncertain Circumstances. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. MÖLLERING, G. (2005b) Understanding Trust from the Perspective of Sociological Neoinstitutionalism: The Interplay of Institutions and Agency. MPIfG Discussion Papers. Cologne DE, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. MÖLLERING, G. (2005c) The Trust/Control Duality ‐ An Integrative Perspective on Positive Expectations of Others. International Sociology, 20, 283‐305. MÖLLERING, G. (2006) Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity, Oxford, Elsevier. NEU, D. (1991) Trust, Contracting and the Prospectus Process. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, 243‐256. NEWATER (2005) New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management Under Uncertainty. NICHOLSON, L. (2005) Civic Participation Activity in the Scottish Executive. Edinburgh, The Scottish Executive. OLIVER, P. (2004) Developing Effective Partnerships in Natural Resource Management. Faculty of Environmental Sciences. Brisbane, Griffith University. OLSSON, P., FOLKE, C. & BERKES, F. (2004) Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social‐Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 34, 75‐90. O'NEILL, O. (2002) A Question of Trust, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. PARSONS, T. (1986) Power and the Social System. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. PAHL‐WOSTL, C., MOLTGEN, J., SENDZIMIR, J. & KABAT, P. (2005) New Methods for Adaptive Managemet of Water under Uncertainty ‐ The NeWater Project. NeWater. PLUMWOOD, V. (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, London, Routledge. POWELL, B. (2004) Developing and Implementing a State Acid Sulfate Soils Strategy, the

~ 207 ~ Queensland Experience. ISCO 2004 ‐ 13th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference. Brisbane, QLD. POWELL, B. & AHERN, C. R. (1999) QASSMAC Acid Sulfate Soils Management Strategy for Queensland. Indooroopilly, QLD, QASSMAC Queensland Department of Natural Resources. PRICE, A.W. (2008) Contextuality in Practical Reason. Oxford, Oxford University Press. RAMADIER, T. (2004) Transdisciplinarity and its Challenges: The Case of Urban Studies. Futures, 36, 423‐439. REDDEL, T. (2005) Local Social Governance and Citizen Engagement. IN SMYTH, P., REDDEL, T. & JONES, A. (Eds.) Community and Local Governance in Australia. Sydney, University of New South Wales Press. REDDEL, T., WOOLCOCK, G. (2004) From Consultation to Participatory Governance? A Critical Review of Citizen Engagement Strategies in Queensland. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63:3, 75‐87. ROLIN, K. (2002) Gender and Trust in Science. Hypatia, 17, 95‐118. ROSE, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. ROTARY INTERNATIONAL (2009) Rotary.org About Us. Rotary International. http://www.rotary.org/EN/ABOUTUS/Pages/ridefault.aspx. Accessed July 2, 2009. ROUSSEAU, D., SITKIN, S., BURT, R. & CAMERER, C. (1998) Introduction to Special Topic Forum: Not So Different After All: A Cross‐Discipline View of Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 393‐404. ROWE, G. & FREWER, L. (2004) Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 29, 512‐557. RUSSELL, B. (1986) The Forms of Power. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. RUSSELL, S. & HAMPTON, G. (2006) Challenges in Understanding Public Responses and Providing Effective Public Consultation on Water Reuse. Desalination, 187, 215‐227. RYFE, D. M. (2002) The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations. Political Communication, 19, 359 ‐ 377. SANTOS‐GRANERO, F. (2007) Of Fear and Friendship: Amazonian Sociality Beyond Kinship and Affinity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.), 13, 1‐18. SEINI, M. M. (2003) Bioprospecting and Access to Indigenous Flora: Policy Implications of Contested ways of 'Knowing' and 'Owning'. School of Science. Brisbane, Griffith

~ 208 ~ University. SHAPIRO, I. (1999) Enough of Deliberation ‐ Politics is about Interests and Power. IN MACEDO, S. (Ed.) Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford, Oxford University Press. SHARP, L. (2002) Public Participation and Policy: Unpacking Connections in One UK Local Agenda 21. Local Environment, 7, 7‐22. SONTAG, S. (1966) Against Interpretation and Other Essays, New York, Delta. SOURCEWATCH (2006) Communities for Sustainable Futures. Center for Media and Democracy. http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Communities_for_Sustainable_Futures. Accessed July 2, 2009. STATE OF QUEENSLAND & BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (2004) South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy Stage 1 Report. Brisbane, Department of Natural Resources and Water. STEIN, S. M. & HARPER, T. L. (2003). Power, Trust, and Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 125‐139. SWAIN, C. & TAIT, M. (2007) The Crisis of Trust and Planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 8, 229‐247. SØRENSEN, E. (2006) Metagovernance ‐ The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance. American Review of Public Administration, 36, 98‐114. TEBBLE, A. J. (2003) Does Inclusion Require Democracy? Political Studies, 51, 197‐214. TOURISM QUEENSLAND (2009). Gold Coast Regional Snapshot – Year Ended December 2009. Tourism Queensland, Brisbane. UNITED

NATIONS

(2005)

Brisbane

Declaration

on

Community

Engagement.

http://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/assets/pdfs/brisbane_declaration.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2009. USLANER, E. (2002) The Moral Foundations of Trust, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. USLANER, E. (2004) Trust and Social Bonds: Faith in Others and Policy Outcomes Reconsidered. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 501‐507. USLANER, E. & BROWN, M. (2005) Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement. American Politics Research, 33, 868‐894. USLANER, E. & CONLEY, R. S. (2003) Civic Engagement and Particularized Trust: The Ties That Bind People to Their Ethnic Communities. American Politics Research, 31, 331‐ 360.

~ 209 ~ VAN DE BUNT, G., RAFAEL WITTEK, MAURITS DE KLEPPER (2005) The Evolution of Intra‐ Organizational Trust Networks. International Sociology, 20, 339‐369. VAN DE KERKHOF, M. (2006) Making a Difference: On the Constraints of Consensus Building and the Relevance of Deliberation in Stakeholder Dialogues. Policy Sciences, 39, 279‐ 299. WALSH, J. (2004) Byron Shire Sustainable Agriculture Strategy. Byron Bay, NSW, Byron Shire Council. WALTERS, L. C., BALINT, P. J., DESAI, A., & STEWART, R. E. (2003) Risk and Uncertainty in Management of the Sierra Nevada national Forest. Vallejo, CA, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. WATER GOVERNANCE FACILITY (2006) Water Governance Facility ‐ Supporting Improvement in Water Governance. Stockholm. WATLING, K. M., DEAR, S. E., MOORE, N. G., AHERN, C. R. & DOBOS, S. K. (2004) Development of Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Management Guidelines. ISCO 2004 ‐ 13th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference. Brisbane, QLD. WEBER, M. (1978) Economy and Society. Berkeley CA, University of California Press. WEBER, M. (1986) Domination by Economic Power and by Authority. IN LUKES, S. (Ed.) Power. New York, New York University Press. WINTER, P. & CVETKOVICH, G. (2000) Understanding Public Responses Through the Trust Filter. IN SCHNEIDER, I. E., CHAVEZ, D. J., BORRIE, B. & JAMES, K. (Eds.) 3rd Symposium on Social Aspects and Recreation Research ‐ Diverse Challenges of our Times: People, Products, Places. Tempe, AZ, Arizona State University. WINTER, P. & CVETKOVICH, G. (2007) Diversity in Southwesterners' Views of Forest Service Fire Management. IN MARTIN, W. E., RAISH, C. & KENT, B. (Eds.) Wildfire Risk: Human Perceptions and Management Implications. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future Press. WINTER, P. & CVETKOVICH, G. (2008). Southwesterner's Views of Threatened and Endangered Species Management: Does Racial/Ethnic Diversity Make a Difference? II CHAVEZ, D. J., WINTER, P. & ABSHER, J. (Eds.), Recreation Visitor Research: Studies in Diversity (pp. 97‐111). Riverside, CA: USDA Forest Service. WINTER, P., PALUCKI, L. J. & BURKHARDT, R. L. (1999) Anticipated Responses to a Fee Program: The Key is Trust. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 207‐226. WORLD BANK (1991) Managing Development: The Governance Dimension. World Bank, Washington DC.

~ 210 ~ YIFTACHEL, O. & HUXLEY, M. (2000) Debating Dominance and Relevance: Notes on the 'Communicative Turn' in Planning Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 907‐913. YIN, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London, Sage. YIN, R. (Ed.) (2004) The Case Study Anthology, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. YOUNG, I. M. (1992) Social Groups in Associative Democracy. Politics and Society, 20, 529‐ 534. YOUNG, I. M. (1995) Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. IN WILSON, M. & YEATMAN, A. (Eds.) Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices. St Leonards, NSW, Allen & Unwin. YOUNG, I. M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press. ZHANG, W. & CHIA, S. (2006) The Effects of Mass Media Use and Social Capital on Civic and Political Participation. Communication Studies, 57, 277‐297.

~ A1 ~

Appendix A Correspondence between researcher Peter Edwards and Gold Coast Water authorising the release of any information that was necessary for the conduct of this research.

~ A2 ~ Peter Edwards School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan Campus 170 Kessels Road Nathan, 4111 QLD

November 27, 2007 Shaun Cox, Director, Gold Coast Water Nerang Administration Centre Southport Nerang Road, Nerang, 9729 QLD Dear Sir: My name is Peter Edwards, a PhD candidate from Griffith University in Environmental Science. My research is concerned with the understanding of trust and power in a deliberative community engagement process, focused on environment and water in particular. My research is focussed on the following research questions: •

What forms of trust are developed in deliberative community engagement?

•

What mechanisms are at work in the development of trust (or distrust) between

stakeholders in the process of deliberative community engagement? •

What role does a deliberative engagement process play in the type(s) of trust (or distrust)

created? •

What underpinnings of power between stakeholders are evident in the trust (or distrust)

relations created from engaging the community in a deliberative policy-making process? I would explore these questions using a case study of Gold Coast Water and the Water Futures Strategy Community Advisory Committee. I aim to undertake this project through the use of two research strategies; interviews and text analysis. Interviews will be conducted with GCW officials, GCCC councillors, state government representatives, local residents, commercial, and industry groups. Interview transcripts then will be analysed thematically. Texts to be analysed include meeting minutes, presentations, and any documents outlining how the process was set up and was run. After having spoken to Kim Evans on several occasions about this project, I am writing to request your approval for my research, especially access to some documents (such as the original Terms of Reference) as well as contacts for the members of the Community Advisory Committee. This project will not in any way be a critique of Gold Coast City Council, Gold Coast Water, the Advisory Committee or the process itself. As this project is quite theoretical in nature, I anticipate

~ A3 ~ that the outcomes will, on a broad scale, be valuable for shaping or re-shaping deliberative processes in the future. Those people that choose to participate in my research and be interviewed will not be identified as individuals, but instead will be characterised by group affiliation – as “member of the Community Advisory Committee”; “member of a represented local group”; “local government official;” “state government official”; or “elected political representative.” Those that choose to participate will be fully informed of the project and what their role entails. The interviewing will be fully consensual, confidential, and they will have the option of withdrawing their participation at any time without penalty. This is in accordance with the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Guidelines, which follow the current National Statement on the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans. Should you have any questions or concerns about my research project, please don’t hesitate to contact me at any time, by phone (3735 3636) or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Peter Edwards PhD Candidate

~ A4 ~

~ A5 ~

Appendix B This appendix contains some additional demographic information about the members of the Gold Coast Waterfuture Strategy Community Advisory Committee that I interviewed for this thesis. In Chapter two I have given details of all of the groups that were represented on the Community Advisory Committee. Here, I provide some additional details including gender and age breakdown and a synopsis of the interviewed members’ backgrounds.

~ A6 ~ Appendix B – Interviewee Demographic and Background Information Gender Male: 13 Female: 2 Approximate Age Ranges 15‐25: 1 25‐35: 0 35‐45: 5 45‐55: 5 55‐65: 1 65+: 3 Backgrounds and/or Occupations (Participants may be included in more than one category) Business: 2 Local or State Government: 6 Water Engineering: 2 Science/Environmental Science: 1 Planning: 2 Retired: 3 Other: 1

~ A7 ~

Appendix C This Appendix contains the interview prompts and questions that were used in my data collection. The ‘highest order’ statements are the most general themes that were given first to the participants. They were asked to recollect any stories and details about this particular theme. If the participant did not have a story or was not comfortable responding to such a broad theme, the next order, slightly more specific themes/questions were posed. If the participant was still not comfortable responding to such themes/questions, the third order, fairly specific questions were posed, generally eliciting a response.

~ A8 ~ Appendix C ‐ Interview Prompts 

So, let’s start by you telling me the story of how you got involved in the Water Futures process.

o

Can you describe your expectations at the beginning?

o

Did there appear to be anyone/groups missing from the process?



As the process got going, can you tell me any things that really stand out for you about the process?

o

How was knowledge and information presented?

o

How did the other people involved in the process present proposals and ideas?

o

How would you describe the interaction between the other people involved in the committee? Why?



Can you describe the overall communication and dialogue between the participants? Can you talk about how people communicated during the process?

o

Were there a variety of ways of communication allowed? Some examples include:



‘Scientific’ or factual arguments



Gestures or body language



Verbal or Visual presentation



Greetings – ie the ‘empty’ words or gestures that we use

o

Did the communication/dialogue contribute to building understanding between yourself and others?

o

Did the communication/dialogue contribute to building trust between yourself and others?

o

Did different ways of communicating give you greater understanding of other’s positions? Help you change your perspective or position?

~ A9 ~ 

Can you tell me whether you trusted or distrusted the actual process? Can you tell me any reasons for this?



During the process, did you feel that you had enough time and/or opportunity to get to know the other participants and build trust between yourselves?

o

What sort of things went on during the process that you feel contributed to building trust or distrust between the other people involved in the process?

o

Were there opportunities to meet outside of the formal meetings?



In the final stages of the process, can you describe the relationships you had with the other participants? The community?



Thinking back to the process overall, and beyond to the present, can you describe your thoughts on the implementation, reports, and other happenings to do with Water Futures, and how it has affected your thinking about, or relationships with others?

o

What sorts of interactions were there with the media?

o

How did media reporting/coverage affect your views/positions/relationships?

o

Can you describe your reaction when the State Government announced the take‐over of water infrastructure?



Are there any other comments you would like to make?