The Need for Public Engagement in an Extended Public Crisis
Vancouver City Hall (Lasia Kretzel, NEWS 1130 Photo)
We are currently living through the COVID-19 pandemic and governments all over the world are reacting to this issue, some better than others. Yet what is similar across these governments is a lack of public engagement at all levels. This raises the question: what is the place of public engagement during a public health emergency? Can it be done, and to what degree?
The short answer is yes. Public engagement can still occur to the level of informing, and should attempt to consult. Why? Simply because for democratic countries public engagement reaffirms democratic principles, increases decision process legitimacy, and can produce more robust solutions to various problems. To begin, let us start by going over the different phases and principles of emergency management, and then the emerging phases seen during a crisis.
The Emergency Management Process
Emergency Management Process and Principles (Fairfax County Government)
There are three primary phases of a crisis or incident. The pre-crisis, crisis, and the post-crisis phase. This aligns with some of the principles of emergency management which are to mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover. The first phase is meant to be proactive and mitigate hazards where possible and have contingency plans in place. This flows into preparedness as resources are allocated and prepared to respond when an incident occurs. Then there is the responding phase to an incident or emergency. Lastly there is “recovery,” which aims to mitigate further hazards, and provide recovery processes for responders, the public, physical structures and the land. Currently, this “respond” phase we are living in has continued on. This is quite different when compared to other crises that are immediate, such as large structural fires, or an earthquake.
Phases Within “Respond” During a Crisis
In an extended “respond” phase of a crisis there may be two or more distinct phases. There is the initial response phase that deals in hours and days. Yet when a crisis goes beyond hours and day, into weeks and months, it appears as if this crisis has entered a secondary phase. While it makes sense that the initial respond phase will probably have zero public engagement, or simply just informing the public on the issue, the second phase appears less certain.
We are now in what could be determined as a “secondary phase” of this crisis. Until now we have been continually informed on the issue. Besides informing, there has been little overt evidence that various levels of governments have engaged with the public much further. At the municipal level, the City of Vancouver has closed all civic spaces and suspended all in-person public engagement plans for multiple projects. Additionally there has also been mass layoffs and a hiring freeze due to financial future modeling and a current financial strain on resources. There has been no overt update on whether some of these public engagement plans will be moved online.
Yet civil society and the public are still active, and engaging amongst themselves. We are seeing marginal increases in digital civil society responses such as advocates on the downtown eastside sending open letters to the government, along with media coverage on advocates speaking out on various issues and providing their input on what should be done. The public and media is deliberating the issues online, but governments are not actively engaged or facilitating this processes, as evidenced on social media platforms and specialized online communities like /r/vancouver on Reddit.
Figure 2: IAP2 Public Engagement Chart.
The Need for Further Public Engagement
When we consider public engagement in the context of a crisis, informing is not only critical but also the bare minimum. In order to keep people safe it means they need to be informed on how to appropriately act in the first phase of a crisis. This is even more important now, considering the constant waves of misinformation available online.
It seems likely that further engagement could continue occurring online. It would make sense in the coming weeks for the City of Vancouver to begin engagement utilizing digital resources. One of the biggest hindrances may be the available resources left to coordinate such engagement processes in the face of financial strain and a lack of financial support for the provincial and federal government. While this would take some effort, it would generally take less effort when compared to in-person public engagement. In-person engagement is more resource intensive in terms of logistics, planning and human capital. Digitally these barriers are mostly gone, as some logistical considerations left are timing, method of communication and public access. While there are limitations on the digital front, the City could theoretically increase public engagement from informing to some degree of consultation on multiple issues. Yet the money problem remains the greatest barrier to this endeavor, unless higher levels of government can lend financial support.
There are a few reasons why public engagement is important to continue now. Firstly, it would be a more personal way to distribute information, dispel myths and listen to concerns. In this process the potential secondary benefit is to help alleviate anxieties about the pandemic and future life. Secondly, in beginning consultation processes again with citizens, governments would signal that in the face of this pandemic, transparency, and democracy is being upheld. Why this signal is so important now, is because globally we are in a democratic recession. Lastly, in a time when people are worried and anxious with an uncertain future, it is more important than ever to continue cultivating trust between the public and government, and public engagement is one true and time tested way to do this.
Some evidence for the need of public engagement during an extended crisis can be found if we look to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan that has been occurring for years. A lack of public engagement was one primary reason that led to the poor policy decision of ending the “five decade long practice of piping treated water for its residents…in favour of a cheaper alternative: temporarily pumping water from the Flint river until a new water pipeline from Lake Huron was built.” This of course led to the crisis which fueled a lack of perceived legitimacy in governance, and a strong civil society reaction against government actions. If the emergency manager that was hired in Flint to find solutions to the water problem conducted a thorough public engagement process, perhaps much of the problem could have been averted. Even if this was done afterwards, much of the court battles that embroiled the City and the region could have potentially been averted or settled sooner. These engagement processes could have heard many stakeholders concerns and values that had clearly not been considered, broadening possibilities for safe and better solutions.
Conclusion
Whether or not governments could successfully engage past the point of consultation during an extended crisis, is uncertain. This is an interesting area for further research inquiry on engagement theory. Typically these higher levels of engagement require lots of time, devoted resources, and face-to-face involvement for effective communication purposes. Consultation seems achievable, as long as there are some resources available to facilitate such engagement during an extended crisis. This is where, for example, Vancouver needs provincial and federal government funding sooner rather than later.
Guilherme Rosales is a Master of Public Policy and Global Affairs student at the University of British Columbia. He has been a wildland firefighter with the BC Wildfire Service for the past five years, a community organizer coordinating neighbourhood block parties from 2011 to 2015 in the Oakridge neighbourhood area of Vancouver, as well as a labour activist and advocate with CUPE 15 and the BCGEU.