Critique of an Example of Community Engagement - Case Study Example

Critique of an example of community engagement Introduction Waterproofing Northern Adelaide is a joint project in order to improve the Adelaide’s northern region’s water management facility. The cities of Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully and Playford are working together quite impressively with the valuable help from the Australian government. Government of Australia invested 41.8 million dollars to accomplish this project. In addition to this, several private partners, natural resource management board of Australia and state government are also helping these three cities to complete the project. Successful completion of this project will help the city of Playford to receive 80% of total required water in irrigation of open space and park (Iga, 2008). Several key projects include recovery facilitate at Andrews Farm, Adams Creek and development of water land sites along with aquifer storage. St Columba School’s governing body expresses serious concerns about the change to the existing configuration of current water body. Local environment groups express the concerns about the impact on native and biodiversity plantings. This is an important project which will help to overcome several public and civil problems. Community Engagement Strategies Community engagement is critical and important to the approach of the bodies. Major aim of this project is to overcome the irrigation problem that exists in the northern region of Adelaide. The city of Playford faces huge problems regarding shortage of necessary water for irrigation of open space and parks. It is expected that the successful completion of project will succeed to overcome these irrigation challenges and issues. Following community engagement strategies are adopted to complete the projects. 1. First of all, the engaged bodies will try to identify a balance between social and technical requirement for the Andrews Farm Wasteland’s configuration to meet the community and council expectations. It is important to engage all the key private and public bodies in this project to accomplish the task successfully within the committed time. In addition to this, this project will help entire community in future. Therefore, it is easy for the cities to motivate all the important private and public figures to complete it smoothly. 2. Secondly, stakeholder engagement approaches have been adopted implemented. Major focus is to motivate all the primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are the St Columbia School, elected members, project operation group, property owners, local residents and present water body users. Secondary stakeholders for this project are project developers, city staffs, overall residents within the city and consultants. In addition to this, several territory stakeholders are also included in this project, such as State government, local member of parliaments, natural resource management board, state media, regional media and department of water (Watson, 2007). 3. A decision process has been undertaken based on the decision making abilities of the internal stakeholders for this particular project. A rigorous discussion with the key internal stakeholders identified that it is important to undertake two key decisions. First and foremost, the governing body of this particular project thought about how to configure the included water land in terms of the position, location and specific size of the discrete water bodies. Secondly, they thought about how to develop a landscaping and recreation master plan representative of important social and community needs. 4. The involved team identified that the particular group directly affected by the first decision. This group was the St Columba College. These two decisions were developed due to engage the stakeholders in the implement and evaluation process. It is important for a group or organization to inform and motivate the stakeholders within a c community through strategy development and decision making process (Chadwick1, 2004). However, several public and private bodies supported this project. Therefore, there were not so much difficulties for the cities to start the project operation. Table: Community Engagement Strategies Level Strategies Inform Newsletters to the primary, secondary and territory stakeholders. Development of webpage of range of information and future steps. Encouraging local and state media to coverage relevant issues (Hatcher & Bringle, 2012). Sustainability and significant outcome of the project. Motivate Presentation to all the stakeholders about its implementation and significance. Consult Asking questions to stakeholders to adopt effective differentiated strategy. Demonstration of project to get the feedback. Involve, Collaborate and Empower Key community events to aware each and every key individuals. Online forums and promotional campaigning. Motivating all the important private and public bodies to work collaboratively. Focusing on opportunities of people to get trust of entire community. Link development with state and national councils. Inclusive decision making process by engaging all the stakeholders. Members are encouraged to work with full competency (Murphy, 2012). Key Community Engagement Concepts The community engagement concepts were applied to the Waterproofing Northern Adelaide project which aimed to create the necessary water resources required for the purpose of irrigation and agriculture, development of the wetlands and aquifer storage capacities. The development of wetlands in the region of Northern Australia was planned with the active involvement of the community. The involvement of the community was encouraged after identification of the potential stakeholder group. The potential stakeholders in the process of development of wetlands and the water storage capacities with the help of Waterproofing Northern Adelaide project had diverse opinions due to the due to the several issues of potential disruption as a result of the construction activities for the development of wetlands, interference of recreational activities due to developmental work in the parks and the areas adjacent to the green areas (Waterton and Watson, 2013). The appointment of the community engagement coordinators is extremely vital for getting the community to stand together and support the developmental work of wetlands in the broader interest of the society. The community engagement activities are likely to reach the optimum level when the stakeholders of the wetland development works that include the members of the community, elected representatives, welfare organizations, environmental protection units, etc converge to a common point of mutual interest to work for the improvement of the community (Connor, 2009). Critique of Waterproofing Playford The city of Playford has been included in the project of Waterproofing Northern Adelaide which is aimed at development of the wetlands in the Australian region of Northern Adelaide. The project on waterproofing Playford is expected to provide 80% of the irrigation water to the park and low lying areas for restoration of the environment. The activities for waterproofing Playford is also aimed at increasing the aquifer storage capacities and also creating large bores in the underground system that would make it easy for the supply and distribution of water to the lowland areas in Playford. Although the project on waterproofing Playford is planned for the development of water resources of the community and development of wetlands, considerable amount of time was wasted in decision making which involved discussion of critical issues like the ways to reconfigure the wetlands in terms of the location, position and the size of discreet water bodies (Murphy, 2012). The community development plan for Playford also required focus on balancing the developmental and the recreational activities of the community during the course of this project. The project of waterproofing Playford involved engagement of the community stakeholders. The board members of the school, elected representatives, and members of the community participated in the project of waterproofing Playford in order to restore common interest of the society (Chadwick2, 2004). Strengths and Limitations The project of Waterproofing Northern Adelaide was planned and executed with the help of community engagement. There are inherent strengths and weaknesses associated with the activities of community engagement in the developmental work under this project. The strengths of the project lie in the objectives of community development and the inclusion of the stakeholders of the community for a common cause. The stakeholders like the governing board members of the school, the elected representatives of the community, population of cities like Playford could benefit as a result of the development of the wetlands. The development of the wetlands would lead to increased agricultural occupation and creation of green parks. The water-proofing project also aimed to increase the supply of water resources and the capacity of aquifer water storage. The active engagement of the community would provide the members with adequate supply of water for various forms of livelihood, maintenance of the parks and green-fields, etc. The limitations of the activities of community engagement in the waterproofing project and the development of wetlands lay in the disruption of regular livelihood and the recreational activities of the community. The construction projects carried out as a set of planned activities in areas adjacent to the parks, green fields and the open areas interrupted community life and activities of entertainment. The other limitations of the developmental project include the pollution of the water bodies and the environment. Conclusion The activities of community engagement in the Waterproofing Northern Adelaide project was planned and initiated with the help of funding received from the natural resource management bodies, government of Australia, the tea associations and the clubs and the private enterprises. The project aimed at development of the wetland areas of Northern Adelaide in Australia has the objective upgrading the low lying fields and the parks, improving the supply of water resources and the storage capacity of aquifer layers of the soil. The strategies for engaging the community in the developmental work has been adopted in line with the community engagement theories and concepts. Apart from the benefits of the community engagement in the development of low lands and availability of natural water resources in the cities like Playford, there has been considerable disruption in the regular life of the society. The disruptions took place in the recreational activities and environmental pollution was created due to the construction projects adjacent to parks and open areas for them purpose of development of the community. However, the engage of the community could be justified as the waterproofing project served to satisfy the common interests of the people in the Australian cities (Nickels, 2007). The development of low lying lands led to increase in agriculture, tea plantation and the adequate availability of natural water resources helped in the maintenance of the parks and open spaces to create a pollution free environment. References Chadwick1, K. (2004). Improving state through community engagement. London: Routledge. Chadwick2, K. G. (2004). Improving schools through community engagement: a practical guide for educators. USA: Corwin Press. Connor, A. (2009). 18 Rules of Community Engagement. USA: Happy About. Hatcher, J., & Bringle, R. (2012). Understanding Service learning and Community Engagement. New York: Springer. Iga. (2008). Waterproofing Playford – Andrews Farm Wetland Upgrade. Retrieved from: . Murphy, F. (2012). Community Engagement, Organization, and Development for Public Health Practice. USA: Springer Publishing Company. Murphy, F. (2012). Community Engagement. London: Sage. Nickels, L. K. (2007). Stakeholders Perceptions of Community Engagement in a System-wide Educational Change Effort: Implications for Building Partnerships. USA: ProQuest. Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (2013). HERITAGE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. Australia: Routledge. Watson, D. (2007). Managing Civic and Community engagement. New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More