How societal expectations, new digital tools, andthe COVID crisis are driving a step-change in human centric remediation.

Abstract

The term “stakeholder” is used often in the remediation world and can mean different things depending on context, given the range of groups that might affect or be affected by the site cleanup process (owners, regulators, communities, etc.). For the purposes of this article “stakeholders” refers to those within the communities proximal to the work and/or affected by the issues being addressed. When we refer to human-centric design, we refer to designs for which humans (including future generations) are the focus. For the purposes of this paper, the term “engagement” refers to a meaningful two-way exchange of information, in contrast to the one-way contact achieved through simple outreach, which is designed to increase awareness. Engagement requires that all parties within a project be open minded. This can lead to stakeholders arriving at a new appreciation for the needs and requirements behind a project approach with the design team (and owner) developing a deeper awareness of the needs of the community. Engagement of communities proximal to remediation work can take many different forms, but they should all be aimed at contributing to the decision-making process and sharing perspectives that may otherwise be missed. Gathering, processing, and responding to this type of input can seem time and resource intensive and risk cost increases to a project beyond what a consulting team or owner might have otherwise considered. Nevertheless, the investment tends to pay off in the long run. There are ethical, technical, operational, and financial and reputation-related reasons to invest in stakeholder engagement throughout the remediation lifecycle depicted in Figure 1. Where it is relevant, a comprehensive stakeholder engagement strategy should be intertwined with each design step in the process, and is possible even when challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic make it difficult to meet in person. Here, we share insights about the shift toward human-centric design, how the pandemic has helped accelerate it, and how human-centric design and stakeholder engagement (as defined above) can manifest better outcomes in project acceptance, technical integrity, and long-term project viability. We also review lessons learned and examples of useful tools to help pursue the sometimes-elusive goals of stakeholder engagement, considering many diverse needs that arise. We pay special attention to the importance of engaging underserved communities that are often poorly represented in remedial decision-making processes even though they may be disproportionately affected by remediation and brownfield redevelopment. Before there was COVID-19, rapid societal, cultural, and technological change was already moving many sectors toward human-centric practices, as stakeholders and customers demanded more organizational transparency and responsibility, and more equitable outcomes. This heightened demand for social responsibility, coupled with the increasing reputational, political, and fiscal risks organizations face for not prioritizing these concerns, has motivated many industries, including in engineering and sciences, to design and implement solutions that focus more on the needs of the people affected, and that maximize the positive outcomes and benefits they receive (Bartsch, 2003). This in turn has necessitated an evolution in thinking about how stakeholders can be more effectively engaged and their needs better understood. The confluence of that shift in thinking and the related technological advancements has catalyzed the adoption of human-centered design in many areas, including in remediation and brownfields redevelopment efforts. Engagement was historically limited to periodic physical outreach meetings and workshops that served to inform stakeholders about the project in a top-down manner, rather than solicit critical bottom-up information from stakeholders (Bartsch, 2003). The traditional engagement approach was to inform the public about solutions that were already decided by “the experts” rather than include the public in creating solutions. The top-down approach perhaps seemed intuitive initially – it let the technical experts complete their analyses and work efficiently by informing. However, it did not open up the decision-making process for scrutiny or increased expenses. Reflecting growing societal demand for inclusivity, equity, and social responsibility, stakeholder engagement in the environmental and similar fields is becoming more human centric. More inclusive and fluid engagement has allowed owners to gain valuable insights and encourage involvement along the way to allow for important pivots before they become more costly. One common example of a human-centric engagement that is being practiced by many organizations is Design Thinking. Design Thinking is a collaborative approach for solving complex problems. By bringing multiple disciplines, technical experts, and other affected stakeholders together to discuss key design tensions, Design Thinking provides a framework for quick, instinctive, decision making via a series of specific phases or “missions” (Figure 2). Empathy, specifically fostered in the process, allows owners to experience what their users experience through activities like persona and stakeholder mapping. Subsequently, the findings from this phase are used to support ideation to build and test prototypes. The Design Thinking process can be applied early in Investigation and Remedy Selection phases in Figure 1 and allows owners to better consider the experiences of those affected by projects and to develop solutions that are more responsive to the needs of all stakeholders. During a recent project, Design Thinking not only enabled a group of diverse stakeholders to develop a creative solution to a problem, but to create a complete implementation roadmap with clear responsibilities to expedite completion. That same group had previously reached an impasse. The process reframed the challenge statement and helped the group identify the root cause of the impasse, which facilitated the development of creative, mutually agreeable solutions. One positive repercussion of the COVID crisis has been the acceleration of technology adoption. In addition, increased hybrid digital–physical delivery, and remote collaboration, has likely permanently changed the way we meet, conduct business, and engage stakeholders. Heightened community awareness and greater connectedness is also an outcome of the crisis, and one that can further bring the need for empathy and consideration of the reverberating effects of our decisions to the forefront. These changes coupled with rapid advancements in new digital tools and platforms have accelerated human-centric engagement possibilities by reaching more people in different ways, and providing them with the convenience, enhanced user experience, and even enjoyment to motivate participation in the design and solution process. However, digital adoption, access and connectivity is not uniform across society. Historically disadvantaged, underrepresented, and underserved communities have not enjoyed the above experiences and are more likely to be on the wrong side of the digital divide – the pandemic has shed further light on these disparities. Acknowledging and addressing these gaps becomes especially important when planning for digital human-centric engagement for remediation efforts, because contaminated sites, such as Brownfields, are more likely to be in or near disadvantaged communities unable to absorb the negative impacts of these sites. Many of these communities were also disproportionately affected by the COVID crisis, and were already the least likely to be involved in community engagement for several reasons including: historic neglect and disinvestment; lingering community distrust; lack of convenience for participation; and more urgent needs and priorities. Moreover, when these communities were consulted, often their concerns and ideas were not seriously pursued as part of the design and solution process, leading to distrust in related decision processes. The definition of human-centered design is closely linked to equity, which is an ethical principle (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003). Equity requires removing potential disparities in outcomes by ensuring decision making processes are responsive to the needs of those that could be affected by a decision. In other words, human centered design requires that underlying social advantages and disadvantages, connected to wealth, race, or health, for example, are poor predictors of the extent to which a person's needs and perspectives are reflected in a design. Inherent in the definition is that the design does not harm or disproportionately impose costs to those who can be affected by it. WHAT IS HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN? Human-centered design focuses on the CORE NEEDS OF THOSE WHO MIGHT EXPERIENCE THE OUTCOMES OF THE DESIGN or be affected by the design decision-making process. The challenge of ensuring that remediation solutions are responsive to the needs of the most affected is both technical and ethical. Traditionally, the focus has been on technical, regulatory, cost, and engineering considerations that ignored (perhaps inadvertently) what is best for the people affected by the decisions. This primacy of technical efficiency, regulatory compliance, and legal defensibility too often leads to negative, unintended, consequences for both the receiving community and the proponent or polluter. A costly example for all involved can be found on a rather featureless 11-acre patch of dirt on the edge of a small city in California. A large corporation inherited nearly 100 years of legacy contamination from agricultural products after several rounds of mergers and acquisitions. As with similar brownfields across the country, the remedial investigation took 10 years, during which there were long periods of no activity by owner, regulator, and municipality. Eventually, off-site soil impacts were discovered and 800 truckloads of soil were scraped up from outside the fenceline and stockpiled in a corner of the property. It was an efficient, feasible, and technically sound solution at the time. It made sense to the regulator in the short term and provided appropriate, needed remedial action that made good engineering and saved money. Then another 15 years went by. The adjacent residential neighborhood grew increasingly worried about the soil stockpile as strong winds blew dust in their direction. In the absence of proper engagement or clear information, and as concern spread that the site might pose an imminent health risk, a local activist organized protests and media coverage. Under that mounting pressure, the project team devised another technically feasible and cost-effective remedy—without engagement or community consultation—to reuse the stockpiled soil as a convenient on-site cover system. Although the risk assessment and remedial design showed no risk-based need for a more robust remedy, the community response drove the regulators to make a surprise public announcement that the newly proposed plan would be retracted. The owners and engineers were told to go back to the drawing board, this time using a more inclusive process. Two years and several community listening sessions later, the regulator and owner were back with a new proposal that included multiple concepts developed by community members. These ideas included residential buffer zones around the site, some modest landscaping for improved streetscape aesthetics, and removal of the stockpile. While the stockpile was not deemed to pose a health hazard, perceived risk and fear had grown during 15 years of inactivity and its on-site reuse became untenable to the community. The delays and re-design process nearly doubled the cost with little to no risk reduction over the initial design because the cultural context, lived experience, and needs of the community had been ignored in favor of what specialists, the owner, and regulators initially thought was a more efficient technical and economic solution. The lesson learned is that the more efficient and cost-effective approach was to engage in a more inclusive, transparent design and engagement process from the beginning. As illustrated by that example and many like it, stakeholder input, hyperlocal awareness, and meaningful community engagement can be as important to successful design and lasting solutions as traditional technical data and engineering analyses. After all, one of the main reasons we engage in remediation efforts is to safeguard or improve quality of life. Within a brownfields redevelopment context, one measure of success is the sustained and beneficial reuse of a property, for example filling an existing or emerging community need. EPA describes some of those community needs as cleaning up and reinvesting in contaminated properties to protect the environment, reduce blight, and take development pressures off greenspaces and working lands (Environmental Protection Agency, 2021). Related goals include moving abandoned or underused sites into beneficial reuses and reducing sprawl and preserving greenspace (Environmental Protection Agency, 2019). Integrating stakeholder engagement should be injected early and often into the rhythm of project planning. Project design should happen in waves, with peaks and valleys correlating to iterations of technical investigation, option and solution development, followed by testing or vetting those options and solutions by gathering input from stakeholders before beginning the next wave of investigation, design, and analysis (Figure 4). This integration of stakeholder engagement can will allow it to advance with the design process so both can advance without one outpacing the other—they will be in lockstep, which will support trust building (e.g., the technical team will be less likely to make promises they can't keep) and ensuring stakeholder input is integrated directly into technical progress. This approach also helps demonstrate to stakeholders that their voices and ideas have been heard and how that input is helping to drive a more robust, respectful, and inclusive process. By keeping engagement and technical analysis in lockstep, project leaders and owners will likely be more comfortable putting more decision-making power in the hands of the host community and other stakeholders, knowing there has been mutual sharing of information, meaningful efforts toward trust building, and more transparent technical processes along the way. The following discussions will delve into each of these in more detail, starting with accessibility and inclusion and moving to digital innovation. The range of considerations regarding how stakeholders might prefer to, or be able to, participate in a project (their accessibility) point to the need for project leaders to continue to innovate and provide as many ways to engage as possible. It must also be clear to stakeholders how their input will be used / included for them to see value in engaging. Inclusion and accessibility considerations may vary considerably by neighborhood or community, and the best way to ensure that a project's engagement approach is truly inclusive is to co-develop that approach with the community. More specifically, the engagement approach should be co-developed with persons who are representative of the community that is hosting a project and who work directly with the people and organizations you hope to engage. It is critical that the design team not deliver its expertise and experience to stakeholders in a condescending fashion. People who live and work every day in a community will know its needs best, but may not appreciate the technical realities that the experts can provide. When put together, we can build approaches that blend practical lessons learned and technical acumen to deliver more successful outcomes. Consider bringing one or more local, community-based organizations (CBOs) onto a paid project team as integral members and listen to them carefully. Also, research the CBOs thoroughly to ensure their relationship and history in the community are authentic, have demonstrated value-added outcomes, and will build trust and consensus. It is helpful to think of their role as two-fold: 1) to help ensure that the engagement process is inclusive and effective, and 2) to help ensure that the project's outcomes are reflective of the desired outcomes of the stakeholders. They will also be able to help you understand how to make the engagement process, itself, have value to the community. Likewise, it can be helpful, with the support of the CBOs, to establish a Community Advisory Council comprising community residents who represent the diversity in culture, perspectives, and lived experience related to the project or proposal. Seriously consider the merits of a Community Advisory Council as a paid body to contribute to the decision-making process; a knowledgeable and passionate group of advisors from the community can also be a powerful force for better dialogue and design. At the time of the writing of this article, the authors are actively working on at least four projects in separate parts of the United States that integrate paid CBO members of the project team, paid community advisory councils, or both. While the use of community advisory councils and similar advisory boards and groups is sporadic and often dormant or non-existent in remediation and brownfield redevelopment projects, their use appears to be on the rise as more and more people, some by choice and some by necessity, step up and take a more active role in community affairs. There is a range of benefits that can be realized from engagement with and through CBOs and advisory groups. Working on a project recently, one of the authors became aware of a language translation need that had not been anticipated. A representative of a local CBO made this need known where the census had missed it. In another example, a project proponent was seeking fast-track environmental permits to make way for construction of a new $2 billion dollar manufacturing facility. The technical team and community relations experts were worried because a similar large-scale development project by another party had recently been rejected by local, state, and federal agencies due to perceived impacts within the same watershed of the new facility. The stakeholder engagement and community relations strategies of the two projects could not have been more different and indeed had strikingly different outcomes. In that case, the proponent went out of their way to proactively research and engage the most active and vocal CBOs that had opposed the previous development and had mounted very effective and negative public campaigns to block that project (in that case drawing the attention of national environmental activists that intervened to further block the project). The project team was able to demonstrate a genuine interest in integrating their ideas, which included green infrastructure (instead of just a big steel box and paved surfaces), on-the-ground protection of local endangered species habitat (instead of just pass-through wetland mitigation banking), and establishing an ongoing community advisory group (instead of a one-and-done engagement). The approach worked so well that, during the formal public comment meeting to consider the key permits, the CBO leadership that had adamantly opposed a similarly large development in the watershed stood up to say they support the new project. The project was approved in record time, with precedent-setting innovation in mitigation and building/campus design, and all attributed to the out-of-state proponent showing respect for local needs, local people, and taking the initiative to unlock community creativity and vision. Had the project team not taken the course they did with engagement, the permitting process could have faced numerous setbacks and would certainly have taken much longer and been more costly. Ultimately, the direction taken was not only more efficient in time and cost, but. Electronics have infiltrated almost every part of our lives – with the goal of helping us be more productive by reducing our effort. The solutions that come out of such innovation are often referred to as digital solutions, and when extended to engagement they can empower stakeholders to be much more deeply involved with project decisions at more milestones, because they can do it at times and places that are convenient for them. With technology more accessible and ingrained in our lives than ever before, it has the potential to become integral to effective stakeholder engagement. Stakeholders are increasingly becoming more comfortable with technology in part due to its alignment with the way we now work and play, and in part due to advancements in user interfaces which improve user experiences. The pandemic also catalyzed significant use uptake and technological advancements in virtual engagement. Even absent social distancing requirements, stakeholders cannot always meet in-person throughout a project lifecycle; their lives, schedules, and other priorities can be impediments to in-person engagement, which is – by its nature - time intensive and place specific. This increases the risk of inequities in process and outcomes – only those who are able to show up are able to drive the decision-making process. Digital solutions can provide opportunities for continuous stakeholder engagement – stakeholders can engage when and where they are able and be present continuously throughout the project. Allowing opportunities for continuous, or anytime, stakeholder engagement can reduce risks that may impact schedule or increase costs throughout the project lifecycle. This section introduces and describes several digital solutions that can help project teams engage more stakeholders more deeply with the decision-making process on timeframes that work for them. Interactive project websites provide an accessible central location for stakeholders to share information, gather feedback, and store project documents. These websites can be the hub for all information about the project throughout its duration, allowing for more transparency and better communication. They are most effectively used when the content on the website changes to demonstrate progress, pose new questions, and highlights how it is using the information stakeholders have provided. It is important to clearly state the value stakeholders’ time and contributions add to the process, both to the project's outcomes and the stakeholders themselves. A variety of media and functionalities can be integrated into the website, including such features as dashboards, 360° site photos, interactive Building Information Modeling (BIM), 1 1 Building Information Modeling or BIM is the process of creating and managing information for an object oriented built asset database, relevant to all stages of the asset's life cycle including planning, design, construction, and operation. maps, and chatbots. Many of the widgets needed to operate these functionalities can be accessed at low to no cost. 2 2 https://www.g2.com/categories/chatbots/free. Links to resources does not represent endorsement A project in New York utilized a project website as a way to educate the public about the project while also asking for their feedback and ideas in solution creation. By utilizing Wordpress and Mapbox integrations, the project team created an interactive map. The public could place a virtual pin on the map to identify and describe the areas of concern while also being able to see what other people had identified. This allowed the public to communicate the exact locations of their concerns more easily, and view what other members of the community had submitted. This functionality along with others features on their project websites, allowed the project team to gather feedback more easily and continuously throughout the project. Virtual public meetings provide an opportunity for dialogues between stakeholders from nearly anywhere. Video conferencing applications such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams provide an opportunity for stakeholders to have a conversation in real time about a project. The use of virtual whiteboards like Mural or Miro emulates in-person workshops. Virtual polling applications such as Mentimeter or PollEV add another level of interactivity during a virtual meeting. If all stakeholders cannot travel to the project site remote expert solutions can be utilized. The remote expert solution is a combination of a handsfree hardware such as the RealWear HMT headset or Microsoft Holobuilder, and video conferencing application such as Onsite Connect or Microsoft Teams. One person at the project site can use the handsfree hardware and video conferencing application to show stakeholders the project site no matter where the stakeholders are located (Figure 4). Such meetings can also be easily recorded for viewing at a later time. Virtual meeting portals can provide an anytime anywhere experience. It is one thing to describe or show a picture of the project site, but it is an entirely different experience to virtually transport someone to the project site. One option, CX 360 3 3 https://www.arcadis.com/en-us/digital/digital-products/cx-360 utilizes 360° photos to immerse the user so that they can better visualize site conditions, access relevant pdfs, forms, videos, etc., and communicate with the project team through video conferencing applications or chatbots (Figure 5). These virtual meeting portals are accessible anywhere and at any time via mobile, tablet, or computer without the need to download a separate application. By creating these virtual public meeting portals, the authors have seen higher public engagement than would be expected from their experience with traditional in-person meetings. Virtual meeting portals with embedded content including 360° photo capture can be a helpful interactive tool in meetings to demonstrate site conditions and provide ease of access to relevant documentation. a) Virtual meeting portal example b) 360-° site imagery. Mobile Applications are optimal where continuous engagement is sought. These applications can easily notify a user about relevant projects in their area based on their profile or location, if enabled. Project information and requests can actively be pushed to the targeted stakeholder group, allowing for stakeholders to be more involved without having to remember a particular website or receive a larger group of emails. An example of such an application is Irys, 4 4 https://heyirys.com/ which has gamified engagement and allows users to earn and redeem points for contributing to project decisions. Users can also quickly and easily provide their feedback within the applications, including taking photos of things they might want to see change. While the services will collate, organize and create dashboards to support visualization of the data, making the most effective use of such tools requires an analyst to assist in the interpretation. Mobile applications provide opportunities for two-way engagement, as well as, allowing the project team to reach back to the user directly through the application. Applications such as Irys allow the public to provide feedback in a social media like fashion while allowing project teams and cities to gather actionable insights to help with their project. By having this continuous engagement, mobile applications allow project teams to adapt quickly to stakeholder feedback. “Citizens have a vital role to play in making and shaping their urban environments and their input is needed to develop resilient, sustainable, and inclusive infrastructure. However, many project planners often rely on anecdotal data or have failed to engage disenfranchised communities. The lack of data forces decision-makers to diagnose problems based on an incomplete picture drawn from potentially flawed information. At Irys, we aim to solve this problem by introducing a digital solution that helps drive community inclusion within infrastructure and climate resilience projects, optimizing stakeholder decision-making and sustainability outcomes. Better data allows leaders to make more effective decisions to address social equity and infrastructure issues and distribute services and improvements where they are needed most.” - Beto Altamirano, Co-founder & CEO at Irys. Social media applications such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are commonly used and already have a wide userbase. While working with community-based partners and organizations, social media can be leveraged to reach people who might not typically engage with your project but could be affected. All of the above-mentioned solutions are accessible via the internet so that all stakeholders can have access from anywhere and at any time they can connect. These solutions also prioritize electronic data collection making insight generation much easier. Finally, each solution requires one to rethink how we communicate with stakeholders. By going digital, more visual, interactive, and inclusive ways of communication are feasible. Any of the mentioned solutions can be combined or with traditional in-person stakeholder engagement practices to reach a wider group of stakeholders. Still, some people do not have smart phones or access to the internet. Thus, inclusive engagement cannot rely solely on digital mechanisms for engagement. An inclusive engagement plan utilizing both in-person and digital mechanisms will ensure all stakeholders are actively reached and welcomed into the process. When in-person opportunities are available, open public meetings will draw people who are likely to be interested in and participate in public processes. To reach people who are traditionally not represented, it's important to find ways to meet them where they are. We suggest working with the local municipalities and CBOs to understand what events are happening, where people gather, and who are the conveners in the community. Consider setting up a table at the local farmer's market if target public stakeholders are expected to be there or ask for a few minutes to speak at the local bingo night. Provide surveys or opportunities to meet and greet at these events. Time these engagements to allow enough time in advance of when a decision needs to be made in the process for input to be actively integrated, and report back to these same stakeholders and how the input guided the process. If in-person meetings or face-to-face coordination are truly unavailable or inappropriate, consider providing a multi-lingual phone hotline or partnering with local CBOs, the municipality, or outreach organizations to conduct phone interviews, handle questions and inquires, and support other kinds of communication with residents and stakeholders. The hotline number can be posted on a website or in fliers and factsheets, can provide a little information about the project when a person calls, and callers can be asked one or two key questions to help guide the project design and decision-making process. In many municipalities, there are organizations that call and check in on the house-bound or medically fragile residents that might be affected by a project. Consider working with those organizations to provide a verbal summary of the project and perhaps a script and simple survey or form that an interviewer can use to gather input on behalf of the technical team. Depending on the characteristics and needs of a community, these capabilities and creative ways to access people that may be affected by a project can be an important consideration, and partnering with existing local resources that already have credibility and trust within key demographics is often more effective and yields a net savings in time and cost. As an outcome of the COVID crisis, accelerated technology adoption, hybrid digital–physical delivery, and remote collaboration will have a lasting impact. Heightened community awareness and greater connectedness bring both the expectation for and need for empathy and inclusiveness in engagement and design (MacDonald, et al., 2020). Human-centered design lets owners and technical project teams better understand people's needs, motivations, and concerns, but it also makes for a more efficient, more flexible design process by ensuring that the design integrates community feedback from the beginning and avoiding potential redesigns. By directly engaging the people who could affect or be affected by both the decision-making process and its outcomes, the inefficiency of guesswork is removed and relationships toward true collaborative problem solving can be built. Public involvement has always been part of the remediation process, to varying degrees. Historically and by choice, this has often been limited to what is legally required: periodic physical meetings. The engagement process has been treated more as a complication rather than an essential and integral part of the process (Bartsch, 2003). The opportunity before us now is to engage community members as stakeholders in ways that were never before possible. Together, we can demonstrate how this provides valuable insights and helps calibrate decision making along the lifecycle of remediation to allow for important pivots to be identified and made before they become more costly. As practitioners, we have an opportunity to continue building an innovative ecosystem and think more expansively about the role that stakeholders play in the process! John Horst, P.E., corresponding author, is Executive Director of Corporate Development and Innovation at Arcadis North America. 10 Friends Lane, Suite 200, Newtown, PA 18940; (267) 685–1800; john.horst@arcadis.com. Carly Foster, AICP, CFM is a Principal Resilience Planner in the Urban and Coastal Resilience practice at Arcadis North America. 27–01 Queens Plaza North, Suite 800. Long Island City, NY 11101; (850) 895–4706; carly.foster@arcadis.com Steven Perry, is Public Affairs Specialist and Principal Environmental Scientist at Arcadis North America. 111 SW Columbia St, Suite 670, Portland, OR 97201; (818) 267–6244; steven.perry@arcadis.com Ajani Stewart, is a Senior Management Consultant in the Urban and Coastal Resilience practice at Arcadis North America. 701 Waterford Way, Suite 420, Miami, FL 33126; (786) 687-1001; ajani.stewart@arcadis.com Megan Klar, is a Senior Management Consultant in the Digital team of Arcadis North America. 2839 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 900, Atlanta, GA 30339; (770) 384–6725; megan.klar@arcadis.com Beto Altamirano, is co-founder and CEO at Irys. San Antonio, TX (210) 712–7467; altamirano@heyirys.com Prasoon Sinha, is Chief Digital Officer of Arcadis North America. 2839 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 900, Atlanta, GA 30339; (770) 384–6604; prasoon.sinha@arcadis.com