Agam02 09

GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT
Part 2: Community and Stakeholder

Requirements
Guide to Asset Management Part 2:
Community and Stakeholder Requirements
Guide to Asset Management Part 2: Community and Stakeholder Requirements
Summary
This document is Part 2 of Guide to Asset Management, and provides guidance on how community
and stakeholder requirements can and should influence asset management undertaken by road
agencies.
As roads are provided as a service to the community, community and stakeholder requirements
are the means by which that service is defined. Only through the identification, translation and
integration of these requirements (as appropriate) into organisational and asset objectives can
road agencies target resources effectively to deliver that service.
The direction and clarity provided by an effective framework for understanding community benefits
and expectations (i.e. requirements), aids in the development of policies and strategies related to
road asset management and performance.
With an emphasis on current Australian and New Zealand practice this Part provides:
an understanding of why it is important to have community and stakeholder input to asset
management
an overview of issues and approaches to obtaining and considering community and
stakeholder requirements for asset management
advice on how to establish and link community and stakeholder requirements to road agency
outcomes.
Keywords
stakeholder requirements, consultation, community consultation, asset management, community
engagement, road agency objectives
First Published May 2009

© Austroads Inc. 2009
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may
be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
ISBN 978-1-921551-29-1
Austroads Project No. AP1174

Austroads Publication No. AGAM02/09
Project Manager
Kathy Martin
Prepared by
Julia Kelley, Caroline Evans, Warwick Pattinson
Published by Austroads Incorporated

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road
authorities may vary their practice according to local circumstances and policies.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Guide to Asset Management Part 2:
Community and Stakeholder Requirements
Sydney 2009
Austroads profile
Austroads’ purpose is to contribute to improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
by:
providing expert advice to SCOT and ATC on road and road transport issues
facilitating collaboration between road agencies
promoting harmonisation, consistency and uniformity in road and related operations
undertaking strategic research on behalf of road agencies and communicating outcomes
promoting improved and consistent practice by road agencies.
Austroads membership
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development
and Local Government in Australia, the Australian Local Government Association, and NZ
Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a council consisting of the chief executive officer (or
an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member organisations:
Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
Main Roads Western Australia
Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Planning and Infrastructure Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road sector.
GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT PART 2: COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Austroads Guide to Asset Management ......................................................................... 1
1.2 The Purpose of Part 2..................................................................................................... 2
2 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 3
2.1 Objectives of Defining Stakeholder Requirements ......................................................... 4
2.2 Community and Stakeholders - Who are they? .............................................................. 4
2.2.1 Communities of Interest.................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Stakeholders..................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Entire Community ............................................................................................. 5
2.2.4 Community and Stakeholder Overlap............................................................... 6
2.3 Requirements Inferred from Government Policy ............................................................ 6
2.4 Legislative Requirements ............................................................................................... 6
3 ROAD AGENCY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 7
3.1 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................... 9
3.2 Formulating Key Performance Indicators ..................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Road Class/Hierarchy..................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Road Outcomes.............................................................................................. 11
3.2.3 Asset Groups .................................................................................................. 11
3.2.4 Level of Service .............................................................................................. 12
3.2.5 Operational, Tactical and Strategic Activities ................................................. 13
3.2.6 Relating Community Needs to KPIs ............................................................... 13
3.2.7 Case Study ..................................................................................................... 15
4 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES........................................................................................ 17
4.1 Definition of Community Engagement .......................................................................... 17
4.2 Benefits of Community and Stakeholder Engagement ................................................. 18
4.3 Principles of Community and Stakeholder Engagement for Asset Management
Purposes....................................................................................................................... 19
4.3.1 Objectives of Consultation .............................................................................. 20
4.4 The Consultation Process – How to Engage ................................................................ 20
4.4.1 Recognising the Need for Consultation .......................................................... 23
4.4.2 Planning a Consultation.................................................................................. 25
4.4.3 Early Engagement .......................................................................................... 26
4.4.4 Executing a Consultation ................................................................................ 26
4.4.5 Using the Outputs of the Consultation ............................................................ 27
4.4.6 Closure or Continuation .................................................................................. 27
4.4.7 Regular Engagement...................................................................................... 27
4.5 Ongoing Engagement / Maintaining Relationships....................................................... 28
4.5.1 Tracking Stakeholder and Community Perspectives ...................................... 29
4.6 Pitfalls Associated with Community and Stakeholder Consultation.............................. 30
4.6.1 Community and Stakeholder Expectations..................................................... 32
4.7 Methodological Considerations..................................................................................... 32
4.7.1 Sample Size.................................................................................................... 33
4.7.2 Consultation Methods (for Seeking Information) ............................................ 34
4.7.3 Analytical Techniques (for Utilising Information)............................................. 35
4.8 Australian Experience................................................................................................... 35
Austroads 2009
— i—
5 ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS..................... 38

5.1 Which Issues are Important to Community and Stakeholders?.................................... 38
5.2 Generalised Stakeholder Expectations......................................................................... 39
5.3 Practices to Address Social and Environmental Impacts ............................................. 40
6 SETTING PRIORITIES................................................................................................. 41
6.1 Cost Models.................................................................................................................. 41
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 43
Austroads 2009
— ii —
TABLES
Table 3.1: Main Roads linkage of WA government goals and objectives to road
programs and outcomes ................................................................................... 8
Table 3.2: Approaches used to define community and stakeholder requirements at
various levels of service grade ....................................................................... 13
Table 3.3: Examples of community engagement: outcomes and objectives ................... 14
Table 3.4: Sample framework relating community needs, agency KRAs and agency
KPIs ................................................................................................................ 15
Table 4.1: Purpose of consultation initiatives .................................................................. 21
Table 4.2: Criteria reflecting where it is appropriate to engage the community ............... 24
Table 4.3 Examples of incidents where it is not appropriate to engage the
community ...................................................................................................... 24
Table 4.4: Consultation pitfalls to avoid ........................................................................... 31
Table 4.5: Appropriate asset management consultation methods................................... 36
Table 4.6: Appropriate asset management communication methods.............................. 37
FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Level of involvement and risk assessment as inputs to selecting the
appropriate level of community interaction ..................................................... 25
Austroads 2009
— iii —
Austroads 2009
— iv —
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Austroads Guide to Asset Management
The Austroads Guide to Asset Management is one of nine guides commissioned by Austroads
Council in 2003 to provide a comprehensive and consistent reference on the planning / design,
construction, maintenance and operation of the road networks in Australia and New Zealand.
The aim of the Guide to Asset Management is to give practitioners best practice asset
management guidance at local, regional and network levels. The Guide does not prescribe detailed
practices; instead the Guide introduces the overall principles and process of asset management.
The Guide also identifies the need to monitor emerging issues and potential drivers of change.
Sources of further information are provided so that practitioners may seek inspiration for solutions
suited to their particular circumstances.
The target audience for the Guide to Asset Management includes all those involved with the
management of road and bridge assets, the physical infrastructure, ranging from industry providers
to students seeking to learn more about concepts, principles, issues and processes.
The Guide to Asset Management is new and although it references other publications it has never
previously been published in full. As the Guide is being written and published incrementally, most
recent developments in asset management practice may be referenced in later Parts but not fully
captured in earlier publications.
Once complete the Guide will encompass the entire asset management process – Part 1 provides
an overview to the whole process and introduces each Part of the Guide. Each Part then provides
more detailed guidance on specific areas of asset management. Although asset management can
be presented as a step-wise process with each step or part logically taking place after another, it
should be noted that a fully integrated and best practice asset management process is informed by
and informs each of the component parts. For example Part 2 is about defining stakeholder
requirements or desired outcomes which are considered at the start of the process but the end
result of the process - the delivered outcomes - can only be determined and measured at the end
of the process. Consequently asset management is an iterative process of continual review and
improvement.
The Guide to Asset Management comprises the following 16 parts and sub-parts:
Part 1 – Introduction to Asset Management
Part 2 – Stakeholder/Community Requirements
Part 3 – Asset Strategies
Part 4 – Program Development and Implementation
Part 5 – Pavement Performance
− Part 5A – Inventory
− Part 5B – Roughness
− Part 5C – Rutting
− Part 5D – Strength
− Part 5E – Cracking
− Part 5F – Skid Resistance
− Part 5G – Texture
Austroads 2009
—1 —
− Part 5H – Performance Modelling

Part 6 – Bridge Performance
Part 7 – Road-Related Assets Performance
Part 8 – Asset Valuation and Auditing.
1.2 The Purpose of Part 2

For the purposes of this Guide, asset management is defined as a ‘comprehensive and structured
approach to the long–term provision and maintenance of physical road infrastructure using sound
engineering, economic, business and environmental principles to facilitate the effective delivery of
community benefits.’ (Austroads 2006f).
Because roads are provided as a service to the community, the asset management process needs
to include the identification of community and stakeholder requirements that are then translated
and integrated (as appropriate) into organisational objectives. It is this process of incorporating
community and stakeholder requirements into asset management that forms the basis of Part 2 of
the Guide.
This Part provides practitioners with:

an understanding of why it is important to have community and stakeholder input to asset
management
an overview of issues and approaches to obtaining and considering community and
stakeholder requirements for asset management
how to establish and link community and stakeholder requirements to road agency delivered
outcomes.
This Part is not a detailed ‘how to’ manual of community and stakeholder consultation. Community
and stakeholder consultation is a well developed field of expertise which can be accessed
separately by road authorities.
This report builds on the work of:

Guide to Asset Management – Part 1: Introduction to Asset Management, (Austroads 2006f)
the introduction to the eight part Guide aimed at effective asset management. The Part
provides a context and overview of asset management practice. It encourages the adoption
of a rigorous and cyclic process which includes consideration of a defined level of service
and intervention criteria; manages risks associated with asset failure; and assists
development of clear business processes and organisational accountabilities.
National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia (Australian Transport
Council 2006) - which provides system wide principles for the planning and development of
all land transport modes.
Integrated Asset Management Guidelines for Road Networks, (Austroads 2002)
– which details the integrated asset management planning process for roads consistent with
the national principles.
Austroads 2009
—2 —
2 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS

From the beginning, community and stakeholder requirements have been a consideration in road
agency decision making processes. As the management of road assets is aimed at delivery of
social, economic and environmental benefits for the community, road agencies need to be able to
identify, understand, assess and respond to the wide range of community and stakeholder needs
and priorities.
The challenge for road agencies is to ensure that the needs of the community and stakeholders
are systematically, comprehensively and appropriately accommodated. Asset management
encompasses more than just engineering because road condition, use and access can impact on
complex quality of life values such as public health, employment, social equity, and the natural
environment.
Determining community and stakeholder requirements and translating them into asset
management objectives and operational activities is a complex and challenging task. However
there are many fields of thought and expertise that a road agency can call upon to assist with the
task including demographics, statistics, economics and community and stakeholder consultation.
Some of these methods allow a road agency to infer community and stakeholder requirements
without direct consultation. However, it is now recognised that without explicit and ongoing efforts
to understand communities and consult with them, the way infrastructure assets are managed may
not fully or appropriately meet community expectations, and may not adequately serve the
transport needs they are intended to satisfy within a specific region (Xu 2001). There is a risk of
road agencies making incorrect assumptions about community needs and incorrect assumptions
can lead to poor decision making.
Today in Australia and New Zealand, there is significant recognition by road agencies of the need
to work closely and even partner with other government departments, stakeholders, customers and
the community (Xu 2001). The development of systematic approaches to explicitly consider and
demonstrate community and stakeholder requirements within a holistic asset management
framework is a recent trend by road authorities.
Understanding community and stakeholder requirements is a critical component of informed

decision making by road agencies. Therefore it is important to note that consultation is not a
process for delegating decision making, but rather one for informing decision making. The ultimate
responsibility for decisions remains with the road agency, with input from consultation being just
one of several possible inputs to the decision process.
Community and stakeholder viewpoints and requirements relating to road use and asset
management are diverse, may change over time and are often in conflict. The asset management
process that incorporates them into agency objectives must be:
transparent enabling communities and stakeholders to see how their requirements, views
and values have influenced the road agency
robust and repeatable such that similar results would be obtained if the process was
repeated
responsive so as to capture and reflect differences in community and stakeholder
requirements associated with segmenting variables like time, age, gender, geography etc.
Austroads 2009
—3 —
2.1 Objectives of Defining Stakeholder Requirements

A road agency would typically endeavour to document and understand community and stakeholder
requirements in asset management to:
assist in making decisions that while technically robust are also in line with community
preferences and more readily accepted
define asset management policy that reduces the need for an ongoing, extensive
consultation process for all decisions (e.g. application of level of service (LOS) standards and
investigatory criteria)
provide a means to define and measure the road agency’s performance
enhance the transparency and robustness of the decision making process.
2.2 Community and Stakeholders – Who are they?

Rarely does a community have a unified view on all asset management issues and priorities. It is
the norm for different groups in the community to have diverse (and potentially conflicting) views.
Different groups tend to view the management and maintenance of physical assets differently,
depending on individual factors like age, gender, where they live and work and their reason for
travel. For example, local drivers may place greater emphasis on vegetation control than visitors
who may want clearer signs, while environmental groups may be concerned with drainage runoff.
An individual may be classified into one or several groups, depending on factors like time, location
and purpose of travel. For example a person may at different times be a car driver, a truck driver, a
motorcyclist, a tourist or a commuter, and their needs and views may change with their different
roles.
From an asset management perspective the road agency must consider and balance the range of
opinions and needs of different groups in the standards, indicators and measures that drive the
agencies’ works and operations programs.
A balanced set of standards, indicators and measures will assist the agency in making decisions
that are beneficial to the majority of groups while meeting agency goals and responsibilities.
An overview of how to identify target groups for consultation is provided by Austroads (2006d).
When considering community and stakeholder requirements it is helpful to make a distinction
between three broad categories as follows:
entire community
communities of interest
stakeholders.
Austroads (1997) noted that matters of community concern ‘were remarkably consistent across
Australia, but varied according to the community of interest being considered.’
2.2.1 Communities of Interest

Communities of interest can be defined as: ‘individuals, groups or organisations who are affected
(by the practice) and have potential influence over the outcome’ (Austroads 1997). Typically,
communities of interest have a common viewpoint and agreement on priorities and issues.
Communities of interest may share an identity (e.g. ethnic origin, farmers, and commuters) or an
experience or interest (e.g. disability, stage of life) or both (e.g. professional drivers).
Austroads 2009
—4 —
Communities of interest tend to be concerned with economic or social costs which may fall on their
group (e.g. motorcyclists’ concerns with the choice and maintenance of crash barriers), or their
interest (e.g. the effect of water runoff management on the environment). Unaligned community
members can coalesce into communities of interest when they perceive the effect of asset
management decisions on their actual or perceived social and private costs. For example,
measures that could result in delays to commuters in private motor vehicles (by say reallocating
road space to public transport vehicles) may help to coalesce a private commuter community of
interest.
2.2.2 Stakeholders
Stakeholders can be considered a special group within the definition of a community of interest
(Tsolakis & Thoresen 1998). Stakeholders refer to individuals or groups whose experience of the
use of road assets reflects their (actual or perceived) private costs and/or benefits. It also refers to
organisations and representatives thereof, who have an interest in the costs and/or benefits the
road network may place on others. Some stakeholders may be influential in the political process.
Stakeholders may form clusters or groups which may include:
regulators
enforcers (e.g. police)
suppliers of goods and services (in an area or to the road agency)
individual (or corporate entity) road users
groups of individual users that are active in the road authority (RA) decision making process.
e.g. road users by area (rural/urban), road users by mode (motorists, pedestrians, cyclists,
truckers, bus drivers, etc.)
road managers
representative bodies/associations
lobby groups (e.g. public transport user associations)
industry associations
community groups (e.g. CWA)
minister/elected representatives (federal, state and municipal)
land owners, residents, adjacent businesses.
2.2.3 Entire Community

The ‘entire community’ can be defined as an all encompassing / highly aggregated population; it
incorporates the concepts of the ‘general public’ and the ‘taxpayer’. On some issues a broad
understanding of ‘what the community thinks’ may be possible and desirable. For example, the
impact of CO2 emissions from transport is a whole-of-community type of issue.
At all times a government agency will be cognisant of the need to provide value for money to the
taxpayer whilst at the same time delivering community outcomes.
Austroads 2009
—5 —
2.2.4 Community and Stakeholder Overlap

Both communities of interest and stakeholders can include individuals, groups or organisations
who consider themselves to be affected by the condition of road or bridge assets, as well as those
with the potential to influence an outcome (Austroads 1997). Distinguishing between these groups
requires identification and specification of the type, characteristics and size of the ‘interest’ of each
group (Austroads 1997). Also, simple aggregation of communities of interest or stakeholder groups
may not represent the entire community. While categorising views and needs between different
elements of the community may be difficult, an attempt should be made to distinguish between the
requirements of the community at large (e.g. for safe roads) and the requirements of specific
communities of interest (including stakeholders) (e.g. for hauliers carrying fragile goods).
2.3 Requirements Inferred from Government Policy

Road agencies do not always have to infer and interpret community and stakeholder requirements
for themselves. In many cases the government, and other government departments, have already
done so and translated those requirements into policies or legislation the road agency needs to
follow.
For example a community requirement for an immediate increase in road construction could be
constrained by funding. The level of community demand, and a government requirement for more
road construction for less apparent cost, may translate into a policy of delivering major road works
by public private partnerships (PPPs) or toll roads etc.
Government directives on sustainability and recycling will influence material and treatment
selection as a reflection of community requirements for sustainable practices.
2.4 Legislative Requirements

Community expectations can be conveyed through court action, rulings of the court and
subsequent legislation amendments (for example the non-feasance concerns in the mid 1990s).
Meeting legislative requirements means that at least at the most basic level a road agency has met
its community and stakeholder requirements. Unfortunately a reliance on the law usually leaves
the road agency open to further legal action (non-feasance example) and may not be enough to
absolve itself of responsibility. There is often a delay in new legislation reflecting changing
community and stakeholder requirements. Legislation is often at a generalised and higher level
and the road agency may require more detailed information and community and stakeholder
requirements to effectively implement the intent of the legislation. These drivers are additional
reasons for most road authorities proactively seeking community and stakeholder participation in
their decision making and in defining their requirements and priorities.
Austroads 2009
—6 —
3 ROAD AGENCY OBJECTIVES

The organisational objectives should reflect the organisation’s role and purpose in regard to
stakeholder requirements and government policies. Assessment and incorporation of stakeholder
requirements into a road agency’s business allow the agency to review what core business is and
to focus on these core activities (Mihai et al. 2000).
Phase 1 of the asset management planning process (as shown in Austroads Guide to Asset
Management – Part 1) starts with the identification of the objectives of the road agency. These
objectives should be based on fulfilling organisational, stakeholder and community requirements.
This requires a clear assessment and definition of these requirements and their articulation in
terms of key result areas (KRAs) and key performance indicators (KPIs).
ATC (2006) defines an objective as the statement of a desired outcome to be achieved and
suggests higher order objectives should consider societal and whole of government outcomes and
desires. To reflect community and stakeholder values, asset management objectives need to have
resonance with community needs; they need to cover road use attributes that are important to
transport users and stakeholders. It is important that road agencies continue to maintain their own
diligence requirements and acknowledge their responsibilities with regard to other requirements
communities may not identify (e.g. engineering needs).
Asset management literature indicates that KRAs are the outcomes of a community consultation
process and should be integrated into the objectives of the organisation. As noted, the needs of
community groups and stakeholders can be obtained by surveys and other forms of consultation
and some community needs can also be inferred from population, social and economic data for a
region. Typically road agencies define higher order objectives and key result areas by distilling
them from the following:
stated desired outcomes of government
strategic or corporate planning initiatives involving key stakeholders
community and stakeholder desires expressed during previous involvement with the agency
or in other forums (e.g. media).
Reviewing the above, a road agency’s broad purpose in existing to satisfy community needs could,
for example, be described under five KRAs:
improved safety: less risk to road users
efficient and effective transport to support economic development, particularly transport
efficiency: reduced vehicle operating costs and travel times, reliable travel times, moderate
congestion, accessible roads
secure system operation and infrastructure
social equity for communities (e.g. connections to services, road space use relative to need)
sustainable development (taking into account environmental impacts such as noise, air
and/or water pollution).
Table 3.1 provides an example of how one Australian road agency (Main Roads WA) defined its
KRAs (outcomes) and linked them to higher order government goals.
Austroads 2009
—7 —
Table 3.1: Main Roads linkage of WA government goals and objectives to road programs and outcomes
Better Planning; Better Futures Main Roads Western Australia
Govt goal Govt strategic objectives Main Roads program Main Roads outcome
A safe community Road safety A safe road environment

Safe road system management Safe and efficient movement of
people and goods
Road efficiency improvements Efficient movement of people and
A strong and vibrant community
1. Better services goods
Infrastructure for community Improved community access and
access roadside amenity
A reliable and sustainable supply of Road network maintenance A well maintained road network
essential services
2. Jobs and economic A level and mix of infrastructure that Infrastructure for state Facilitate economic and regional
development promotes economic growth development development
Source: Main Roads WA (2008)
KRAs such as those given in Table 3.1 would be supported in principle by most in the community.
Whatever objectives are chosen, it is important they are designed so that they can be translated
into KRAs and subsequently framed as closely as possible in terms of measurable KPIs. For
example, a measure of efficient movement of people and goods could be the percentage of
bridges subject to mass limits.
What challenges road agencies is the need to translate community desires and their expression of
those desires into language and indicators that can be used to direct the action of the road agency
and can then communicate back to communities. For example the community may desire efficient
transport to support economic activity. The desire may translate to congestion impacts and users
can describe their experience of congestion in many ways (e.g. long travelling times or time wasted
not moving in traffic). How this experience is expressed varies too (e.g. excessive time stationary
vs. point to point travel times, and in either example the measure used may be in minutes or
seconds). These quandaries lead road agencies to more involved consultation with communities
and stakeholders in order to understand and hence better address their requirements.
Community and stakeholder expectations and consequently requirements will inform each level of
asset management from higher order objectives defining government policy to more detailed
objectives associated with specific project objectives (ATC 2006). A cascading hierarchy of
desired outcomes and linked objectives should define road agencies’ business activities. So, for
example, a higher order efficiency objective or KRA is linked back to a KPI associated with
maintaining a road at a given roughness (because for example lower road roughness enables
higher vehicle speeds at reduced road user costs). Each tier of objective and outcome should
similarly be matched by a performance indicator that enables the road agency to measure and
monitor its performance against that objective consequently enabling changes on the road system
to be targeted and monitored.
Asset management as a discipline is now maturing and there are a number of asset management
tools and concepts available that will assist road agencies in developing KRAs and KPIs that are
meaningful to both the agency and the community. These are discussed in brief in the following
sections.
Austroads 2009
—8 —
Community and stakeholder consultation or involvement in decision making and consequently

setting agency objectives should be an open and accountable process whereby groups and
individuals have structured opportunities to influence decisions. Typically these structured
opportunities are achieved through formal mechanisms that often involve consultation events
(discussed in Section 4). However, other interactions such as complaint management, customer
service, government committees, legislation etc. also provide structured opportunities. VicRoads
for example uses outcomes from participation in government regional management forums and
local government liaison to build relationships and engage stakeholders in an ongoing manner for
planning purposes.
3.1 Key Performance Indicators

The relevance of understanding communities and stakeholders with an emphasis on stakeholder
consultation in the context of asset management is discussed in Section 4. Regarding community
and stakeholder requirements, a good indicator of performance will be an overall outcome that is
based on results which are meaningful to the road agency, community and stakeholders - for
example, roadways clear of obstructions and available for use.
ATC (2006) defines a performance indicator as ‘a measure that enables monitoring of performance
in terms of progress towards a specific, defined objective’.
Once indicators of community and stakeholder requirements are identified it is possible to

determine ways of measuring them and to assess performance against targets. It is important that
the measures used are those that are of concern to the community, for example, not the number of
detours, but the additional minutes of travel time they cause (Austroads 2006b).
Each core asset category (pavements, traffic facilities, structures, roadside amenities,
availability/closures, and vegetation control) should be included when setting KPIs and standards
so that a balance is achieved.
Asset managers must expect to be challenged by the task of understanding stakeholder and
community requirements and to then reflect these requirements in corporate and business plans
and works programs.
The Austroads (2006b) review into community consultation techniques used by road agencies
found that community and stakeholder requirements can be used to define a road agency’s
performance in:
the range of activities and outcomes that are important
how important the activity (or asset) is
how well a requirement is being achieved compared to what is expected or needed.
To answer the above questions, a road agency must understand the needs, values and desires of
the communities and stakeholders it serves. To do so it must have mechanisms for consulting with
them or interpreting their requirements from other sources.
Further information on how to set KPIs will be found in the Guide to Asset Management – Part 3
(to be published in 2009).
Austroads 2009
—9 —
3.2 Formulating Key Performance Indicators

Community and stakeholder expectations and requirements inform each level of asset
management from higher order objectives defining government policy to more detailed objectives
associated with specific project objectives or maintenance activities (ATC 2006).
Performance indicators are practical ways to measure progress towards broad objectives or goals.
As with KRAs, key performance indicators (KPIs) developed from or related to community and
stakeholder objectives are best expressed and measured in ways that have meaning for the
stakeholders.
Translating community and stakeholder requirements into organisational indicators (the asset
management KPIs) allows road agencies to work towards delivering stakeholder and community
requirements.
Good performance indicators give an objective measure of aspects of road use that are important
to the community and stakeholders. A target performance level helps to clarify the desired
standard of performance and provides a way of measuring progress towards meeting the standard.
It enables road agencies to move from high level objectives e.g. safety, to the specific needs of
road users or assets.
For example, under the KRA of road safety, the safety of older road users depends in part on their
ability to read road signs. A lower order performance indicator that is meaningful to both the road
agency and community is sign readability for elderly drivers. The technical specification required to
achieve that outcome would be related to contrast and size of lettering and symbols on the sign. A
mix of research and consultative surveys could be used to determine a suitable specification. The
specification would need to be expressed in objective technical measures that can be related to the
real life (subjective) experience and understanding of older drivers (e.g. the time it takes and from
what distance to understand a sign).
As a single indicator may not be adequate, often a suite of KPIs may need to be developed. For
example a serviceable pavement needs several attributes including relative evenness, reasonable
friction, consistent shape and sufficient crossfall.
KPIs will usually reflect the practical, technical and financial limits on outcomes, which can be
achieved by a road authority.
A logical framework against which organisational objectives and performance indicators can be
defined to reflect stakeholder requirements is required. Asset management concepts assist in
defining a logical and hierarchical framework that enables an organisation to translate stakeholder
requirements into objective measures and policy for identifying, planning and delivering its works
program.
Previous consultation with community and stakeholders in Australia (Austroads 2006b) has
demonstrated community and stakeholder support for these concepts, in turn validating them as an
accepted community and stakeholder requirement in the management of road assets.
A brief description of these concepts and their relationship to community and stakeholders is given
under the following section headings of this document:
Road class/hierarchy
Road outcomes
Asset groups
Austroads 2009
— 10 —
Level of service
Operational, tactical and strategic activities.
Parts 3 and 4 of the Guide to Asset Management (to be published) will address these concepts in
detail.
3.2.1 Road Class/Hierarchy

The concept of a road hierarchy is generally understood by community members as it is obvious
that a local street is different to an arterial road and to a freeway. Austroads (2008) defines the
creation of a road hierarchy as the grading of roads according to increasing (or decreasing)
importance of traffic task/function or importance in the logistics chain. Factors considered may
include strategic importance (what is being connected or linked), traffic volumes and traffic mix
(including the volume and value of freight or tourist numbers).
Road classifications are used by road authorities for administration purposes as a basis for
establishing policy and for communicating funding needs to stakeholders. A road’s classification
provides a useful frame of reference for consultation and grading community and stakeholder
requirements. Classification helps to influence and determine objective standards for user
experiences related to aspects like ride quality, amount of information, and the priority given to
correction of defects (maintenance) (Austroads 2006c).
Further, in regards to community and stakeholder consultation, Austroads (2006b) recommends an

association between the degree of community and stakeholder participation and the level of the
road system e.g. higher order roads might warrant greater consultation.
3.2.2 Road Outcomes

Asset management practice acknowledges the on-road outcomes that are important for users,
such as safety and convenience.
The key areas where processes for understanding, defining and considering stakeholder
requirements must be transparent and robust, tend to be those aspects of asset management that
are:
important to the road users (e.g. incidence of delays)
linked to the overall satisfaction with road condition (e.g. surface condition)
relevant to the stakeholders in terms of location (urban/rural, specific regions) (i.e. roads
they use)
about specific user needs (e.g. truck industry, motorcyclists, pedestrians, etc.) (Austroads
2006c).
3.2.3 Asset Groups

Road agencies usually group assets together by type for management purposes. Appropriate
asset groups for considering road outcomes in terms of community and stakeholder requirements
and LOS criteria (see Section 3.2.4 below) have been developed and are broadly categorised by
Austroads (2006c) as:
pavement and road surface (e.g. ride quality, surface shape)
traffic facility (e.g. signs and lights)
structures (e.g. height or weight restrictions)
roadside amenity (e.g. litter, fences, provision of roadside facilities – bins, rest areas etc.)
Austroads 2009
— 11 —
availability (e.g. objects blocking the road, closure due to flooding or road works, congestion)
roadside vegetation (e.g. grass, trees, conservation, overgrowth/fire hazard).
3.2.4 Level of Service

The level of service (LOS) is a generic concept relating to the provision of service to users that can
be measured or specified. Road outcomes need to be reflected in the LOS criteria used by road
authorities.
Austroads (2006c) suggests four broad descriptions or groupings for LOS:

1. Minimum – a point beyond (below) which a road asset may need to have its use moderated
(e.g. by a reduced speed limit or be closed).
2. Desirable – the level which the community would like (identified by consultation).
3. The maximum level (identified by benchmarking or government policy e.g. National
Highways) – maintaining beyond this is probably a waste of money.
4. The current level (identified by objective surveys).
Various communities and stakeholders have views on specific minimum and desirable levels of
service. The acceptable minimum and desirable levels are likely to also vary by location (e.g. rural
or urban), the trip purpose (e.g. work or leisure) and type of vehicle used (motorbike, small car,
large car, truck, bus etc.) and the frequency of use (daily vs. holiday traffic).
LOS measures are usually objective, but some aspects of service important to users, may be
described by subjective criteria such as:
degree of safety (e.g. low, medium or high)
how road users feel (unhappy, neutral or happy) about different aspects of the road
environment like litter or old signs.
Objective LOS measures can subsequently be developed for aspects of road user experiences of
road assets in terms of:
quality (e.g. road roughness)
quantity (e.g. distances between overtaking opportunities)
reliability (e.g. frequency of closure due to flooding or delay due to congestion)
responsiveness (e.g. speed with which potholes are patched)
environmental management (e.g. incidence of noxious weeds in road reserves)
economic cost of use (e.g. travel times).
Community and stakeholder expectations of service associated with a road asset will usually vary
with a road’s classification (see Section 3.2.1), hence a road’s classification has a role in shaping
or defining user expectations.
The concept of LOS is extensively discussed in Austroads (2006c), and the investigation and
translation of community and stakeholder requirements into LOS using consultation techniques is
discussed in detail in Austroads (2006d).
Austroads 2009
— 12 —
3.2.5 Operational, Tactical and Strategic Activities

A review of road agency practice (Austroads 2006b) found that the most useful categorisation of
approaches to defining community and stakeholder requirements included those used at the
strategic, program and project levels. In an asset management context this categorisation can be
applied to the four grades used in the application of LOS as described in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Approaches used to define community and stakeholder requirements at various levels of service grade
Community and Level of service Application Example
stakeholder grade
requirement
categorisation
Strategic Strategic Used for corporate plans, policy and Relating to the overall performance (e.g.
long term planning community perception of ride quality or network)
Program Tactical Used for large scale group of works Parameters for sections, links or road corridors
e.g. associated with route upgrade (e.g. % link achieving desired roughness)
Operational Used for developing operational and Defect specific maintenance standards (e.g. the
maintenance programs point at which surface wear becomes a defect, a
pothole, and when and how it should be fixed)
Project Specific job or project Adapting design standards to site % of consultation undertaken pre final design (e.g.
based requirements and community and provide opportunity for design to be influenced)
stakeholder preferences
To expand further on Table 3.2, at the local, site specific level (operational LOS grade level),
maintenance parameters and local operational standards are of relevance to road users’ every day
experience.
At the tactical LOS grade level, stakeholder input is likely to involve relating stakeholder experience
and views to objectively measured road section (or link) parameters, such as the extent of surface
roughness or length of limited overtaking opportunities, or the duration of closures due to flooding.
Operational and tactical LOS may be of most interest to local users, while peak bodies such as
motoring or trucking associations may have views on overall performance and system
management strategies, as these may well affect the operating costs of their constituents.
Different methodologies may be used for determining requirements and developing service
statements and performance indicators for each level (see Austroads 2006d). For example, forums
may be held with peak bodies for matters at the strategic level, aimed at producing broad policy
statements on asset management approach and priorities. At the operational level, requirements
are likely to focus on the issues that are of most importance and relevance to local road users and
that contribute most to their overall satisfaction with road conditions, for example, alteration of road
maintenance practices to reduce noise impacts on residents.
At each level and to varying degrees, the annual target LOS criteria and performance targets are
set for each road class, cognisant of budget allocations, affordability and other priorities.
3.2.6 Relating Community Needs to KPIs

Road user outcomes of most concern to the community, like safety and convenience, need to be
reflected in the LOS criteria and performance measures used by road authorities. Using the asset
groups identified in Section 3.2.3, Table 3.3 contains examples where:
community and stakeholder input is used to develop performance measures
Austroads 2009
— 13 —
community and stakeholder satisfaction of itself may constitute a measure for determining
successful asset management on the part of the road authority.
Table 3.3: Examples of community engagement: outcomes and objectives
Outcomes Objectives
Understand Inform/explain Develop LOS Evaluate (by)
Road surface Needs of different road users: e.g. Nature of problems, e.g. with skid Acceptable IRI measures Survey ride
ride smoothness, skid resistance resistance satisfaction
Traffic facility Delays experienced by tourists Costs of options to improve/reduce Priorities for overtaking Travel time
delays lanes satisfaction survey
Structures Loading from heavy vehicles, Load limits of aged structures Load limits and alternative Measured
space needs of cyclists routes compliance with
limits
Roadside Tolerance for litter Cost of collecting rubbish, cutting Frequency of collection Number of
amenity grass, etc. complaints
Random sample of
roadsides
Availability When and for how long can Different costs of catering for 5, 10, or Agree on target Actual days closed
closure be tolerated? 50 year flood availability by road class
Vegetation Needs/uses, e.g. for shade or Trade-offs between appearance and Management approach Survey visual
visual variety to reduce boredom safety, clear zone needs etc. (e.g. grass cutting) satisfaction
In Table 3.3 the method of evaluation (the ‘evaluate (by)’ column) would be used to report on the
KPI.
Road agencies and the community and stakeholders know it is neither practical nor necessary to
consult on all aspects of asset management, for example on every investigatory (intervention)
criterion at the operational level (e.g. removing hazardous objects) or on some tactical issues
(bridge inspection timetables). Some issues are of little interest to communities and stakeholders
or it may be that consultation would add little value to the outcome.
Some issues involve very high costs for the community and need to be dealt with by the agency on
behalf of future generations to ensure minimum whole-of-life costs. Road authorities need to
balance asset preservation, customer, community and stakeholder needs in determining budget
allocation, prioritisation and investigatory criteria.
The important point is for community and stakeholder requirements to be explicitly considered in
the decision processes. For example, the bridge asset inspection regime must be framed to ensure
bridge serviceability and safe access is maintained.
A further challenge is to ensure that community and stakeholder requirements are considered
beyond the obvious, high visibility issues like ride quality, traffic delays, litter and long grass and
include some of the broader issues road managers must deal with including:
adverse circumstances and conditions only rarely experienced (e.g. 50 year flood events)
issues involving sensitivity for some users and lack of awareness by others (e.g. noise).
Table 3.4 contains an example of a framework for relating KRAs, community concerns,
management of road agency costs over the long term, and a few examples of aligned performance
measures.
Austroads 2009
— 14 —
Table 3.4: Sample framework relating community needs, agency KRAs and agency KPIs
Outcome Community need Community wide Description KPI influences agency Description
(KRA) performance indicator decision making
Economic Lower VOC Smooth travel exposure Travel on roads of No. Similar but aligned Travel on roads of
roughness below indicator would be roughness below agreed
agreed service level roughness measure service level
related to road
deterioration rates
Lower travel time Travel time Travel time per km Yes Travel time per km
cost Variability of travel time Variability of travel time
Bridge limits Load limited bridges Percentage of bridges Yes Percentage of bridges
with load limits with load limits
Availability Closure due to Hours per year of road Yes Hours per year of road
maintenance or flooding closure closure
or fire
Social Better access Compliant road crossings Percentage of Yes Percentage of compliant
compliant crossings crossings
Sufficient road space Percentage (of urban Yes Percentage (of urban
allocated for minority arterials) with road arterials) with road space
users space provided for provided for cyclists and
(cyclists, buses, etc.) cyclists and buses) buses)
Safety Reduced incidence Trauma due to striking Incidence of road Yes (subject to sufficient Incidence of road trauma
of trauma on-road objects and road trauma per 100,000 road length and intensity per 100,000 users
faults users of use)
(e.g. potholes)
Environmental Less noise No Road surface noise Yes, road surface noise Road surface noise
Source: developed from Tsolakis and Thoresen (1998)
3.2.7 Case Study

Using safety as a hypothetical example of a translation from a KRA to an agency KPI, the following
steps might be taken.
Step 1. Understand that road users want to be able to stop (in a reasonable distance) on roads
when the road surface is wet. This understanding might be the result of community consultation,
or it might be an outcome of investigating contributing factors to road crashes, initiated as a
consequence of an overarching community desire for road safety (KRA).
Step 2. While most road users accept that it will take longer to stop on a wet road than a dry one
(and to some degree may adjust their speed accordingly), both research and consultation would be
needed to determine what increase in stopping distance is acceptable.
Step 3. Once a distance is established (which would be within a hierarchy of speed zone and road
classification/risk assessment) this distance could be related to a minimum SCRIM measure that
could be the KPI for skid resistance (SCRIM is the main method for measuring skid resistance).
Step 4. A single measure is often not sufficient and skid resistance serves as an example of the
need for more than one measure or KPI for ‘being able to stop in the wet’. The differences in skid
resistance within the wheel paths and the rest of the road surface can each have a dramatic impact
on braking and hence need to be measured and reported.
Austroads 2009
— 15 —
Step 5. Once the technical and practical implications of such different measures are explained to
the community (or in a complex case like this, to community representatives), and due regard has
been given to best practice risk management for skid resistance, KPIs based on SCRIM readings
could be established. The target measures for skid resistance would also need to reflect budget
limitations and these too need to be explained to the community.
Too often road agencies are called on to defend a policy (e.g. minimum allowed SCRIM) despite
having developed a responsible policy for the management of skid resistance based on the
consideration of the many relevant factors and consultation with the community. Transparent
decision making, including publication of standards and investigatory criteria, and more
importantly, the information that supported the decision (e.g. SCRIM investigation and skid
consultation) facilitate broader understanding by both the community and the road agency of
performance requirements. Hence road agencies should consider ongoing public education and
publication of their standards, investigatory criteria and operational procedures used to develop
policies.
Austroads 2009
— 16 —
4 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
4.1 Definition of Community Engagement
Austroads (2006b) confirmed that community consultation is seen as a topic of considerable
breadth and depth by road agencies with a focus on two way communication. Research shows
that the terms and processes of consultation such as community engagement, stakeholder
involvement etc. are used interchangeably to describe a variety of influence and communication
processes. Cavaye (2004) defined community engagement as the mutual communication and
deliberation that occurs between government and citizens. For the purpose of road asset
management and this guide, community and stakeholder engagement is defined as follows:
Community engagement is the mutual communication and deliberation

between road authorities, communities and stakeholders.
In the context of this guide, ‘community’ is a very inclusive term with no definitive geographic
boundary and includes the concepts described in Section 2.2 of community, communities of
interest and stakeholders.
Austroads (2006b) also highlighted that to successfully execute a consultation program a road
agency requires access to two levels of knowledge:
the conceptual understanding of the need and the benefit from a consultation
the ability to define the information needed and the technical skills to design and carry out
the consultation itself.
Community consultation should not be considered as a means to justify giving communities or

groups everything they desire, nor is it an exercise in managing community expectations. It is
about consideration of these desires, needs and expectations in a systematic, transparent and
robust manner within the road agency’s maintenance and management decision making
processes. It provides the processes and mechanism necessary to engage with communities and
rationally consider their requirements on a broad scale in light of other requirements, offsetting
undue pressure from vocal lobby groups for particular outcomes. When a road agency fails to
engage adequately with communities and stakeholders, it may find itself defending its decision.
The failure of many government departments to adequately engage with communities and
stakeholders, particularly environmentalists in the 1980s resulted in many court actions which in
turn led to a legislative requirement in many states to undertake community consultation as part of
the environmental approval process.
Many demonstrations of community engagement focus on event based or ‘big bang’ consultations
typically associated with big construction projects. However, smaller ongoing and informal
consultation based on genuine relationships with communities and stakeholders over time is also
an important source of information on requirements. It is typically these relationships that highlight
stakeholder requirements most clearly to asset managers and provide vital information for asset
management. For example, a regional asset manager could be provided commercially sensitive
mining and cartage projections to enable better road maintenance and upgrade planning.
Austroads 2009
— 17 —
4.2 Benefits of Community and Stakeholder Engagement

The benefits of community and stakeholder engagement are well recognised and Australian and
New Zealand road agencies are committed to engaging with communities and stakeholders in the
development of policy and planning of infrastructure as reflected in agency publications:
engaging the community no matter how large or small is an integral part of our business. We
are seeking to move forward in partnership with members of our community as we deliver
our commitments (RTA 2008)
strengthen partnerships within Government and engage better with communities and industry
to facilitate beneficial economic, social and environmental outcomes across the State
(Department of Planning and Infrastructure 2008)
working in partnership with local communities and increasing their involvement in decision-
making is one of the organisation’s key challenges (VicRoads 2005)
emphasis is placed on how the organisation’s values and behaviour are focused on building
relationships, collaborating and engaging with: staff, stakeholders and the community to
enable them to work together to achieve the best possible outcomes (QDMR 2008).
Community and stakeholder engagement is recognised as being fundamental to effective asset

management and in recent years, greater emphasis has been placed on community and
stakeholder consultation in transport decision making frameworks. This follows recognition of
significant gaps in knowledge and decision making processes regarding community concerns and
expectations about the road system (Austroads 1997).
Agencies that involve the community and stakeholders typically find that the process improves
decision making and helps the agency to be more responsive to the needs of road users and the
broader community (Austroads 2001).
Austroads (2006b) showed that community and stakeholder engagement could deliver the
following benefits for road authorities. The benefits fall into two main categories:
Relationships:
enhanced two way communication between all involved
stronger working relationships
shared understanding of the reasons behind decisions or actions
building trust and support between agencies, stakeholders and the community
enhanced community awareness of how government works
proactive identification and management of disaffected groups.
Asset management decision making:

clarity of intervention priorities and program objectives
focus on outcomes
development of strategies and approaches that are more likely to be supported and adopted
identification of alternative solutions
better, more cost-effective outcomes
identification of unknown risks
Austroads 2009
— 18 —
reduced tendency to monitor and survey what can be readily collected, rather than what is
important to the community
resolution of issues or conflicting priorities
better coordination of resources (e.g. between state and municipal agencies).
Enhanced two-way communication between the community and a road agency is the most desired
outcome described as follows:
1. Road agency communication with community and stakeholders

Consultation can be a tool to promote community understanding of the concepts, frameworks and
constraints on road agencies. Further it is an important component in ensuring support from groups
who play a role in influencing political decisions.
2. Community and stakeholder communication with the road agency

Consultation assists the road agency in making decisions that are more in line with community
preferences and needs and are more easily accepted by the community. Road authorities are
better able to tune priorities and focus deployment of scarce resources on what is important to
stakeholders and the community. Some examples of this might be:
The community may be asked to agree that certain categories of roads are built and
maintained to a higher standard than others. The criteria for creating such a hierarchy of
roads could be workshopped with the community.
The community could be asked to endorse using (low maintenance) galvanised poles instead
of painted poles. Road users concerned about the function of the poles (support for signs or
signals) may agree to trade-off visual amenity for cost savings that can then be used
elsewhere.
The community could be asked to identify roads where shoulder sealing is more important
than the provision of overtaking lanes. Understanding community travel experiences can be
used to set LOS, road hierarchies and investigatory criteria.
In addition to the realising of benefits from community and stakeholder engagement, there are
specific asset management drivers for community and stakeholder engagement. A summary of
these is provided in Table 4.1.
4.3 Principles of Community and Stakeholder Engagement for Asset

Management Purposes
To achieve effective community and stakeholder engagement, the following key principles are
recommended:
sincerity on the part of the road authority and consultation participants
willingness to listen
inclusion of a number of clearly defined and planned stages, each with their own objectives
ability of the agency to refine asset management practice and/or expenditure to take into
account information provided by the customers and stakeholders
consultation being an improvement embedded within the decision making process rather
than an isolated event that takes place externally to it
agency demonstrating responsiveness over issues on which action can be taken
agency delivering on commitments made.
Austroads 2009
— 19 —
4.3.1 Objectives of Consultation

A road agency would typically endeavour to consult with community and stakeholders for asset
management purposes to:
inform or raise the awareness of and share knowledge about asset management issues with
stakeholders (e.g. sharing expert information with abutting landowners on fire control issues
with roadside vegetation)
understand the community and stakeholder needs, issues, and perceptions of different road
user groups (e.g. urban commuters or freight industry sectors have very different views on
the priority to be given to trucks)
— review, refine, and develop investigatory (for intervention) guides, levels of service
objectives (e.g. the level of road roughness that is considered uncomfortable or costly
by different road users)
— develop asset management policies that will guide asset managers and road
authorities in their decision making (e.g. rest area provision policy)
— long term planning (route selection, regional strategies, network vision etc.)
— prioritising community needs and wants
evaluate the community satisfaction with road agency performance (e.g. Do road users
generally feel safe with respect to their day-to-day experience of the quality of the road
infrastructure?) (Austroads 2006d).
Table 4.1 expands further on the objectives of consulting with community and stakeholders
regarding road asset management.
4.4 The Consultation Process – How to Engage

This section will help practitioners systematically consider community and stakeholder
requirements. The process and methodology of the consultation itself and community and
stakeholder perceptions of fairness are just as important as the outcome. According to ATC
(2006), most consultation participants are usually realistic and do not necessarily expect their
views to be fully adopted especially when they are appraised of other participants’ conflicting
viewpoints. Communities and stakeholders are more inclined to be satisfied if there is evidence of
a clear process by which their views have been considered in decision making - hence earlier
references in this Part to the asset management processes of incorporating community and
stakeholder requirements being, robust, repeatable, transparent and reflective.
Austroads (2006b) reviewed road agencies’ community consultation practices and identified five
phases that represent both common and good practice across road agencies considering
community engagement.
These phases are briefly summarised here. Austroads (2006b) provides further details.
Austroads 2009
— 20 —
Table 4.1: Purpose of consultation initiatives

Objective Asset mgt role Rationale Use
Inform or raise Develop informed community on To inform on asset management (AM) as part of a wider agency - customer Helps shape form of customer complaints / improves agency image / reduces
awareness, share road asset management communication framework misconceptions
knowledge Stakeholder involvement in To give information about agency practice which is relevant to specific Advise customers of new findings which mean a change in agency practice e.g. vegetation
asset management changes stakeholder interests management to reduce fire risk
Prepare for community To provide groundwork for further community consultation Advise customers of agency constraints prior to having informed dialogue about intervention
consultation To introduce key technical terms and complex issues which require community standards
understanding before useful community input can be received
Introduce budget constraint information and awareness of trade-offs
Develop ongoing relationship To record agency practices that are under community scrutiny or pertinent to Document practice in preparation for future communication to stakeholders
and learning with stakeholders decisions made with previous community input Advise community where previous input has been incorporated in asset management
Understanding Review standards To ensure engineering focus is informed by customer needs Amend AM standards, practices and policies based on feedback
customer needs To confirm agency understanding of customer needs is correct
To manage the asset for the future, not based on past considerations. Amend AM standards, practices and policies based on feedback
To check if customer needs have changed over time (since last consultation)
To learn of specialised needs such as those of truck drivers or wheel chair users Amend AM standards, practices and policies based on feedback
Develop hierarchies To manage the network in a way that is responsive to community needs as well Develop and agree hierarchies for informed discussion about appropriate standards for each
as reflecting the different standards relevant to different categories of network level of the hierarchy
To test if standards (and existing criteria) are meeting stakeholder needs
Develop prioritisation criteria To gauge community weightings for use in asset management criteria and to Setting investigatory standards / intervention triggers for each level of the agreed hierarchy –
inform some of the values to be set for investigatory levels agency takes into account community priorities at the same time as budget constraints and
asset owners’ obligations
(Community input is only one factor and does not override other factors)
Incorporate into multicriteria analyses (MCA) processes for investment prioritisation, program
development and other decision making systems (e.g. safety may be higher priority for some
communities than economic factors)
Model financial implications of Develop and use cost models of road user costs and externality costs as inputs Standards are tested by scenario modelling and analysis of economic and financial impacts
standards to asset management decisions of standards proposed (i.e. capital and recurrent implications for agency and road user costs)
Develop policy Review alignment between budget allocations and community interests Community desires for higher standards may be the basis for seeking a larger budget.
Alternatively community interest but may also be the basis for review and scaling back of
existing practice (i.e. high standards are less important)
Translate community interests into engineering practice for asset managers to Develop asset management policies that will guide road authorities in their decision making
incorporate into existing actions (e.g. maintenance practices to reduce social and environmental impacts)
Austroads 2009
— 21 —
Table 4.1: Purpose of consultation initiatives (Continued)

Objective Asset mgt role Rationale Use
Asset planning Involve community and stakeholders in long term decisions about network Long term planning route selection
Evaluate performance Develop reporting to To report on satisfaction ratings which can be used as KPIs, especially to Incorporate into agency reporting to community
and satisfaction stakeholders complement technical KPIs (e.g. roughness KPI complemented by community
survey on ride quality)
Develop monitoring To provide feedback to check agency progress Incorporate into agency decision making (e.g. on AM priorities)
Austroads 2009
— 22 —
4.4.1 Recognising the Need for Consultation

Consultation is a tool for allowing more informed and effective decision making. The road agency
decision to consult should be based on the information needed to make informed decisions, the
need for community participation and ownership of decisions, and a basic understanding of the
range of consultation options available.
In general an agency should consult when the consultation process can provide valuable additional
information to the road agency’s decision i.e. the information provided will have some influence on
the final decision made. If there is no potential to influence decisions, then engagement methods
promoting communication and understanding may still be relevant in maintaining good relations
with communities and stakeholders, building capability and managing risk.
The decision to consult should in part reflect the level of:

community and/or stakeholder interest
complexity of the decision (information to be understood and considered)
level of risk (potential for negative social and environmental impacts)
sensitivity of the issue
diversity of opinion
legislative requirements.
The more these factors are present, the more a road authority should consider consultation as part
of the decision making process.
Whilst most asset management decisions will gain from community involvement, asset managers
should confirm the practicality and value of undertaking each consultation. Considerations include:
cost of the process relative to the cost of the asset management activity or policy decision.
Does the consultation represent value for money?
available resources (materials, facilities and personnel). Does the road agency have the
physical resources to enable the consultation to take place?
the framework provided by budget and program cycle times. Is there enough time for the
consultation to take place and influence the decision?
the suitability of previous and alternative data. Is suitable data already available?
These are detailed further in the Austroads Guide to Road Transport Planning.
As it is neither practical nor necessarily the best use of limited resources to consult on all issues
and policy decisions, an assessment should be made as to the appropriate level of involvement of
community and stakeholders. Examples of issues that may benefit from consultation and those
that are problematic are contained in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.
Typically the decision to consult is a balance of the agency’s risk exposure and the complexity of
the decision. A useful tool in assessing the need and most appropriate level to interact with the
community is contained in Figure 4.1.
Austroads 2009
— 23 —
Once the need for consultation has been identified, the road agency should begin planning the
consultation activity to be undertaken using specialists in the field. As a road agency requires an
engineer with appropriate qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to design a bridge, it
equally requires a similar level of expertise in its community engagement practitioners.
Proactive Engagement
Without the means to effectively participate in the road agency decision making processes,
communities may move their influence to other areas such as the political arena. If this happens,
the road agency has less ability to influence the outcome. Proactive consultation processes are a
means to manage and mitigate this risk. Poor consideration of community and stakeholder
requirements can lead to disenchanted stakeholders and communities becoming more vigilant
and/or mobilised against the road agency.
Table 4.2: Criteria reflecting where it is appropriate to engage the community

Criteria Asset management example Objective
The issue affects the rights and entitlements of Frequency with which kerbside lane is swept Operational asset management
members of the community or a significant group in affects cyclists and consequently road safety intervention criteria
the community
The issue is likely to affect people’s quality of life Noise from surface seal aggregate Improve design standards
The issue affects the natural environment Litter traps on drains and the frequency with which Operational asset management
litter traps on drains are maintained intervention criteria and/or
improve design standards
A significant number of people, or particular groups, The use of arterial kerbside lanes in urban areas as Operational asset management
are likely to have strong and/or competing views on clearways, parking lanes or transit lanes policy (ticketing and signage)
the issue (both negative and positive)
Insufficient objective information is available on Signal timings allocated to different road users Operational asset management
which to make a decision about an issue policy
The issue is complex and/or sensitive Roadside memorials for crash victims potentially a Development of investigatory
roadside hazard themselves criteria and policy
The agency wants the views of stakeholders/citizens Relative priorities for common maintenance Maintenance policy development
to influence decision making practices like sign replacement, vs. line marking vs.
shoulder sealing
Agreement and acceptance by the community will be Programs to provide sealed shoulders rather than Policy development
critical to the longer term success of the initiative improve overtaking opportunities on rural roads
Source: Developed from Office of Citizens and Civics (2006).
Table 4.3 Examples of incidents where it is not appropriate to engage the community
Issue/decision Incident Alternative approach Alternative objective
A final decision has already been Implementation of election Communication of program Inform
made commitments decisions. Manage issues and
consultation at the project level
Community input is not going to Introduction of school speed Communication /PR to win public Inform
be incorporated zones opinion
The commissioning body cannot Seeking views on assets Bring the other agency into the Increase community
influence a final decision managed by a different authority process understanding of accountabilities
The issue requires an urgent A damaged bridge needs to be Proactive consultation on Understand customer needs
decision load limited incident management policies or leading towards developing
bridge maintenance framework investigatory criteria
Source: Adapted from Office of Citizens and Civics (2006).
Austroads 2009
— 24 —
Source: Robinson n.d.
Figure 4.1: Level of involvement and risk assessment as inputs to selecting

the appropriate level of community interaction
4.4.2 Planning a Consultation

As communities and issues vary, there can be no predetermined method of consultation. The
method of consultation and the techniques used should reflect the drivers and parameters that led
to the decision to consult such as:
community and stakeholder profile – availability and capability to participate
decisional context (complexity)
available resources.
Austroads 2009
— 25 —
For example some methods are more resource hungry and time consuming and may be
inappropriate when constrained by decision making parameters such as a short time schedule.
Other methods will be too simple to allow complex asset management concepts to be adequately
explored and understood. These issues should be explored and consultation decisions justified
during what is considered the most important phase of the consultation, the planning phase. While
the following phases are critical to a successful outcome, developing a suitable plan and ensuring
that it is sufficiently resourced will have the most direct impact on the real effect of any community
consultation. The consultation plan should identify:
the objectives of the consultation, informational needs, the decision being consulted
how the findings of the consultation will be used, who is the decision maker and what level of
influence will the consultation outcomes have on the final decision. How will the information
obtained be used and what weight will the information be given relative to other information?
the profile of the population of interest, definition of the participants (by size, segments,
demographics etc.)
topic of interest, background information etc.
the consultation process and technique(s) to be used, what techniques give the best match
to the informational objectives
reporting requirements, outputs and feedback mechanisms, what outputs will be produced
and what information will be released back to the community and disseminated through the
agency
timeframes
resource and budget needs (people, skills, and funds)
risk.
4.4.3 Early Engagement

As most consultation is undertaken to provide additional information to the decision maker, it is
important the process takes place with enough time to complete it (some processes are time
consuming and lengthy) and to allow adequate time for the outcomes to effectively and
appropriately influence the decision.
4.4.4 Executing a Consultation

This requires a wide range of skills dependent on the circumstances or type of consultation
including design, interviewing or moderation, analysis, and reporting. Some of the specialist skills
that may be required include:
designing sample frames
recruiting for qualitative work
designing qualitative stimuli and guides
designing questionnaires and appropriate scales
moderating focus groups or conducting interviews
moderating workshops
conducting qualitative analysis
statistical analysis of quantitative data
specialist analysis
Austroads 2009
— 26 —
reporting and presenting findings to the agency

reporting and presenting findings to the community and other stakeholders.
The execution phase can be a lengthy period of time – particularly if several phases or iterations
are needed. With particularly extensive consultations it is likely that a number of specialists will be
needed at different stages of the process.
For example, in determining levels of service it is likely that a qualitative phase to investigate
specific local issues to be included would be followed by a quantitative measurement phase, and
then possibly by another qualitative phase to identify possible solutions to issues raised. The
execution phase should include both internal and external reporting on outcomes and progress,
and should retain flexibility to ensure an agency can respond to emerging issues.
However, not all consultation falls into a major category that could require extensive execution and
analysis. Some processes such as an established community working group would have smaller
execution requirements after the initial setup.
Asset managers should not be put off consultation by the thought of lengthy and costly executions,
but ensure that the planning stages adequately consider the risks against available resources, so
fit-for-purpose consultation can occur offering informed decision making and value for money.
4.4.5 Using the Outputs of the Consultation

The purpose of consultation is to assist in forming decisions and act upon them. This phase
should continue to involve communication in both directions to ensure that the community remains
appraised of the progress and the decisions being made, to monitor how its input has been used,
and to be able to comment on the direction taken.
Typically from an asset management perspective this may involve updating performance indicators
and standards to reflect current or evolving areas of community and stakeholder concern or
performance assessment and consequent performance improvement actions (if necessary).
Feedback during and after consultation is crucial to build trust and understanding. It provides a
final check that the road agency has correctly understood community messages and opens the
door for the agency to provide ongoing feedback on the outcomes of proposed actions.
4.4.6 Closure or Continuation

With event based consultation the process can be said to conclude after implementation. At that
point a final report can be produced for both the road agency and the community. The report
should make clear what information was generated from the consultation, what other inputs were
used in decision making, what decisions were made and how they were implemented, and provide
as much information as is available on the effectiveness or impacts of the implementation. At this
point the consultation can either be closed, or mechanisms defined for further continuation.
4.4.7 Regular Engagement

Stakeholders and communities and their perspectives change over time. Their opinions and
influence over asset management decisions should be periodically reviewed to ensure continued
alignment with the parameters that initiated the consultation in the first place. Periodic reviews of
broad community and stakeholder perceptions are also helpful in overall performance monitoring
and highlighting potential risks and emerging issues the road agency may face. For example,
consider how community perspectives on climate change have influenced government decision
making in recent times.
Austroads 2009
— 27 —
Road authorities should identify future stakeholders and future directions for engagement. It may
be necessary to undertake a program of communication and education to support consultation on
stakeholder requirements and periodically re-commence the process of identifying communities of
interest and stakeholders, identify appropriate methods to communicate with them, obtain and
analyse data, and take on board any considerations or potential pitfalls.
The regionalised structure of many state road agencies and their involvement in their local
communities provides both formal and informal ongoing, non-event based community engagement.
Often regional staff are aware of local ‘coal face’ issues that may not yet be apparent through other
sources. For example, local timber farms/forests about to be harvested for the first time, will put an
additional heavy vehicle access and load task on the road network. This additional task could lead
to a change in road hierarchy and a need to improve the network.
4.5 Ongoing Engagement / Maintaining Relationships

Directly affected stakeholders are usually enthusiastic in expressing their viewpoints, and through
effective and frequent interaction with key individuals and groups, agreement can often be
achieved on controversial aspects like relative asset management priorities e.g. bridge upgrade vs.
shoulder sealing. In some cases these ongoing interactions and negotiations are informal, built
over time between road agency staff, locals and stakeholders. Sometimes more formal ongoing
structures such as governing committees are established.
However, just because this form of consultation may not be considered event based, does not
mean the asset manager should not go through the same considerations and thought required for
typical event based consultations.
Relationships are built on trust and mutual understanding, consequently road authorities should
have ongoing activities directed at building community and stakeholder understanding of road
asset management (education, awareness raising, acceptance building).
Road agencies need to understand and communicate with communities and stakeholders, and
communities and stakeholders need to understand road asset management and communicate with
the road agency. When both parties understand the language, processes and constraints,
contributions to decision making are more effective.
Communication strategies that assist in making decisions more transparent and building the
capacity of the road agency, communities and stakeholders to engage effectively include:
information in or on local media (local papers, radio, etc.)
ensuring public access (via agency web site and in public libraries, etc.) to corporate
documents, e.g. on maintenance priorities and forward maintenance
providing speakers for local groups
providing information stalls/kiosks at community events
providing plain English brochures on asset management concepts and issues, e.g. what
does a road classification mean, how is an investigatory level determined and stitch-in-time
policies.
Austroads 2009
— 28 —
Ongoing formal consultative mechanisms such as a community reference group like the Main
Roads WA Disability Awareness Group enable relationships to develop that allow innovations and
positive change to be achieved over time through continuous improvement processes. The
Disability Awareness Group has reviewed pedestrian access designs with a focus on assessing
treatments provided specifically to assist/improve access for people with disabilities. Over time, site
specific improvements and project innovations have been adopted corporately and are
implemented across the network through updated design standards and LOS criteria. For example
tactile strips at approaches to pedestrian road crossings are now standard.
Similarly VicRoads regular and formalised input to cycling related decisions is obtained through
the Bicycle Advisory Council. Key cycling stakeholders such as Bicycle Victoria, Cycle Sport
Victoria and the cycling industry are represented on the council and have a role in providing advice
that assists with the management and development of cycling in Victoria. This differs from the
Main Roads WA Disability Awareness Group; the broader government and industry representation
on this group provides a mechanism for interdepartmental and government coordination on cycling
issues.
Both groups are chaired by agency staff, although VicRoads shares the task with the Victorian
Department of Transport. Current theories and practice suggest that an independent chair or
facilitator allows an agency to better test assumptions and community and stakeholder
requirements to be determined in a more authentic and unbiased manner (Office of Citizen and
Civics 2006 and OAG 1998). Independent facilitation of community reference groups is a common
practice for road agencies during the design and delivery of major projects (e.g. Community
Liaison Groups for Pacific Link Alliance, Tugun Bypass project in Queensland or the community
reference group for Roe 7 Alliance, WA). However, independent chairs or facilitators of ongoing
representative groups are less common. The WA Road Safety Council is one example where a
representative group is independently chaired.
4.5.1 Tracking Stakeholder and Community Perspectives

Stakeholders and communities and their perspectives change over time. Consequently road
authorities need to keep track of and periodically review the input from communities and
stakeholders in decision making. Also, stakeholder profiles need to be periodically revisited, in a
similar manner to the asset management decisions and policies they influence.
Some changes in stakeholder and community perspectives can be tracked by systematically

logging contacts (phone calls, emails, letters) and media reports relating to asset management.
However, it is unlikely that these contacts will be representative of all stakeholder interests. Such
contacts can be kept in perspective through periodic (e.g. annual) quantitative road user
satisfaction surveys. Methods of measurement of community satisfaction with road agency
performance against LOS and investigatory criteria are discussed in Section 3.2.6 and also in
Austroads (2006d).
Periodic reviews of changes in broad community and stakeholder profiles are also advisable, as is
making use of census data and surveys by others. For example, changes in road user behaviour
may be related to demographics. An aging population may trade more inter-modal connection/use
for less car access. The increase in ‘grey nomads’ and other road touring holidays combined with
road safety related fatigue management initiatives has led to a growing expectation for higher
roadside area levels of service. In turn, this has led road agencies to develop comprehensive
roadside rest area policies and upgrade and/or construct rest areas in many locations.
Austroads 2009
— 29 —
One of the clearest demonstrations of the need to regularly monitor community and stakeholder
requirements comes when considering the fuel price increases in 2007/08 and the influence that is
having on stakeholder requirements and their priorities and how they have changed from 10 years
ago. For example, fuel economy rather than powerful engines is the current focus of car
purchases.
4.6 Pitfalls Associated with Community and Stakeholder

Consultation
Road authorities should be mindful of potential pitfalls and consider implementing steps to mitigate
these when profiling community and stakeholder groups. Potential pitfalls include making
assumptions about who the stakeholders are, and what they require.
Community engagement should be an open and ‘outreaching’ process; road agencies need to be
honest about their intent and proactively manage internal ‘concern’ about consulting rather than
attempt to avoid or repress the voice of the community.
Often ‘problems’ seen by the community or stakeholders are the result of poor background
knowledge of the road authority’s intent or about the competing demands the authority faces. At
other times there could be a problem the asset manager is unaware of and community and
stakeholder knowledge of local social, economic, and environmental conditions can provide asset
managers with important information that will assist in discussions and achieving mutually
acceptable asset management outcomes. The agency representative must undertake the dual
role to listen and learn from the community whilst being able to present the road agency’s expert
view and educate communities on the road agency’s constraints and viewpoint.
In other cases, communities and stakeholders may exhibit apathy towards a particular issue. There
may be a lack of awareness about an issue, (e.g. the long term importance of load limit
enforcement) or the community may be frustrated that ‘nothing can be done’ or cynical that
anything will ever be done (e.g. that needed overtaking lanes will ever be built).
It is also important to be aware of the relationships between stakeholders, which may not always
be positive, for example the antipathy some car drivers feel towards truck drivers and vice versa. A
failure to appreciate and manage the dynamics between stakeholders may lead to confusion and
problems in determining LOS and may have a negative impact on stakeholder relationships.
A list of possible pitfalls, description of the problems and solutions as experienced by road
authorities is contained in Table 4.4.
Austroads 2009
— 30 —
Table 4.4: Consultation pitfalls to avoid

Pitfall Description Solution
Restricting the stakeholder list to a narrow While established relationships are not to be Thinking creatively about who cares about the
group of known individuals or neglected, new insights are more likely from problem, and who can bring skills and resources
organisations consultation that reaches beyond traditional to the collaboration.
groups and individuals. Ask individual stakeholders to identify others
who may be important to include as a
stakeholder.
A too broad, scatter gun approach to No background work is done and a very As above.
participant selection broad, indiscriminate stakeholder net is cast.
Targeting an inappropriate but known Stakeholders may be selected due to At the beginning of a consultation program,
stakeholder group traditional ties within the agency, however, the identify stakeholders, their specific interests and
stakeholder group may not be the particular assess the relevance and likely involvement
party affected by a particular program. required from these individuals or groups.
For example, asking a motoring group about
cyclist issues.
For example, consulting wheel chair users,
which tend to have a strong mobility agenda,
as if they are representative of all disability
groups, is likely to lead to neglect of issues
relating to auditory or visual impairment.
Consulting with individual stakeholders Stakeholders bring specific expectations to Ensure there is appropriate representation of all
whose expectations and motivations are the collaboration. At times, some individual or stakeholders. Identify individual and group
inconsistent with the policy goals group’s goals may not support the common expectation as part of the stakeholder
vision of the collaboration. This can generate identification process and ensure that
ill feelings among fellow participants, stall communication between parties is open and
forward momentum or cause the initiative to appropriate to their interest to minimise
stray. misunderstandings later in the process. If
For example, if consulting on roadside hazard necessary engage groups separately. For
assessment an extreme conservation lobbyist example, separate victims of road crashes from
may be focused on ensuring all trees in the conservation lobbyists when considering
roadside are protected rather than finding a roadside hazards.
balanced approach to assessing all roadside
hazards.
Approaching groups who are apathetic Apathy may result from a lack of awareness Assess the nature and extent of the problem.
about the problem or issue about an issue or a community’s frustration Ask, could the consultation lead to an outcome
that nothing can be (or has been) done about that will be of benefit to the community?
a particular problem.
For example, consulting commuters about
congestion when there is no prospect of
reducing congestion.
Inappropriate consultation i.e. on the Consulting on maintenance when the agency Clearly identify the nature of the problem. Would
wrong topic will not be altering maintenance practices and the issue be better addressed by other means,
the solution lies elsewhere (regulation, e.g. regulation and enforcement of heavily
enforcement, etc.). loaded vehicles rather than increased
For example consulting on increased maintenance?
maintenance standards when the
maintenance budget is restricted to bridges.
Source: Adapted and expanded from Rinehart et al 2001
Austroads 2009
— 31 —
4.6.1 Community and Stakeholder Expectations

Often raising community expectations is cited as one of the pitfalls to community consultation. For
example ATC (2006) notes that there is a risk that exposing underdeveloped policy positions to a
broader audience merely raises expectations rather than aiding convergence to supported
positions. The key to consulting in this position and overcoming the potential pitfall relies on the
road agency being clear about the purpose of the consultation to staff and to participants. Is the
intention to market a future policy (that is only half formed and underdeveloped) or to discover
existing policy positions to aid in the development of future policy? The risks of the first option are
obvious whereas the second option seems an essential requirement to policy development.
Ill considered decisions to consult or not consult leave an agency exposed to risks that could be
more effectively managed if the decision to consult was undertaken in a structured manner that
ensured the pros and cons of consultation were considered.
Where a road agency is faced with divergent expectations from the community and stakeholders,
diverse participation and transparent consultation and decision making processes are key. This
allows participants to discuss and view the issue from all viewpoints and see that their own
viewpoints have been fairly considered. Although participants may not agree with the final decision
their agreement on a satisfactory decision making process will assist them accept the final decision
and outcome.
For example when an agency faced opposition to bridge works because of a community desire to
protect the heritage value of the bridge this conflicted with the safety concerns that drove the works
decision in the first place. Because the agency was able to demonstrate transparently it had
considered the views of the community, the heritage values and the safety concerns (people were
dying jumping from the bridge), the final decision to undertake work to protect people’s lives was
more readily accepted.
Another example concerns roadside verge maintenance. Some residents may want the grass left
a little longer, as this allows the road agency to undertake mowing less frequently and save some
money. However, the fire brigade may consider the longer grass a fire hazard and inappropriate.
The diverse participants consulted meant that the road agency was more informed about potential
risk and benefits that needed consideration.
4.7 Methodological Considerations

There are many techniques for involving and obtaining information from the community and
stakeholders relevant to asset management. Reference to consultation techniques often covers a
whole range of methods used for various purposes. In regard to asset management, the way that
the community and stakeholders are contacted and involved (consultation methods) and the way
that information is used (analytical techniques) are different things.
Depending on the purpose of the information required and the impact it may have, indicative
information may be sufficient. In this case formal consultation and analytical methods are not
required, especially if very large sample sizes required for quantitative analysis are not needed.
All road authorities are different. A state road agency will have very different budget constraints
than a local authority or private road owner/manager. Standards and service levels must be set
considering community wants and needs in conjunction with budget constraints.
It is for this reason, that a road authority cannot assume that the consultation undertaken by
another agency at another time (and perhaps with another community group) is fully representative
of the interests of its own community or stakeholders.
Austroads 2009
— 32 —
However, given other constraining factors (such as time and budget), in some cases it may be
appropriate to use the inputs or outcomes of a similar jurisdiction’s consultation i.e. for a local
government assigning condition criteria based on community desires for a smooth ride. It could be
anticipated within an appropriate context that the condition requirements of constituents of one
local government may be similar to the requirements of another local government in another similar
climatic, geographic and demographic region.
Large and comprehensive exercises in defining community and stakeholder requirements are not
always warranted. Good planning, appropriateness and fit for purpose use of all methods and
techniques that provide the road authority with information that adds value to its decision making
processes are required.
All methods (consultative and analytical) of defining community and stakeholder requirements must
be undertaken within the context of the road authority’s budget constraints and opportunity costs of
other investment needs. Any community consultation should include information and awareness
raising sessions about budget constraints, non-discretionary investment such as pavement
maintenance, risks and potential trade-offs. An unconstrained wish list of needs and wants is not
helpful to a road authority in improving its asset management practice. For this reason analytical
techniques such as pair wise comparison or conjoint analysis can be utilised to assess the relative
importance of the issue.
The methodological considerations associated with appropriateness and fit for purpose are
discussed in the remainder of this section.
4.7.1 Sample Size

It is important to consider the number of participants in any given consultation or analytical
exercise undertaken by a road agency. The selection of participants or sampling process and the
methodology chosen are usually closely linked. An early indication of the likely veracity of any
consultation can be determined by the sample size selected. From a methodological point of view
there are two key considerations:
Qualitative: Generally, these involve much smaller sample sizes than quantitative approaches.
However, it is critical that input from all relevant key customer user groups are included (e.g. age
groups 18 to 54, 55 and over; agribusiness farmers; company freight drivers; emergency vehicle
operators; conservationists; schools). Failure to include all relevant groups is one of the common
failings of consultations (Austroads 2001).
Quantitative: Sample sizes in quantitative research are critical to the reliability of the final data in
representing the population. In basic terms the larger the sample the more reliably it should
represent the total population (assuming correct sampling procedures), although the relationship is
not a linear one. Naturally there is also a relationship between sample size and cost, and thus
choosing sample sizes is often a process of determining minimum sizes which are sufficient to
robustly represent the population of interest. Projects where an insufficient sample size is used for
cost reasons are not unknown throughout the research industry, and can be problematic if
conclusions and decisions are based on unreliable data.
More information on sample size is readily available from basic statistical publications and the topic
is discussed in detail with relation to road agency consultation in Austroads (2006b).
Austroads 2009
— 33 —
4.7.2 Consultation Methods (for Seeking Information)

Consultation methods in this guide refer to those techniques that facilitate the interaction of the
road agency with members of the community and stakeholders, for example a website, survey,
workshop, committee or interview. The analytical techniques, discussed in Section 4.7.3 could
theoretically be delivered by any of these methods although as mentioned previously there is
generally some alignment between consultation methods and analytical techniques.
As mentioned in Section 4, methods of consultation can not be predetermined. They are related to
the parameters of the decision being made and will become apparent during the consultation
planning phase. Table 4.5 however summarises the experience of Australian and New Zealand
road agencies in using some consultative techniques to achieve specific outcomes.
Various methods and techniques for consultation, to assess community preferences and priorities
can be adapted from professional community consultation and engagement sources, for example
Main Roads WA utilises consultation techniques described in the International Association for
Public Participation framework (IAP2 2008) and the consulting citizens series (Office of Citizens
and Civics, 2006).
Some of the methods more appropriate for asset management include:

Annual community perception surveys: Annual community perception surveys serve as a valuable
planning tool for evaluating stakeholder requirements and perceptions of the community in key
areas of asset management. The annual community perception survey is one instrument utilised
by road agencies in gauging how well, in the minds of its community, it is living up to the
commitment to its expressed objective (JMU 2003). It involves randomly selecting a sample of
respondents who are often interviewed by telephone, and asking a series of open-ended
questions. The responses are then grouped with other similar answers to allow a quantitative
analysis of these responses to be made, in order to assess the community’s opinions and
perceptions. The surveys results can be used to corroborate the engineering based KPI data and
identify anomalies. For example, corporate roughness data might be monitored for engineering
purposes. If this KPI is paralleled by a survey of community satisfaction with ride quality, the
agency can develop a balanced picture of the achievement of pavement surface outcomes.
Pilot survey: Pilot surveys are often carried out in the form of questionnaires, to collect data on
issues of importance to the community, and are useful in determining how informants respond to
surveys before conducting a detailed survey. They are often designed to detect possible biases
corresponding to the questionnaire items and the variability of survey data, as well as for
estimating the cost, timing, coverage, non-response, and enumeration of the survey operation.
Pilot surveys can determine the severity of the impact/improvements the surveyed issue has upon
the community and can be rated using a standardised scoring system. These surveys also provide
useful information for future planning. Pilot surveys are a common, and well used preliminary
technique for determining community and stakeholder requirements, perceptions and priorities.
Focus groups and workshops: invited group of people led by a trained facilitator in one-off
discussion on a particular topic. Focus groups may be 8-10 people.
Advisory groups / committees: a formalised group of representatives assembled to provide public

input and may be of a longer term nature. Examples include pedestrians and cyclists advisory
groups.
Interview: one-to-one meetings with stakeholders to gain information on public concerns and
perspectives. Often used in conjunction with pilot studies as prelude to larger stakeholder
consultation.
Austroads 2009
— 34 —
Website – an emerging field. Can include both the collation and use of complaints and other
feedback; web based surveys, or more advanced methods of seeking community involvement over
the website such as open space chat lines on specified topics.
4.7.3 Analytical Techniques (for Utilising Information)

Analytical techniques refer to how the results of the consultation are used, analysed and
interpreted to provide meaningful input to decision makers. For example analysis techniques
include multicriteria analysis, voting methods, conjoint analysis and contingent valuation.
Several analysis techniques and associated consultation techniques (survey design) are discussed
in some detail in Austroads (2006d). A brief description of common techniques used in asset
management is provided below:
Multicriteria analysis: a method by which the relative merits of different proposals can be
compared using a range of quantitative and qualitative criteria. It is used to make a
comparative assessment of alternative projects or heterogeneous measures. The great
advantage is the ability to incorporate non-monetised data (community preferences) into the
decision framework.
Voting methods: a method for eliciting public preferences from amongst specific alternatives.
It is used to translate the wishes of the meeting / group into priorities for agency examination.
Contingent valuation: a stated preference technique which involves subjecting respondents to
a hypothetical scenario, and asking questions relating to their willingness-to-pay (WTP) to
secure particular changes (Tinch 1995). Examples would be how much (per km) would a
user be willing to pay for a smoother ride or better lighting at night. WTP links individual
preferences for benefits to resources.
Conjoint analysis: a stated preference technique involving the ranking or hypothetical trading
of choices between options, rather than direct pricing, as in contingent valuation, for example,
to rank the relative importance of road attributes like pavement smoothness, edge drop-off,
skid resistance and road markings visible at night in the rain.
These techniques are shown in Table 4.5 and discussed further in Commentary 1.
4.8 Australian Experience

With different communities, issues, and parameters for each asset management situation, there
can be no predetermined consultation method. Each situation requires the consultation
methodology to be determined based on the parameters discussed in previous sections such as
risk, complexity and influence etc.
However, jurisdictional consultation experience provides some pointers towards the more
appropriate processes. Table 4.5 summarises experiences of road authorities in building
community understanding through consultation. Table 4.6 shows communication methods.
Austroads member agencies provided advice on their experience with the success of the relevant
consultation strategies in obtaining the views and support from communities of interest and
stakeholders.
Austroads 2009
— 35 —
Table 4.5: Appropriate asset management consultation methods

Consultative method Techniques (alternatively called tools) Examples
Quantitative
assessment
Multicriteria
techniques
Contingent
Qualitative
valuation
methods
Conjoint
analysis
analysis
analysis
Voting
Survey 9** 9 • 9
Referenda 9
Polls
Interview 9
Pilot survey 9
Committee
Citizen advisory board or council 9 Customer service advisory council
Priority setting committee 9 9 Black spot committee
Task force 9
Interest group 9 Cycle ways committee
Focus group
Focus group 9 Heavy vehicles advisory group
Neighbourhood or group planning 9 Community reference group
council
Workshop 9 • Selection of Aglime routes
World café 9 • Perth Dialogue with the City
Value management workshop 9 •
Scenario analysis 9 Main Roads WA Strategic Plan
Research –using existing information
Ministerials 9 •
Media monitoring 9 •
Customer complaints 9 •
Media polls 9 9 •
Data analysis *
Personal approach
One-to-one meeting •
Outcomes
$ values as inputs (willingness-to-pay) 9 9
Priority setting 9 9 9 9 9
Policy development 9
Intervention criteria and standards 9 9 9
Issues monitoring 9 9 Keep in touch with community and stakeholder
needs, testing the waters, keeping your finger
on the pulse
Issues identification (listening) 9 9
Resolution of issues 9 9
Performance monitoring 9 9 Customer satisfaction survey
Test methodology / engagement approach 9 Pilot survey
Language alignment 9
Visioning 9
* not a consultation mechanism but is a valid source for determining community and stakeholder requirements i.e. willingness-to-pay
** initial testing with a focus group of the survey is recommended
9 works well
• could work, but not optimal
Austroads 2009
— 36 —
Table 4.6: Appropriate asset management communication methods

Communication (public relations) Entire Communities of Stakeholders Example
(one way) community interest
Annual Report
Reporting performance indicators etc. 9 9 9 Austroads performance indicator
reporting
Correspondence 9 9 Letters and bulk emails
Media advertising, brochures, newsletters,
9 9 9
website information
Information days 9 9
Issues and directions paper 9 9
Austroads 2009
— 37 —
5 ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO COMMUNITY AND

STAKEHOLDERS
5.1 Which Issues are Important to Community and Stakeholders?
Community view points and priorities can and do change. They change from place to place (e.g.
urban or rural and between regions), with the seasons (e.g. fires in summer, floods in winter) and
with economic development over time (e.g. overloaded roads in growth areas) and to reflect
broader concerns, like sustainability, in the broad community.
Previous studies of community surveys and market research presented in the report Australia at
the Crossroads (Austroads 1997) consistently identify road safety at the top of the community’s
road agenda.
In recent years, particularly in capital cities, the main concern appears to have been congestion
(VCEC 2007).
A cluster of environmental and sustainability issues appear to be emerging that include climate
change (environmental impacts) and fuel prices (vehicle operating costs). In the future,
communities may increasingly look to road authorities to provide greater priority to and set higher
levels of service to reduce fuel consumption, reduce carbon emissions, and to give priority to
sustainable modes, including walking, cycling, road based public transport, and for high
occupancy/more fuel efficient private vehicles. These trends impact not only road assets but also
their operation and may require asset managers and network managers to work together.
Most governments and their road managers now use a framework for setting, measuring and
reporting organisational performance that reflects social, environmental and economic objectives,
commonly known as the ‘triple bottom line’ Austroads (2006e). The triple bottom line has been a
framework for both reflecting and influencing changing priorities of the community and
stakeholders. At an economic level, efficient and effective management of road assets are a
fundamental component for the function of cities, linking producers and consumers, and workers
and employers. The triple bottom line framework is robust enough to encompass most
contemporary issues. For example, air pollution, global warming, and traffic noise, are
environmental issues; barrier effects of major roads are a social issue; and travel demand
management by road space allocation or road pricing are each linked to social equity, economic
and environmental outcomes.
Determining with the community the ‘right’ balance between, or mix of, economic, social and
environmental outcomes to be obtained by asset management is an essential step for road
agencies. Asset management practices and systems are a well accepted means of ensuring
sound engineering, economic and business principles are used in achieving community benefits.
Additionally they are a means by which stakeholder requirements of a transport system in terms of
environmental and social values can be achieved (Austroads 2006e).
These values translate into stakeholder requirements associated with the impact of the road
network, associated assets and their use. Therefore the asset management process must provide
a means whereby the road agencies’ assessments of these impacts are considered in relation to
community and stakeholder requirements, values and desires.
Austroads (2006e) categorised these impacts, listed below for maintenance activities, but they are
equally applicable to capital works and a broader interpretation of asset management activities and
planning.
Austroads 2009
— 38 —
The main categories of impacts include:

health and well being
safety
travel time changes
accessibility
noise
modal choice
community cohesion
community perceptions
vehicle operating costs
economic development
amenity
resource use
air quality
waste management
heritage
water quality
higher diversity.
The management and integration of community and stakeholder values can be achieved through
good asset management practice by:
codes of practice
asset management systems
utilising and following impact management plans (e.g. noise management)
best practice guidelines.
Community and stakeholder engagement practices are an important part of an asset management
system striving for best practice and are a means of incorporating many of the intangible
community and stakeholder requirements and values mentioned above. There are, however,
analytical methods and models available that capture portions of the above categories some of
which incorporate aspects of consultation (willingness-to-pay) and others straight economics (road
user costs).
5.2 Generalised Stakeholder Expectations

In addition to the variations in community and stakeholder concerns listed in Section 5.1, they vary
according to the agency concerned. For example, consultation by a state road authority with a
local community will be about a different suite of roads and issues than a parallel consultation
conducted by local government within the same community.
Austroads 2009
— 39 —
As an introduction, Commentary 2 contains a list of potential issues, which may be of interest to

certain community groups. The role for this list of assumed issues is to assist the agency plan the
listening phase by inviting a broad spectrum of the community and stakeholders to the consultation
process. Such a list might be used in planning the consultation process and updated after profiling
stakeholders and conducting the consultation.
5.3 Practices to Address Social and Environmental Impacts

Road maintenance activities can lead to social and environmental impacts. Best practice asset
management taking into account these impacts was examined in Austroads (2006e). Social and
environmental values, in addition to engineering, technical and economic factors, may also drive
the development of maintenance programs.
A social impact, as defined in Austroads (2006e) is any consequence experienced by a group of

people, such as a change in day-to-day activities, way of life, or some aspect of community
amenity. This will include impacts on all road users – car and truck drivers, cyclists and
pedestrians, local residents, local businesses, adjoining property owners and infrastructure
managers. The consequences may be related to changes to mobility patterns, access to facilities,
perceptions of levels of service, visual and aesthetic enjoyment, noise, safety, congestion and
delays.
The environmental impacts of road maintenance activities may include a combination of factors
which will have significant cumulative impacts. Environmental impacts may include such factors
as air quality, greenhouse emissions, water quality, landscape character, heritage protection,
biodiversity and resource recovery.
The selection of maintenance techniques and operations can both reduce the risk of adverse social
and environmental impacts and enhance social and environmental values. The work undertaken in
Austroads (2006e) is a practical example of the way asset management is improved by
understanding and proactively dealing with community and stakeholder concerns. Further
information on practices to address social and environmental impacts is contained in
Commentary 3.
Austroads 2009
— 40 —
6 SETTING PRIORITIES
Road agencies are expected to manage the road network in a way that returns the maximum
benefit to the community. Some of the community and stakeholder requirements may seem
intangible and unmeasurable to a road agency and therefore difficult to prioritise objectively. There
are, however, methods (such as cost models) that allow a road agency to consider various and
competing stakeholder requirements objectively and robustly in transparent decision making
processes.
As road agency prioritisation is typically related to expenditure and investment in an attempt to

make the best use of limited funding, various cost models are usually involved in prioritisation
methods; some of these methods are discussed here.
6.1 Cost Models

Cost-benefit analysis is one method for looking at benefits returned from committing expenditure
and is frequently used as a basis for decision making on investment.
Typical road agencies use both agency and road user cost models when undertaking cost-benefit
analysis. Road agencies need to develop cost models and use these cost assumptions in
modelling to understand the implications of operational, maintenance and capital investment
decisions on agency and road user costs.
Whilst agency costs are easily quantified, road user costs are less easily determined. Some costs
are explicit such as petrol, oil and tyre wear. Other road user costs are community specific and
more difficult to determine. Part of the challenge in analysing costs and benefits for various
management practices is the lack of knowledge about comfort benefits for road users in monetary
terms (Olsson 2003). However, methods such as willingness-to-pay enable a road agency to
determine community and stakeholder acceptance for different levels of road maintenance
management (for example where an increase in road maintenance costs improves ride comfort).
They also provide a mechanism for the road agency to translate intangible benefits or negative
impacts into tangible costs. An outcome of such studies could then provide additional monetary
values to incorporate in cost-benefit calculations and road models assessing maintenance
practices.
Best practice asset management also undertakes optimisation and/or scenario analysis to test
investment strategies from ‘whole of network’ and ‘over time’ perspectives. Road user costs and
agency costs are used in project specific modelling (e.g. project evaluation) and strategic modelling
(e.g. network level modelling).
In many instances the less accurate contingent valuation may be a fit-for-purpose solution. In
other instances, where more clarity is required, willingness-to-pay surveys may be needed to
determine the extent of the community concern relative to other cost parameters. Willingness-to-
pay surveys are expensive and should be used with discretion. The most obvious example of the
use of willingness-to-pay is in the area of crash cost data. Many road authorities are now using the
price a community is willing to pay to avoid road fatalities as a better model than the historical
model which added up the individual component expenditure incurred by the community after a
road fatality (e.g. ambulance, hospital, lost productivity, personal loss etc.).
Austroads 2009
— 41 —
At the network level costs to the community can also be measured and monitored by high level
cost management tests and performance indicators such as:
maintenance cost per lane km
maintenance cost as a proportion of asset value
maintenance cost as a portion of total expenditure.
Austroads 2009
— 42 —
REFERENCES
Australian Transport Council, 2006, National guidelines for transport system management in Australia,
2nd ed. BTRE, Canberra, ACT.
Austroads 2002, Integrated asset management guidelines for road networks, by R Grove, F Mihai,
P Appleby, M Bishop, K Eckeroth, L Leong, D Radcliffe & P Shepherd, AP-R202/02 Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006b, Literature review of community consultation techniques used by road agencies,
AP–R288/06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006c, Guidelines for the development of a level of service framework based on community
consultations, AP-R289/06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006d, A community consultation process and methods for quantifying community expectations
on the levels of service for road networks, AP-R290/06 Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006e, Maintenance techniques to reduce social and environmental impacts, by N Houghton &
J McRobert, AP-R291/06 Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006f, Guide to asset management: part 1: introduction to asset management, by K Sharp &
T Toole, AGAM01/06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008, Glossary of Austroads terms, 2nd ed., by K Sharp & P Milne, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads, 1997, Australia at the crossroads, roads in the community- a summary, by D Kneebone and
D Berry (eds.), AP-48/97. Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads, 2001, Road agency practices: part B: external consultation for road strategy development, by
R McInerney, S Roddis, T Gunatillake & M Lydon, AP-RI52B/01, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Cavaye, J, 2004, ‘Governance and community engagement: the Australian experience’, in W.R. Lovan,
M. Murray & R. Shaffer (eds), Participatory governance: planning, conflict mediation and public
decision-making in civil society, Ashgate, London, pp. 85-102.
Department of Planning and Infrastructure 2008, Annual report 2007-2008, Department of Planning and
Infrastructure, Perth, WA.
IAP2 2008, IAP2 Public participation spectrum. International Association for Public Participation, viewed
15 June 2008, http://www.iap2.org.au/
James Madison University, 2003, JMU's annual student perception survey questions relating to their
personal safety issues, Division of Administration and Finance, JMU, Harrisonburg, VA, USA.
Kahn, JR 1998, The economic approach to environmental and natural resources, The Dryden Press,
Orlando, FL, USA.
Main Roads WA 2008, 2008 Annual Report, Main Roads WA, Perth.
Mihai, F, Binning, N, and Dowling, L, 2000, ‘Road network asset management as a business process’, Road
engineering association of Asia and Australasia (REAAA) conference, 10th, 2000, Tokyo, Japan,
REAAA, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
OAG 1998, Public consultation and decision-making in local government, New Zealand Government, Office
of the Auditor General, Wellington, NZ, Viewed 12 May 2006, http://www.oag.govt.nz/1998/public-
consultation/
Austroads 2009
— 43 —
Office of Citizens and Civics, 2006, Working together: involving community and stakeholders in decision-
making, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Western Australia, Perth, WA, viewed 4th February
2009, http://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au/documents/FullColourlowresolution.pdf
Olsson, C, 2003, Motorists´ evaluation of road maintenance management, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.
QDMR 1999, Cost benefit analysis manual for road infrastructure investment: manuals and software, 2nd ed.,
Queensland Department of Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
QDMR 2008, Annual report 2007, Queensland. Department of Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Quick MBA, 1999-2007, Conjoint analysis, Internet Center for Management and Business Administration,
viewed 5 February, 2009, http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/research/conjoint/
Rinehart, TA, Lazslo AT & Briscoe GO, 2001, Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain
Productive Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Robinson, L, n.d, Two tools for choosing the appropriate depth of public participation in decision-making,
Enabling Change, viewed 4 February 2009,
http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Two_decision_tools.pdf
RTA 2008, Annual report 2007-2008, New South Wales. Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW.
Tinch R, 1995, The valuation of environmental externalities: executive summary, Department of Transport,
London, UK.
Tsolakis, D & Thoresen T 1998, ‘A framework for demonstrating that road performance meets community
expectations’, Contract report, WD R98/003, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
VCEC, 2007, Making the right choices: options for managing transport congestion, Victorian Competition and
Efficiency Commission, Department of Treasury and Finance, East Melbourne, Vic.
VicRoads 2005, Corporate plan 2005-2007, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Xu, B, 2001, ‘Integration of community participation in strategic transport planning: a local experience’,
Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 24th, 2001, Hobart, Tasmania, Tasmania.
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Hobart, TAS
Austroads 2009
— 44 —
COMMENTARY 1 TECHNIQUES FOR DETERMINING

COMMUNITY VALUES OF ASSET SERVICES
Techniques from economic research are appropriate to use in progressing from simpler community
consultation methods to more complex types of information as inputs to asset management. A key
question for asset managers is the amount that the community is willing to pay for any
improvement in services. The aim is to ‘assess the willingness-to-pay (WTP) in order to have
improved travel quality’. If available, the willingness to pay values/parameters are used as inputs
in benefit cost analysis (BCA) of projects, which is used by the asset manager to determine
whether a particular initiative gives sufficient return to the community compared to the cost of the
investment.
The willingness-to-pay methodology is central to the concept of economic efficiency, and provides
a link between consumer preferences and allocative efficiency. That is, resources are allocated
efficiently when they satisfy individual preferences for which there is the highest willingness to pay
(QDMR 1999). Willingness to pay is defined as the benefit individuals derive from the use of
resources in satisfying their demands for goods, services and amenities and is measured by their
willingness to pay for the resources required to satisfy those demands (QDMR 1999). In the
context of the provision of road assets, QDMR states that:
In the roads context the good being consumed is access. The benefits of a road
improvement represent the satisfactions individuals experience from an improvement in
access. If the community’s willingness to pay for a given improvement in access at least
equals the opportunity costs of supplying it, then provision of that level of road access
would be economically efficient (QDMR 1999, p.7).
Revealed and Stated Preferences

In order to determine how much the community values a particular service or good (e.g. reduced
travel times) economists can monetise the community willingness to pay from one or more of three
techniques:
1. Market values – if a market exists then the price for the good or service defines the WTP.
For example, prices for petrol, oil and tyres are used in models directly from the market
values (revealed consumer/community preferences).
2. Real data – observed behaviour can tell us something about how much people value a
commodity. Real data also represents a revealed preference set of values.
3. Asking questions – when revealed preferences cannot be observed in situations where
markets for goods, services and amenities are not well formed (e.g. access, travel quality)
people can be asked directly (mostly via surveys) about the value of certain goods or
services. For example, values for environmental and heritage preservation were originally
established by asking people how much they would be prepared to pay to preserve a certain
landscape feature. Asking questions is a stated preference technique.
These three concepts are described in more detail below.

There are many confusing and interrelated names used in the literature for various techniques
designed to model people’s preferences for improved roads. These include ‘willingness to pay’,
‘trade off analysis’, ‘stated preference techniques’, and ‘revealed preference techniques’, ‘zero sum
game ’,‘ conjoint analysis’ and ‘choice modelling’ All of these terms relate to ‘willingness to pay’ if
they include a ‘cost’ dimension.
Austroads 2009
— 45 —
Stated Preference Techniques (STP)

Stated preference techniques rely on asking people hypothetical questions. They are referred to
as ‘stated preference’ methods, because they ask people to directly state their values. Stated
preference techniques constitute a set of pricing methods where people are asked how much they
would agree to pay for say avoiding a polluted air environment or, alternatively, how much they
would ask as compensation (willing to accept) for the polluted air in their cities. People can also be
asked to make trade-offs among different alternatives, from which their willingness to pay (or
accept) can be estimated.
Stated preference techniques include the following two methodologies:

Contingent valuation – direct pricing method. Valuation method for determining the value of
non-market resources, where hypothetical situations are presented to a representative
sample of the relevant population in order to elicit statements about how much they would be
willing to pay for specific services. It is called ‘contingent’ valuation, because people are
asked to state their willingness to pay, contingent on a specific hypothetical scenario and
description of the service.
Conjoint analysis – indirect method involving contingent ranking, rating, etc. The conjoint
analysis approaches infer a value from the hypothetical choices or trade-offs that people
make. People are asked to state a preference between one group of services or
characteristics at a given price or cost to the individual and another group of characteristics
at a different price or cost.
Both contingent and conjoint analysis generate welfare estimates of benefits/damages based on
stated willingness to pay.
Contingent valuation
The contingent valuation method can be highly sophisticated, and has a key advantage as a tool to
elicit values where no market has been established (e.g. Heritage). It may, however, require
extensive pre-testing and use of focus groups to analyse the reactions of respondents to a range of
survey questions. It can also involve debriefing the respondents to ensure they understand the
scenario, (also useful in detecting any problems associated with their responses). This approach
involves a high level of control in creating a scenario to evaluate specific effects (Tinch 1995).
Conjoint analysis
Individual attributes in isolation are perceived differently than when in combinations, therefore this
method has the advantage that a survey does not need to be conducted using all possible
combinations. It is also often difficult for respondents to take a list of attributes and mentally
construct the preference combinations of them. Therefore, through a conjoint analysis,
respondents are presented with a statistically derived subset of the possible combinations of a
given area of analysis, which can be used to determine the relative importance of each feature for
a particular scenario (QuickMBA 1999-2004). This method is considered to perhaps be more
realistic, as it requires respondents to make trading-off decisions among different types of assets,
time, environmental goods etc., rather than simply stating a monetary amount for a particular
scenario (Tinch 1995).
Austroads 2009
— 46 —
Issues to be aware of in using SPT include:
Sample size and representativeness: Stated preference techniques are essentially quantitative
techniques because they aim to model actual preferences in the population. In order to make
inferences about behaviour in the wider population, the techniques must have a large enough
sample size so that sample error is minimised and the sample chosen must be representative of
the population about which inferences are to be made.
Survey design: One of the key potential risks is the designing of survey questionnaires to
systematically capture community benefits from different types of asset management approaches.
Tsolakis and Thoresen (1998) note that community perceptions of performance outcomes may
vary considerably across different parts of the road system, where issues of importance to the
community, such as air pollution, congestion and safety in urban areas may be perceived very
differently to that in rural sections of interstate road corridors.
Revealed Preference Techniques (RPT)

Revealed preference techniques based on observed behaviour also have a role as input to asset
management decision making.
Revealed preference techniques use the decisions people make regarding activities that utilise or
are affected by say an ‘amenity’, to reveal the value of the amenity (amended from Kahn 1998).
Revealed preference techniques infer values from actual choices. They derive the values of goods
and services from market prices or market behaviour. They comprise techniques such as market
valuation of economic losses, hedonic pricing methods and travel cost methods.
Market valuation of economic losses: The most relevant use of market valuation of losses is in
determining the values for lives lost for use in road project evaluation (e.g. the human capital (HC)
method is used to determine crash costs for road resource allocation and economic appraisal of
proposals). Under the method the costs of property damage, administrative costs, lost output,
medical costs and somewhat arbitrary human costs of pain, grief and suffering are included.
These HC estimates tend to be underestimates of society’s willingness to pay, which are obtained
using stated preference techniques.
Hedonic pricing: The hedonic pricing method uses the value of expenditure to reveal the
preference of a consumer or group of consumers for the bundle of attributes in a good, service or
amenity they purchase. Hedonic pricing analysis might, for example, use the change in property
value for homes within a certain noise catchment zone adjacent to a freeway and compare that
with other similar properties where noise is not an issue. If it is measured properly, the difference
in property values can be inferred to reflect the difference in value the community places on
avoiding noise. The value the community places on noise as derived using the hedonic pricing
method can be used in cost models to make asset management decisions. Like all similar
techniques, this technique can also be complex and needs to be well managed.
Travel cost method: The travel cost method assumes that the time and travel cost (expenses) that
people incur to visit a ‘site’ represent the ‘price’ of access to the site. Therefore, people’s
willingness to pay a price to visit the site can be estimated based on the number of trips that they
make at different travel costs. This allows the analyst to estimate peoples’ willingness to pay for a
non-marketed good based on the ‘access volume’ demanded at different costs of travel. The travel
cost method is derived from environmental economics and can be used to estimate prices for the
conservation of nature or heritage sites.
Austroads 2009
— 47 —
COMMENTARY 2 COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST – CONCERN

PROFILES
The following generic list of issues has been developed as a possible starting point to understand
differences between communities and the likely considerations of their needs in asset
management decisions. Road agencies should validate and customise this list through
consultation for relevant issues and each appropriate stakeholder group.
Country residents:
year round access
safe access roads
minimal risk from roadside fires.
Producers:
safe roads for employees
roads smooth enough to not damage freight/produce
roads able to accommodate, and bridges able to carry, the largest and heaviest loads or
specialised vehicles (e.g. harvesters).
Inter-regional freight operators:

safe roads where the maximum allowable speed limit (100 km/h) can be maintained
good road surfaces that will not damage vehicles or freight
regular rest areas.
Urban residents:
protection from traffic noise and fumes
safe streets to walk, cycle and drive on
roads nearby that can accommodate buses.
Urban motorists:
reliable and reasonable travel times, being able to drive at close to the legal speed limit
clear signs, pavement markings and traffic control devices
no potholes, debris or ponds of water on the road
no surprises like slippery surfaces.
Older drivers:
clear, uncluttered signs with larger print
high illumination street lights
protected turn opportunities
consistent speed zones.
Austroads 2009
— 48 —
People with disabilities:

Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant road system
equality access.
Tourists:
clear signs to destinations.
Urban cyclists:
a quiet street or if on a busy road – a designated or protected lane to ride in that is wide
enough to avoid opened car doors and that is free of encroachment from passing wide
vehicles
a clean and even surface to ride on
low (less than 70 km/h) traffic speeds on shared roads.
Urban pedestrians:
uncluttered footpaths with even surfaces
priority over crossing and turning vehicles, e.g. no slip lanes
safe and frequent opportunities to cross busy roads, particularly at bus stops or where there
are shops or schools etc.
low traffic speeds
high standard street lights that illuminate the footpaths.
Local traders:
lots of on-street parking, preferably free
high exposure to passing traffic
high urban amenity, low noise etc.
Schools:
a low speed environment
controlled crossings at all major access crossings
bus and coach access.
Emergency services:
clear signs, prompt access, no narrow roads or road closures
no speed humps
clear street signs.
Public bus users:

to be able to readily and safely cross to and from bus stops
buses that are not delayed by traffic or by parked or standing vehicles
reliable, faster travel times
smooth acceleration and no emergency stops
Austroads 2009
— 49 —
no speed humps or chicanes, etc.

minimal traffic fumes and noise while waiting.
Austroads 2009
— 50 —
COMMENTARY 3 MAINTENANCE TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Road maintenance activities can lead to social and environmental impacts. Best practice asset
management taking these impacts into account was examined in Austroads (2006e). Social and
environmental values, in addition to engineering, technical and economic factors, may also drive
the development of maintenance programs.
A social impact is any consequence experienced by a group of people, such as a change in day-to-
day activities, way of life, or some aspect of community amenity (Austroads 2006e). This will
include impacts on all road users – car and truck drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, local residents,
local businesses, adjoining property owners and infrastructure managers. The consequences may
be related to changes to mobility patterns, access to facilities, perceptions of levels of service,
visual and aesthetic enjoyment, noise, safety, congestion and delays.
The environmental impacts of road maintenance activities may include a combination of factors
which will have significant cumulative impacts. Environmental impacts may include such factors as
air quality, greenhouse emissions, water quality, landscape character, heritage protection,
biodiversity and resource recovery.
The selection of maintenance techniques and operations can both reduce the risk of adverse social
and environmental impacts and enhance social and environmental values. A framework outlining
methods of managing the risk of adverse and social environmental impacts and enhancing desired
social and environmental values is contained in Austroads (2006e) and is shown in Figure C3 1.
Source: Austroads 2006e
Figure C3 1: Types of social and environmental impacts
Austroads 2009
— 51 —
There are a number of social and environmental impacts which can arise from road maintenance
activities. Road maintenance activities have three broad components: pavement maintenance,
roadside maintenance and bridge maintenance. Social and environmental factors can and should
inform what maintenance works are undertaken. A four step framework has been developed by
Austroads (2006e) and is shown in Figure C3 2.
Source: Austroads 2006e
Figure C3 2: Framework for selecting road maintenance techniques
Austroads 2009
— 52 —
The main categories of social impacts include:

health and well being
safety
travel time changes
accessibility
noise
modal choice
community cohesion
community perceptions
vehicle operating costs
economic development
amenity.
The key environmental impacts include:

resource use
air quality
waste management
heritage
water quality
higher diversity.
The management of environmental and social values can be achieved by:

codes of practice
asset management systems
containing environmental management plans
best practice guidelines.
Table C3 1 provides some examples of road asset management with specific social and
environmental issues which may need to be addressed for each asset type.
Austroads 2009
— 53 —
Table C3 1: Asset types – social and environmental issues
Asset type Asset components, elements, features Social & environmental issues
Pavements Sealed and unsealed surfaces and carriageways, verges. The Issues: night time noise and vibration, traffic delays,
key condition items include quality (roughness), ruts, cracks, materials use/recyclables and their disposal, siting of
potholes, pavement failures, edge drop-off and shoulder stockpiles, spraybar cleaning, exhaust emissions, soil
condition. disturbance, erosion and sediment run-off, occupational
Road inventory including condition data, target intervention exposure to volatiles.
levels, maintenance standards, treatments, maintenance
history.
Maintenance activities include pothole patching, crack sealing,
edge repair, regrade and reshape, replacing lost gravel.
Shoulders Sealed and unsealed shoulders, edges, kerb and channel, Issues: night time noise and vibration, materials
footpaths. use/recyclables and disposal, siting of stockpiles,
Shoulder repair using techniques such as wet and dry sediment run-off, dust during grading, inappropriate
maintenance, grading, resheeting, sealing. disposal of spoil, spreading of weed seeds.
Drainage Stormwater structures, culverts, surface water channels (table Issues: Disposal of drain spoil, spreading of weed seeds,
drains). altering natural drainage patterns, reshaping drains can
Techniques for velocity control (rock lined channels), erosion increase erosion and sedimentation.
control (revegetation), drainage control (hydrology), sediment
control (sediment basin).
Roadside and Roadside components include enforcing clear zones, mowing Issues: incremental loss of vegetation through tree and
roadside and weed control, litter collection, landscape amenity, parking shrub removal, loss of hollows and other habitat, soil
values areas, stockpiles etc. Roadside values include roadside disturbance, erosion and weed invasion, mowing over
vegetation (including street trees and landscaped areas), seedlings, machinery spreading weed seeds, spray
roadside cultural heritage values, or social values such as visual damage to vegetation.
amenity.
Road furniture Includes all fixtures in the road and the road reserve including Issues: night time noise and vibration, traffic delays, soil
signs, light poles, delineation items (such as guideposts, raised disturbance associated with replacing and servicing
pavement markers), safety barriers (e.g. wire safety rope), noise signage and various roadside facilities, graffiti removal
walls, shelters, rest areas etc. Traffic management facilities and use of various solvents.
including speed humps, chicanes, traffic signals.
Bridges and Bridge maintenance involves many activities directed at Issues: human effects (e.g. safety), traffic access effects
structures components of the overall bridge structure including (particularly driven by road traffic volumes), economic
components that make up the bridge sub-structure (such as effects (e.g. restricting local industry access) and
footings, piers, piles, culverts etc.), deck surface (including environmental effects (e.g. contaminated run-off water
spans, joints, footways, drains), super-structure (which includes entering waterways). Bridge cleaning can involve dry
arches, trusses), abutments (at each end of the bridge) and blasting (vacuum attachment), blasting with water (water
bridge approaches (including barriers, retaining walls, collection), chemical stripping etc. structural repair of
guardrails). Maintenance activities include repair and piles, corbels and girders can cause damage to
replacement of minor components (decking, joints, guardrails), streambanks and associated riparian vegetation. Bridge
surface maintenance (cleaning and removal of graffiti, lead batter repair may involve earthworks increasing the risk of
paint), removal of debris (such as flood debris), and erosion and sedimentation.
maintenance of waterways (for example, erosion control).
Source: Austroads (2006e)
Austroads 2009
— 54 —

Agam02 09

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agam02 09

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT

Part 2: Community and Stakeholder

First Published May 2009

Austroads Project No. AP1174

Published by Austroads Incorporated

5 ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS..................... 38

− Part 5H – Performance Modelling

1.2 The Purpose of Part 2

This Part provides practitioners with:

This report builds on the work of:

2 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS

Understanding community and stakeholder requirements is a critical component of informed

2.1 Objectives of Defining Stakeholder Requirements

2.2 Community and Stakeholders – Who are they?

2.2.1 Communities of Interest

2.2.3 Entire Community

2.2.4 Community and Stakeholder Overlap

2.3 Requirements Inferred from Government Policy

2.4 Legislative Requirements

3 ROAD AGENCY OBJECTIVES

Better Planning; Better Futures Main Roads Western Australia

A safe community Road safety A safe road environment

Community and stakeholder consultation or involvement in decision making and consequently

3.1 Key Performance Indicators

Once indicators of community and stakeholder requirements are identified it is possible to

3.2 Formulating Key Performance Indicators

3.2.1 Road Class/Hierarchy

Further, in regards to community and stakeholder consultation, Austroads (2006b) recommends an

3.2.2 Road Outcomes

3.2.3 Asset Groups

3.2.4 Level of Service

Austroads (2006c) suggests four broad descriptions or groupings for LOS:

3.2.5 Operational, Tactical and Strategic Activities

3.2.6 Relating Community Needs to KPIs

Table 3.3: Examples of community engagement: outcomes and objectives

Source: developed from Tsolakis and Thoresen (1998)

3.2.7 Case Study

Community engagement is the mutual communication and deliberation

Community consultation should not be considered as a means to justify giving communities or

4.2 Benefits of Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Community and stakeholder engagement is recognised as being fundamental to effective asset

Asset management decision making:

1. Road agency communication with community and stakeholders

2. Community and stakeholder communication with the road agency

4.3 Principles of Community and Stakeholder Engagement for Asset

4.3.1 Objectives of Consultation

4.4 The Consultation Process – How to Engage

Table 4.1: Purpose of consultation initiatives

Table 4.1: Purpose of consultation initiatives (Continued)

4.4.1 Recognising the Need for Consultation

The decision to consult should in part reflect the level of:

Table 4.2: Criteria reflecting where it is appropriate to engage the community

Source: Robinson n.d.

Figure 4.1: Level of involvement and risk assessment as inputs to selecting

4.4.2 Planning a Consultation

4.4.3 Early Engagement

4.4.4 Executing a Consultation

 reporting and presenting findings to the agency

4.4.5 Using the Outputs of the Consultation

4.4.6 Closure or Continuation

4.4.7 Regular Engagement

4.5 Ongoing Engagement / Maintaining Relationships

4.5.1 Tracking Stakeholder and Community Perspectives

reporting and presenting findings to the agency

no speed humps or chicanes, etc.