Stakeholder Engagement Summary Report
Transportation Options ImplementationPlanSTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT SUMMARYREPORTPrepared by: Zan AssociatesAugust 2018
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanTable of ContentsOverview . 1Highlights . 2Engagement Activities. 3Stakeholder Meetings . 3Stakeholder Interviews . 4Skyway Intercept Surveys . 7Online Survey . 8List of ber of Stakeholders Reached . 1Combined Intercept and Online Survey Program Review . 3Skyway Intercept Survey Locations . 7Skyway Intercept Survey Program Review . 8Online Survey Program Review . 9List of TablesTable 1: Stakeholder Engagement Summary . 1Table 2: Stakeholder Meetings – February 2018 . 3Table 3: List of Stakeholder Interviews. 5List of A: ABC Ramp Improvement Strategy Flash CardsB: Stakeholder Meeting SummariesC: Commuter and Employer Interview SummariesD: Intercept Survey ResultsE: Online Survey Results-Table of Contents-
OverviewA series of stakeholder engagement activities were held as part of the development of the ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan. Engagement activities included stakeholder meetings,interviews with employers and commuters, skyway intercept surveys, and an electronic survey. Targetaudiences included representatives from key downtown organizations, downtown employers, and generalcommuters (Figure 1). Participants were asked to discuss barriers that prevent people from choosingsomething other than single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel for their daily commute, provide generalimprovement ideas for ABC Ramp operations and facilities, and to review and evaluate a range of potentialprogram ideas intended to help the ramps better achieve their multimodal transportation goals. Table 1summarizes the engagement activities.Figure 1: Number of Stakeholders ReachedNumber of People ReachedTable 1: Stakeholder Engagement SummaryEvent/ActivityTarget AudienceDowntownOrganizationRoundtableDowntown organizations,business groups, and otheragency partnersCommuterListeningSessionCommuters representing across-section of demographicsegments (e.g., age, income,employment status, etc.)CommuterInterviewsCommuters representing across-section of demographicsegments (e.g., age, income,employment status, etc.)A cross-section of downtownemployers of various sizes (i.e.,number of employees) andfrom various industries (e.g.,advertising, retail, publishing,etc.)EmployerInterviewsDescriptionNo. ofPeopleA small group meeting with approximately 10participants. Project staff gave a briefpresentation which was followed by a reviewof potential ABC rampprograms/improvement strategiesA small group meeting (3 people) withdowntown commuters and residents. Projectstaff gave a brief presentation which wasfollowed by a review of potential ABC rampprograms/improvement strategiesPhone interviews with downtown commutersto discuss barriers to non-SOV commutingand to review potential ABC rampprograms/improvement strategiesPhone interviews with representatives fromdowntown employers to discuss barriers tonon-SOV commuting and to review ofpotential ABC ramp programs/ improvementstrategies7344
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanEvent/ActivityTarget AudienceDescriptionNo. ofPeopleSkywayInterceptSurveys (x3)Commuters who currently parkin the ABC RampsApprox.135Online SurveyDowntown area commutersand employersShort verbal surveys administered to existingramp users in the skyway level at the A, B,and C ramps during peak periods. Surveyquestions related to barriers to non-SOVcommuting and review of potential ABC rampprograms/ improvement strategiesAn electronic survey widely distributed todowntown commuters and employers. Surveyquestions related to barriers to non-SOVcommuting and review of potential ABC rampprograms/ improvement strategiesTotal241 400HighlightsThe following are key findings resulting from the stakeholder engagement activities. The sections that followinclude additional detail on each stakeholder engagement event and detailed meeting notes from each eventare included as appendixes. Many people drive alone, but many would prefer not to: Based on the engagement completed, itis clear that many people would prefer to choose a non-SOV mode of commute, but nearly halfdo not. In aggregate, about 47% of respondents reported driving alone as their most commoncommute. 80% of respondents would prefer another mode.People want flexibility and options: Flexibility, payment challenges, timing/scheduling, and safetyat ramp facilities were some common challenges or barriers to using the ABC Ramps and/ornon-SOV transportation options, cited by both commuters and employer representatives. Peopleare willing to try another mode of commute but varying schedules (e.g., mid-day appointments,afterschool child pick-up, weekend work, etc.), a lack of convenience (e.g., mobile app, onlinepayment, etc.) as a barrier.People want independence: Driving alone offers the most independence. Transit also feelsindependent because you can leave or arrive when you want to and decide the destinations.Carpooling is the least independent as you need to match another person’s schedule.People are often forced to choose either transit or parking: People would choose an alternativecommute mode (such as transit), but because they need to drive sometimes they pay (or theiremployer pays) for contract parking. Because they already have a parking contract, theadditional cost related to transit or a carshare is a barrier (e.g., people don’t want to pay twice).There are currently no ‘parking and transit’ options.People are open to new program ideas: People are generally supportive of the programideas/strategies proposed but were generally more interested in programs that provide flexibilityfor people who sometimes/occasionally drive (Figure 2), such as flexible monthly parkingcontracts, contract option that bundle parking and transit services, and “day of” parkingreservations. Any new programs must be compatible with employer benefit packages. Peoplewere less likely to support programs related to carpooling.Employers care about their employee’s commutes: It is important to employers to helpemployees find reliable, affordable, and convenient commute options. Driving an automobile isby far the most common employee commute mode reported by employers (100% haveemployees who drive), but most employers also have employees who use transit, bike, or walkto work.Many employers subsidize employee parking: Nearly 70 percent of employers reported that theirorganization either provides a subsidy for or allows for pre-tax purchase of parking spaces aspart of a benefit program and 80 percent indicated that their organization provides similarbenefits for transit passes.-Page 2-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan People are concerned about personal safety and security: There were perceived safety issues atthe ramps and along the routes connecting to the ramps.Parking availability: There is a perceived lack of parking, particularly in the North LoopNeighborhood. Many people expressed frustrations with parking availability for guests,employees, and customers.Figure 2: Combined Intercept and Online Survey Program ReviewEngagement ActivitiesThe following is a summary of the comments received as part of the stakeholder engagement activitiescompleted, including stakeholder meetings, employer and commuter interviews, skyway intercept surveys,and electronic survey. More detailed meeting notes are included in Appendixes A through E.Stakeholder MeetingsTwo stakeholder meetings were held in late February 2018, including a downtown stakeholder ‘roundtable’and a ‘listening session’ with downtown commuters. The downtown roundtable specifically targeted keydowntown organizations and business representatives, and the commuter listening session targeteddowntown commuters (Table 2).Table 2: Stakeholder Meetings – February 2018Date/timeLocationAttendeesDowntown RoundtableTuesday, February 13, 2018, 10 – 12 p.m.Commuter Listening SessionThursday, February 22, 2018, 2 – 4 p.m.Move Minneapolis, 505 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis, MN 55402Move Minneapolis, 505 Nicollet Mall,Minneapolis, MN 55402 Metro Transit Warehouse District Business Association 2020 Partners/Minneapolis DowntownCouncil-Page 3-3 downtown commutersAttendees were invited to participate viaa short web survey which consideredage, race, gender, job type, and joblocation.
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanDowntown RoundtableCommuter Listening Session MN Twins/Target Field Greater Minneapolis Building Owners andManagers Association (BOMA) North Loop Neighborhood Shared Used MobilityMeeting FormatParticipants for each meeting were given a background presentation and then asked to discussbarriers/benefits related to choosing a non-SOV daily commute mode, provide general improvement ideasfor ABC Ramp operations and facilities, and to review and evaluate a range of potential program ideasintended to help the ramps better achieve their multimodal transportation goals.To facilitate the two-way conversation, stakeholders were given cards with a description of the potential ABCRamps improvement strategies and programs (Appendix A) and asked to share the strategies out loud for agroup discussion on potential opportunities and challenges related to each strategy. This activity wasfollowed by a group discussion in which participants were asked questions relating to their experiencetraveling in Downtown Minneapolis. Meetings notes with additional detail are included in Appendix B.Key Findings Commuters Want Flexibility: Stakeholders perceive efficiency and flexibility as being the key tomotivating people to take other transportation options and use the ABC Ramps. People are willing totry another mode of commute but varying schedules (e.g., mid-day appointments, afterschool childpick-up, weekend work, etc.), a lack of convenience (e.g., no access via mobile app, onlinepayment, etc.) as a barrier. Programs for people who would try alternative commuting modes butneed to drive sometimes were particularly well received.Support for Draft Program Ideas: Stakeholders and commuters generally supported the proposedprograms and strategies. Particularly promising strategies were the idea of branding the ramps as amobility hub and providing additional support for employer programs aimed at encouraging non-SOVcommuting.Rebranding the Ramps: Downtown stakeholders emphasized the need to rebrand and modernize theABC Ramps lobbies, signage, and branding in support of promoting the ramps as a mobility hub.Support for Employer Programs: There is interest from both commuters and employers in programswhich provide support for employers to educate employees about the benefits of using othertransportation options in downtown. Employers stressed the need for these programs to be intuitive,easy to use, and online. It is also important that programs are compatible with employer benefitpackages.Concern over Safety and Security: Downtown organizations (particularly those representing theNorthloop Neighborhood) expressed concern over perceived safety and security issues at the rampsand along the routes that connect the ramps to the surrounding neighborhoods. There is support forfocus on improving safety, such as adding more lighting in the ABC Ramps, more security, andbetter wayfinding/signage etc.Stakeholder InterviewsA total of 10 stakeholder interviews were conducted with commuters and representatives of employerswithin close proximity to the ramps (Table 3). Participants were selected based on direct invitation viacontact lists maintained by Move Minneapolis, as well as an invitation to existing ABC Ramps contract holderswith the intention of including a representative cross-section of commuter demographics (e.g., age, income,employment status, etc.) and business types (e.g., various sizes and industries).-Page 4-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanTable 3: List of Stakeholder InterviewsEmployer Interviews Commuter InterviewsWednesday, March 22, 2018, Coyote LogisticsWednesday, March 22, 2018, Fluid InteriorsFriday, March 29, 2018, Broadhead Co. IncThursday, May 31, 2018, Be the MatchTuesday, June 5, 2018, AmazonTuesday, June 5, 2018, Haberman andAssociates Monday, March 26, 2018, Olson Advertising EmployeeMonday, March 26, 2018, Olson Advertising EmployeeTuesday, March 27, 2018, Hennepin County EmployeeFriday, April 27, 2018, RBC EmployeeInterview FormatInterviews were conducted both in-person and by phone. Participants were provided an agenda with specificinterview questions in advance of the meeting. The interview questions were intended to solicit commentsfrom participants relating to challenges and benefits for non-SOV modes of commuting. Participants werealso asked for their reactions to the draft ramp improvement programs.Key Findings Varying schedules is a challenge: Flexibility, payment challenges, timing/scheduling, and safety weresome common challenges or barriers to using the ABC Ramps and/or non-SOV transportationoptions, cited by both commuters and employer representatives. People are willing to try anothermode of commute but varying schedules (e.g., mid-day appointments, afterschool child pick-up,weekend work, etc.), a lack of convenience (e.g., no access via mobile app, online payment, etc.) asa barrier. For example, one challenge with a regularly carpooling is that some people leave work atdifferent times every day and may not know ahead of time when they can leave. This makes itdifficult to coordinate schedules with a rideshare partner. Likewise, people felt that working late oron the weekends would make it difficult to use transit and therefore felt they need a contractparking spot.People are often forced to choose either transit or parking: People would choose an alternativecommute mode (such as transit), but because they need to drive sometimes they pay (or theiremployer pays) for contract parking. Because they already have a parking contract, the additionalcost related to transit or a carshare is a barrier (e.g., people don’t want to pay twice).Programs that provide flexibility are well supported: Employers and commuters were generallysupportive of the potential programs/strategies presented. Programs that provide additionalflexibility in contracting and scheduling were particularly well received as good strategies to helppeople explore non-SOV transportation options. “Day of” parking reservations, partial monthlycontracts, and transit-parking contracts with a combined card or app were all favored byinterviewees. People were less enthusiastic about programs for carpooling but felt a daily carpoolprogram with discounted rates would be positive.The following is a summary of the key points from the commuter and employer representative interviews, inaggregate. More detailed meeting notes are included in Appendix C.Commuter Interview SummaryChallenges Commuters agree that having more flexibility would motivate people to use other transportationoptions.Commuters generally support the proposed ideas but are mostly interested in flexibility options andcarpooling options.Commuter also find time and scheduling as a challenge to their daily commute, thus prefer to drivealone.-Page 5-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan A mobile app that could provide real time information and book parking in advance, track and logwalking or biking hours/miles, and make payment easier would motivate commuters to use othertransportation options and help them with commuting downtown.Some commuters mentioned that a mobility hub would also support an alternative (non-SOV)commute, especially with providing information, wayfinding, and amenities for those whoseemployer does not provide these amenities (i.e. bike parking, bike showers, etc.).Some fell that the contracting for the ramps is overwhelming – making it easier for people tounderstand the different parking contract options at the ABC Ramps would help people with theircommute downtown.Opportunities Commuters were open to other transportation options. Making other transportation services moreavailable and easy to use would improve and support people’s decision to choose an alternativecommute mode.Employees often get information through their employers about how they can subsidize theircommute but finding information and contract options on the public ABC Ramps website is difficult.Many employees have bike showers at their work place.Electronic information through work email is the best way to share information with commuters.Other ways to get information includes billboard, bus advertisement, organization/agency focused onmulti-transportation options, Google information, and posters located in the skyway.Some expressed interested in trying carpooling and/or a discounted carpool rate but finding reliablecarpool partners is a perceived barrier. A ride matching app would be well received for these people.There is support for “demystifying” transportation options by helping people with knowing theiroptions if their bus doesn’t show up or if their first commute option doesn’t work.Employer Interview SummaryChallenges Employers are concerned about the lack of parking availability in downtown and see it as a barrier tofuture growth.Multiple employers feel that ABC Ramps contract administration and payment system is a challenge.For example, setting up a contract with the ABC ramps is “extremely difficult”, and having a moreefficient system with activating and cancelling parking cards is needed.Scheduling and timing were mentioned as difficult to manage. Some employees work on theweekend starting at 6 a.m., some employees work between 7 a.m. to noon, and weekend buses donot accommodate employees’ transportation needs on the weekend.Employers mentioned that some employees would use buses because it is less stressful and moreenvironmental friendly. However, in the end, if it conflicts with employees’ schedule they won’t do it.Employees would like to use these services more, but the dependability, reliability and frequency is achallenge.Employers suggest that adding more flexibility would allow commuters to spend less and alternatebetween different transportation options. For example, many employees don’t use their parkingspace all the time. During warmer seasons, people are choosing to bike or take transit, but will stillkeep their monthly or annual parking contract for days they plan to drive or to go to events. Thisdoesn’t give people the flexibility they want, and people like the flexibility to alternate theirtransportation options.Employers feel that safety is a concern and should be addressed (i.e., add more lighting in darkerareas and add security personnel).Opportunities Many employees have benefits programs which could be used to pay for alterative commutes, suchas transit passes.There are opportunities for better education for employees about parking options in downtownMinneapolis, at the employer level. Providing regular updates and using direct communication line-Page 6-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan (such as company intranet) would make it more convenient for employees to choose an alternativecommute.Proximity to alternative transportation options and amenities are important to employers – theychoose to locate downtown because of the presence of these amenities.Many employers use third-party benefit providers which often include flexible transportation benefits(e.g., transportation allowances) that can be used for transit – this helps to motivate employees.Skyway Intercept SurveysIntercept surveys were done on the skyway level at each of the ramps (Ramp A, Ramp B, and Ramp C) atthree different times during peak periods (Figure 3). In total, about 135 people were engaged.Figure 3: Skyway Intercept Survey LocationsRamp B Intercept LocationTuesday, 5/29/18, PM peakRamp C Intercept LocationThursday, 5/31/18, PM peakRamp A Intercept LocationTuesday, 5/29/18, AM peakIntercept Survey FormatShort verbal surveys were administered to existing ramp users in the skyway level at the A, B, and C rampsduring peak periods. Survey questions related to barriers to non-SOV commuting and review of potentialABC ramp programs/ improvement strategies. Staff recorded the feedback received.Key FindingsThe following is a summary of the key findings from the skyway intercept surveys. A more detailed summaryis included in Appendix D. Commute mode: About 75 survey respondents reported driving alone, 25 people carpooled, nearly20 took the bus or train, 7 people walked, and 10 people drove alone but occasionally carpool,bus/train, bike, and/or walk to work.Benefits of a non-SOV commute: People felt that there were clear benefits in choosing alternativecommute modes, including flexibility, cost saving, time, health benefits, and environmental benefits,among others.Challenges of choosing a non-SOV commute: People noted flexibility in schedule, higher cost (don’twant to pay twice), increased commute time and distance, transit delays, and loss of freedom tocome and go as some of the perceived challenges hindering them from using other transportationoptions.-Page 7-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan Program review: Respondents were generally more interested in programs that gave them theflexibility to choose their desired transportation option on a given day. A total of 15 people indicatedthat they would be “very likely” to use a contract option that gave commuters parking a couple daysa week and provide transit access for the other days, 9 people “very likely” would use a programthat provide flexible monthly parking contract, and 8 people “very likely” would use a program thatallows commuter to reserve a parking space in advance. People were also interested in a mobile appthat could track modes and help commuter set goals. While people were supportive of having amobile app that allow commuters to easily find carpool partners, they showed less interest in acarpool program that would allow commuters to carpool sometimes (Figure 4).Figure 4: Skyway Intercept Survey Program ReviewOnline SurveyAn electronic survey was administered to downtown area commuters and employers. Survey questionsrelated to barriers to non-SOV commuting and review of potential ABC ramp programs/ improvementstrategies. In total, 241 people responded to the survey.Survey Format and PromotionThe electronic survey was promoted and distributed in several ways. The survey was strongly promoted aspart of the ABC Ramps skyway intercept events, distributed through Move Minneapolis’ email lists, andemailed to previous identified employers and stakeholders to pass to their employees. The survey wasopened for two weeks and about 240 people participated in the survey. About 90 percent of respondentsidentified as commuters and 10 as employers.Key FindingsThe following is a summary of the key findings from the skyway intercept surveys. A more detailed summaryis included in Appendix E. Commute mode: 77 survey respondents (42%) reported driving alone all of the time. 107respondents (58%) carpool, use transit, walk, or bike at least some of the time.-Page 8-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan People would prefer NOT to drive alone: 80% of commuter respondents indicated a desire to choosea non-SOV commute, at least some of the time. Many of the survey respondents identified distancefrom work and home, flexibility, time constraints, limited transit frequency and scheduling, and poorweather as some of the challenges for using non-SOV modes for their commute.People see a benefit to choosing an alternative commute: Commuters and employers identifiedtransit reliability, reduced parking fees, health benefits, cost saving, time, environmental benefits assome of the benefits that would make it beneficial to choose non-SOV commutes.Employers care about their employee’s commutes: All of the employer respondents feel it isimportant for their organization to help employees find reliable, affordable, and convenient commuteoptions. Driving an automobile is by far the most common employee commute mode reported byemployers (100% have employees who drive), but most employers also have employees who usetransit, bike, or walk to work.Nearly 70 percent of employers reported that their organization either provides a subsidy for orallows for pre-tax purchase of parking spaces as part of a benefit program and 80 percent indicatedthat their organization provides similar benefits for transit passes. 80 percent of employers providebicycle parking, 67% provide transit passes or subsidies, and 62% have showers and lockers. Veryfew provide carpool or vanpool support. Flexible contracts and bundled service (Figure 5): Commuters were most interested programs thatallow flexibility to choose their transportation option on any given days and indicated that theywould be most likely use a flexible monthly parking contract, and a contract that bundled parkingand transit services. A program that allows commuters to reserve parking space in advance was alsosupported. Employers were most likely to use a flexible monthly parking contract that would allowcommuters to purchase a set numbers of days per month or year to park, and a program thatallowed commuters to reserve parking space in advance for a day they know they need to drive.Mixed reception to carpooling programs: Both employers and commuters were interested in a mobileapp that would allow commuters to easily find carpool partners in their workplace. However, peoplewere either unlikely to use and/or were indifferent to a program that would allow commuters tocarpool sometimes if it was very easy for commuters to show up at the ramps with another rider.Figure 5: Online Survey Program Review-Page 9-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanAppendixesAppendix A: ABC Ramp Improvement Strategy Flash CardsAppendix B: Stakeholder Meeting SummariesAppendix C: Commuter and Employer Interview SummariesAppendix D: Intercept Survey ResultsAppendix E: Online Survey Results-Page 10-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanAppendix A: ABC Ramp Improvement Strategy FlashCards-Page 11-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan-Page 12-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan-Page 13-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan-Page 14-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan-Page 15-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan-Page 16-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation Plan-Page 17-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanAppendix B: Stakeholder Meeting Notes-Page 18-
ABC RampsTransportation Options Implementation PlanDowntown Stakeholder Round Table – Program Idea ReviewMobility Hub Need multiple access points at mobility hubDesignated areas for ride hailing/TNCs (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would increase flow and keeppeople from crowding the busy city streets and curbsideTwins & Target Center have Uber pick up/drop off on Twins Way near Ramp A, andother vendors have their own spots. Uber started this, not the vendors. It would benice to consolidate these drop-off and pick up locations to make it consistent for allusesBike lockers are already an available amenity, but they are challenging to manage anddifficult to sell.o How do we communicate what is already there?o Need a variety of bike parking options (i.e. loops, bike cages, lockers) toprovide different prices/optionso Need to be intentional about design, structure, and locationo A locker room inside and with security may be betterThe function of the ABC Ramps is there, but environment needs some worko Can it be made into a welcoming space that feels nice and safe?o Low hanging solutions include better lighting and add wayfinding signageProducts for People Who Occasionally Drive Reserved parking for days you need ito This will help people feel confident they have parking spots even during eventsA lot of people drive because they want the flexibility sometimesLimited parking – buy a set number of discount parking days per year – i.e. 24passes, entices people to do thisHave an annual packet of reservations when yo
Two stakeholder meetings were held in late February 2018, including a downtown stakeholder 'roundtable' and a 'listening session' with downtown commuters. The downtown roundtable specifically targeted key downtown organizations and business representatives, and the commuter listening session targeted downtown commuters (Table 2).
‘stakeholder management’, ‘stakeholder analysis’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’, and also clarifies the interrelationship among these three terms. Section 3 sets out the methodology followed to investigate the practice approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement i
Stakeholder Engagement Plan - SNNP IAIP & RTC Draft January 2017 The EIA Guideline document (2000) and the EIA Procedural Guideline (Series 1, 2003) provide specific recommendations for stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement at the scoping stage typically follows the following process:
17 BAB II LANDASAN TEORI A. Teori Stakeholder (Stakeholder Theory) Ramizes dalam bukunya Cultivating Peace, mengidentifikasi berbagai pendapat mengenai stakeholder.Friedman mendefinisikan stakeholder sebagai: “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievment of the organi
need some form of stakeholder analysis. Stakeholder analysis focuses on the stakeholder’s importance to the project, and to the organization, the influence exerted by the stakeholder, plus stakeholder participation and expectations. A Stakeholder Expectations Questionnaire may be used to analyze sp
Apr 03, 2018 · Stakeholder Mapping Sample Stakeholder Maps Stakeholder “Flavors” External Program Service/Agency Team Sample Stakeholder Map Template. 4/2/2018 6 Sample USMC Program Stakeholder Map Marine Corps Program Mgr MARCORSYSCOM Product
Oct 15, 2020 · This site includes a downloadable pdf template and a Google Sheet you can copy . 17 2. Stakeholder Analysis (6 of 11) Who are they? Tool A. Stakeholder Register. 18 2. Stakeholder Analysis (6 of 11) Who are they? Tool A. Stakeholder Register. 19 2. Stakeholder Analysis (7 of 11) Who are they?
Stakeholder Engagement Plan - Stakeholder Mapping - Information Disclosure and External Communication - Community Grievance Mechanism - Monitoring and reporting Additionally, the SEP includes the guidelines for the implementation of stakeholder engagement act
Stakeholder Engagement means a process involving stakeholder identification and analysis, planning of Stakeholder Engagement, disclosure of information, consultation and participation, monitoring, evaluatio
