o Process is not binding [23–26].|
o Process is occurring at the wrong scale (e.g. relevant decisions/resources concentrated at another level of government or inequities generated by globalized processes) [5, 23, 28].
o Process is entirely controlled by convener .
o Limited range of potential outcomes (due to convener or funder restrictions, pre-existing policy decisions, framing information provided to participants, etc.) [5, 21, 22, 24].
o Key conversations had/decisions made outside of process .
o Not enough time for discussion, reflection; process too short and/or insufficiently iterative [23, 32].
o No or insufficient resources provided to ensure bargaining power of grassroots stakeholders (e.g. outreach, facilitation, community organizing, training) .
o No or insufficient resources for neighbourhood-level data collection (e.g. population and infrastructure) .
o Inability to deliver targeted outcomes (e.g. lack of capacity to address land title, hire independent consultants) [18, 23].
o Diversity of grassroots stakeholders not represented, including diversity within distinct groups .|
o Grassroots stakeholders represented by groups funded by government or industry [5, 18, 19].
o Process favours stakeholders with pre-exiting capacity to organize/participate [22–24].
o Bureaucracy, planning professionals and/or industry over-represented in numbers or voice [22, 24].
o Overall group membership reproduces existing power structures [20, 21].
o Lack of practical resources such as child care, meals and transportation limits participation by grassroots stakeholders .
o Forum time/location limits participation by grassroots stakeholders .
o Demands for volunteer labour place a particular burden on or serve to limit participation of those with little to no leisure time [20, 22, 24].
o Infrequent information sharing (gaps and silences) .|
o Information shared is vague (e.g. language is confusing or inconsistent, lack of detail) .
o Information and meetings in language of dominant group [18, 20].
o Information sharing limits audience (e.g. only sent to people via email) [18, 25].
o Technical information provided by consultants who lack independence (e.g. funded by industry) .
o Forums structured so as to limit types of input and/or speakers considered legitimate [22, 24].
o Forms/paperwork built into process limit types of input .
o Excessive focus on consensus, conflict seen as antithetical to process [21, 24].
o Participatory aspect of process includes planning but not implementation [19, 23, 26].|
o No plan to monitor and report back on implementation.
o No accountability to stakeholders following deliberation process.