Smith, Bond & Simmons - Littoral 2010 (Education Centre)

8/8/2019 Smith, Bond & Simmons - Littoral 2010 (Education Centre)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-bond-simmons-littoral-2010-education-centre 1/12

Case Study:

The village of Orford, Suffolk.

Jacqueline Smith. University of East Anglia.

Alan Bond. University of East Anglia.

Peter Simmons. University of East Anglia

The motivations for and barriers to

populations becoming more involvedin flood management decision

making.



Background to the Problem

Slaughden Bend.

EA Strategy option in 2004 of a breachat Slaughden bend, hold the line andopen the estuary mouth.

Changes in EA Strategy in 1999 from µHold the Line¶ to µRe-alignmentof Defences¶ and controversy caused by 2004 options.

Reference Alde and Ore Environment Agency Strategy Document, 2004.



Responses to the Problem

1) The Environment Agency has carried outmore research on river and coastalprocesses and has approachedconsultation differently by:

Being more responsive to local requests and ideas. Involvement with an Estuary Planning Partnership

Increased consultation with landowners and a localpressure/ information group, The Alde and OreAssociation.

(All within the constraints of changes in Governmentcontrol and funding policies)

A top-down approach

2) This research, a bottom±up approach



Theoretical Premise of the Research

Methodology:

Questionnaire;

Interviews;

Q Sort

Follow up interviews;

Workshop.

The theoretical premise of this research is that people will become

involved because they have knowledge about flood managementand perceive flooding as a risk. However there will be other

reasons for involvement which will also be sought.



Questionnaires

Present levels of Knowledge about flood management wereassessed (scores given) and involvement evaluated byattendance at meetings and /or belonging to a groupassociated with flood management.

110 returns from 432 households

Participants were classified into 5 groups

Low

Knowledge

Low

Involvement

No Classification

High

Knowledge

Low

Involvement

Low

Knowledge

High

Involvement

High

Knowledge

High

Involvement

HH

(20)

HL

(18)

NC (46)

LL

(19)

LH

(7)



Interviews.

15 participants were interviewed and identified bytheir questionnaire responses and contact details.

5/18 (HH); 3/9 (HL); 4/9 (LL); 3/7 (LH).

8 (60+); 5 (40+) ; 1 (20+) ; ,1 (<20).7 (Females); 8 (Males).

NC not used initially as more µextreme¶ views weresought.

NVivo software was used to identify 40 statementsfrom interviews



Q Methodolgy.

40 respondents (12HH; 12NC; 7HL; 6LL; 3LH) sorted the 40statements into a grid of an inverted normal distribution of :

<Least like my views Most like my views >

Analysis of sorts allows for significant statements to be groupedtogether to allow identification of different perspectives/ discourses, tobe analysed into µFactors¶, and different people to be associated witheach of the five Factors.

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4



Defining Sorts for Factor 1.

Defining sorts correlating people to theirloadings on Factor 1.

Example:

03 = Participant

HH = Level of knowledge and involvement

F = Female

4 = Age, 60+

0.69= Significance of sort above SE above 4.1

03HHF4

0.69

36HHF4

0.64

28HHM4

0.61

11HLM3

0.62

26HHF4

0.61

06HLF4

0.59

07HLF4

0.51

08NC4

0.51

15HHM4

0.48



Summary of the analysis of the

factors identified by Q.Factor Barriers Motivations

implied

Improvement

possibilities

Knowledge

Involvement

Gender Age

1.

Confident andknowledgeable

Lack of honesty

Personalinterest

Confidence

Have time

Quality of information

HighKnowledge

MixedInvolvement

MalesandFemales

40+

2.

Politically

Aware

Lack of funding,

Trust andnotpractical

Have time Local Councilsand pressure

groups used.

MixedKnowledge

MixedInvolvement

Malesand

Females

40+

3.

Sceptical andpragmatic

Lack of honestyand trustinscientistsandpoliticians

A practicalsituation torespond to

Goodinformation

MixedKnowledge

Low toAverage

Involvement

All

Males

Under20-60,butno20-40

4.

Sceptical andlocally attuned

Cynicism Localsources of info. Aural?

More feedback Mostly Low toaverageKnowledge andInvolvement

AllFemale

All

<20to>60

5.

Dichotomous

Lack of funding

orconfidence

No choice

Trust in EA People writeprotest more

write tocouncillors

High toAverage

Knowledge andInvolvement

MostlyMales

40+



Improvement Possibilities.

Factor 1 - How to improve the quality of information?

Factor 2 - Who to represent them?

Factor 3 - Where are the sources of information and how

to get practically involved?

Factor 4 - How to increase aural information and

improve feedback ?

Factor 5 - How to motivate people to contact

representatives ?

More questions than answers!



Some reflections on the research so far:

Does a whole population need to be consulted?

Legislation: The EU Aarhus Convention.

Given the opportunity through a better process.

Is Knowledge a good indicator for involvement?

Not just information deficit A means to explore differences

How could this research be useful?

Identification of problems with involvement to

Make recommendations for involvement preferences in

different groups of people.

Smith, Bond & Simmons - Littoral 2010 (Education Centre)

Documents

Transcript of Smith, Bond & Simmons - Littoral 2010 (Education Centre)