Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens

1. Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens Dr. Michael MacMillan Department of Political & Canadian Studies Mount Saint Vincent University

2. Research Questions • How do citizens assess this particular process of citizen engagement? • Perceived strengths and weaknesses? • Is there enhanced legitimacy for decisions? • Is there increased interest in future engagement?

3. Data Collection: Sources • Survey of Participants In Heritage Strategy Task Force • 78 completed interviews of the 530 names on contact list (of 1300 total participants) • 6 interviews with stakeholders/MLAs/public servants • Transcripts of Community Meetings - reviewed • Documents submitted to Task Force – review of 20% sample

4. Methods Issues • Small Sample Size • Limited Variation on Variables • No Statistically Significant Relationships • My Focus- the Means for Questions and Patterns of Responses to the process evaluation • Caveat: Absence of Government Implementation/Action removes component of final judgment by participants

5. Criteria for Evaluation • Representative of Whom? • Perceived Influence on Process • Early Involvement • Deliberative Opportunities • Transparency • Citizenship Skill-Building

6. Representative of Public? • Language and Gender Distribution • Demographic Characteristics • Age • Education • Rural/Urban Residence

7. Language and Gender Distribution: Sample vs. N.S. Population

9. Educational Attainment: Sample vs. N. S. Population

11. Representative of Public? • Similar Language and Gender Distribution • Sample Highly Dissimilar in • Age –Much Older • Education – Much Higher • Rural Residence –Much Higher • Unrepresentative of Public • Representative of Participation Pool !? • Rural Bias Reflects Meeting Locations

12. How Representative in Political Attitudes & Behavior ? • Sample has Dissimilar Political Attitudes & Behavior from General Public • General Political Involvement –Higher • General Political Efficacy -Higher • An “Attentive Public”? • Actively engaged in and aware of public affairs • Sample is Typical of Citizens Who Participate in Similar Processes elsewhere

13. Political Engagement: Sample

14. Heritage Involvement

15. Political Efficacy: % AgreeSample vs. Can. Election Study Data

16. Sample Is A Distinctive Group • An “Attentive Public” • Stakeholders Prominent • Strength: Highly Knowledgeable Group • Weakness: Voice of Public Opinion? • Question: Means for More Inclusive Group?

17. Perceptions of Influence • Early Involvement in Process? • Perceived Policy Influence? • Process Effective for Participants? • Participants Satisfied w/ Process & Recommendations?

18. How Much Impact Did the Consultation Have On The Final Report? : Responses

22. Evaluating the Process 1: Open-ended Questions – Strengths of Process • Gave Everyone Opportunity for Input (N=21) • Forum for Dialogue Among Interested (N=8) • Wide Ranging Consultation (N=8) • Great Voice for Those Concerned (N=7) • Lots of Ways to Participate (N=6) • A Nonpartisan Process (N=6)

23. Evaluating the Process 2: Open-ended Questions Concerns & Changes to Make • CONCERNS • Lack of Government Response (N=13) • Lack of Follow-up with Participants (N=6) • CHANGES TO MAKE • No Change Needed (N=9) • More Follow-up About What’s Being Done (N=5)

24. Enhancing Citizenship Skills • Political Learning • About Heritage Issues ( 78% learned a lot) • About how to participate in community affairs (59% learned a lot) • Socio-Political Affect • Increasing attachment to government (mean 5.6) • Increasing attachment to their community (mean 6.0) • Overall – Positive Impacts for Citizenship

25. Political Learning & Political Engagement

26. Conclusion • A process highly regarded by citizen participants • Judged to be open and responsive • Fine-tuning - to make more inclusive and input friendly

27. Voluntary Planning Questions • General Awareness of Voluntary Planning? • Awareness of VP Website? • Assessment of VP Website on Ease of Use and Quality of Information? • Openness to Electronic Consultation in Future?

28. Awareness of Voluntary Planning (Q16a & 17a)

29. What do you think of the work that Voluntary Planning does?

30. RATING OF VP WEBSITE(Scale of 1-10, where for Q17c, 1 = Very Difficult; 10 = Very Easy; For Q17d, 1 = Very Poor and 10 = Very Good)

31. Future Consultation Mode

32. Voluntary Planning Results • General Awareness of Voluntary Planning • Strongly Positive Assessment of its Work • High Awareness of VP Website • Website Viewed Very Favorably on Ease of Use and Quality of Information • Participants Open to Electronic Consultation in Future

33. Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens Dr. Michael MacMillan Department of Political & Canadian Studies Mount Saint Vincent University