1 / 33

Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens

Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens. Dr. Michael MacMillan Department of Political & Canadian Studies Mount Saint Vincent University. Research Questions. How do citizens assess this particular process of citizen engagement? Perceived strengths and weaknesses?

barbaracox
Download Presentation

Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Views of Citizens

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Political Engagement: Sample

  12. Heritage Involvement

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

  14. 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?

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

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

  17. 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)

  18. 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)

  19. 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

  20. Political Learning & Political Engagement

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

  22. 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?

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

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

  25. 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)

  26. Future Consultation Mode

  27. 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

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

More Related