« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6.1 This chapter covers views on public involvement; whether the public should be involved, how they should be involved and potential barriers to involvement. It is based on findings from the interviews and focus groups as well as our reflections on the research process.
Stakeholder views
6.2 Stakeholders anticipated a number of potential problems in engaging the public on WFD implementation. These are grouped under the following headings: lack of interest, lack of specifics, engagement at local level, terminology and lack of knowledge and ensuring representative involvement.
Lack of interest
6.3 Stakeholders were unsurprised by the key attitude survey findings: that most people think that Scotland's water is generally of good quality and is likely to stay that way, and they are less concerned about issues relating to the water environment than other environmental issues. So while there was a consensus among stakeholders that public involvement in implementation of the WFD was desirable, there was scepticism about the extent of public interest, and consequently the amount of public involvement that might be generated.
Why should they be concerned? It's not costing them any money directly, it's not affecting them directly, they go to the bathroom and there's a WC there and a wash hand basin and, indeed, in the gents loo there's a urinal which is clean and fresh and it's flushed with water.
(Stakeholder 5)
I think the general public's interest in this is going to be vanishingly small… if they're not that worried they're not going to be that interested.
(Stakeholder 2)
It's going to be very difficult to make the Water Framework Directive and River Basin Planning sexy enough for people to say oh yeah, I'm going to along to that public meeting, or I'm going to read that document.
(Stakeholder 3)
Lack of specifics
6.4 Several stakeholders felt that the lack of specific plans, at least at this stage of implementation, was a problem:
The problem that I would see for anybody who'd had that task [of engaging the public] is that it only becomes real when it's about specific things, and the Directive itself isn't about specific things… it's still at the airy-fairy stage.
(Stakeholder 5)
6.5 Echoing this point, another stakeholder thought there had perhaps been too wide a consultation, too early, and this may have turned people off because there was nothing tangible to comment on.
They're going to end up being death by a 1000 consultations, and I think it's the balance of getting wider stakeholder involvement but getting a wider stakeholder involvement at the right level […] the thing that you probably want the man in the street to comment on is later on in the process when you get to programmes of measures.
(Stakeholder 3)
6.6 In contrast, however, one stakeholder thought the public should be involved earlier, when key decisions were being taken.
Engagement at local level
6.7 In addition to engagement on specifics, the point was also made that engagement should be at a local level - and at a meaningful local level. One stakeholder suggested that area advisory groups are too big. Citing the West Highland area advisory group, he commented:
If you're talking about something that's happened away over near Inverness somewhere, then people in Harris are going to go 'who cares?', it's not really of interest.
(Stakeholder 3)
Terminology and lack of knowledge
6.8 Several stakeholders felt that the terminology used and a perceived lack of knowledge on the part of the public could be barriers to involvement. A couple mentioned that the phrase 'European Directive' might be off-putting and so the message needed to be more about what it was trying to achieve - integrated management of the water environment, although not necessarily expressed in those terms - rather than where it had come from. Others noted that terms such as 'abstraction' and 'impoundment' should be avoided (or at least explained):
…it's so esoteric. I mean basically - it's presented in such a jargon driven way. What does impoundment mean? And even the bloody words push you back. I mean basically at the end of the day it's using water.
(Stakeholder 6)
Ensuring representative involvement
6.9 All these potential barriers led to a concern among stakeholders that only an unrepresentative sub-section of the public would be willing to get involved. One warned of ' professional forum attenders' and another was concerned that:
It is very difficult to get them [the general public] to contribute, the problem being if they don't, the people who do come are people with an agenda and they're the voices that are heard rather than the balanced voice, the balanced view.
(Stakeholder 8)
Public views
6.10 Most of the above points were borne out by the focus group work - both in terms of what people said in the discussions and our experience of the process of trying to engage people on the issues.
Lack of interest
6.11 Where there is perhaps a more positive message than the stakeholders views might suggest, is the potential public interest given the level of engagement exhibited by the research participants in the issues they were presented with. As noted throughout this report and prominent in the findings of both the earlier survey and literature review, there is a general perception that Scotland's water is of good quality and is likely to stay that way, which might raise concerns about a certain degree of public complacency or lack of concern. Nevertheless, focus group participants were engaged, interested and happy to discuss the issues for at least an hour and a half. In most cases, we had to cut the discussions short because we ran out of time. This suggests that it is possible to generate public involvement despite other demands on people's time. Although we only undertook one method of public consultation, and did not attempt a study of different approaches, our experience suggests that the following worked.
- Tapping into a general interest and concern about the broader environment by inviting people to a 'discussion about aspects of the Scottish environment and Scottish landscape', rather than specifically mentioning the 'water environment' at the outset.
- Recognising the other demands on people's time and potential expenses involved by giving people £25 expenses to incentivise their attendance. While this will not be appropriate or feasible for all forms of public involvement, it is a potentially important factor in ensuring representation from the broader community rather than just particular interest groups.
- Engaging people in discussion about specifics and about local issues (this is discussed further below).
- Avoiding the use of technical terms (such as 'abstraction' and 'impoundment') as much as possible or, where unavoidable, explaining terms and concepts (such as 'the water environment').
Lack of specifics
6.12 Stakeholders were concerned about the difficulty of involving the public where there is a lack of specific, concrete plans and we found that the focus group discussions worked much better when the scenarios were discussed. It was at that point that most people became interested, voiced strong opinions, argued and became truly engaged. The stages of decision-making - questioning, exploring options, seeking compromise and mitigating effects - which the public employed when discussing specifics of scenarios is similar to the way in which informed advisory groups currently decide upon priorities. This shows the importance of providing concrete details for the public to work with.
6.13 In contrast, when we asked for reactions to the WFD (after being given a brief description), the dominant theme was that it was fine in theory, but what mattered was how it was implemented in practice. Similarly, discussions around general priorities for improvement did not work particularly well (either with the stakeholders or the public) and tended to result in people suggesting that it all depended on what problems were identified.
Engagement at local level
6.14 The recommendation by stakeholders that engagement should be at local level was echoed in comments by focus group participants. The key issues here appeared to be relevance and being able to see the actual impact of involvement.
One of the main incentives for taking part would be if people could see change happening in their community - if they felt they were making a difference.
(Glasgow, over 40, ABC1)
An example of where the public have successfully petitioned against the use of a rugby pitch for a supermarket - if it is relevant to them, they will be interested.
(North Berwick, over 40, C2DE)
Terminology and lack of knowledge
6.15 As noted above, we avoided the use of technical terms and concepts as much as possible and, where we needed to use them, we tried to explain them as much as possible. This appeared to work well and no confusion about terminology was evident in the discussions.
6.16 Although participants had already demonstrated their ability to discuss the issues - and in some cases demonstrated quite extensive knowledge about some aspects of their local water environment - when asked about barriers to involvement, some did think that lack of knowledge would be a problem.
…people would like to be involved but they don't think they know enough about it to be involved.
(Aviemore, under 40, C2DE)
« Previous | Contents | Next »