Assessing the Heritage Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Planning Process: the

Views of CitizensViews of Citizens

Dr. Michael MacMillanDr. Michael MacMillanDepartment of Political & Department of Political &

Canadian StudiesCanadian StudiesMount Saint Vincent UniversityMount Saint Vincent University

Research QuestionsResearch Questions How do citizens assess this particular How do citizens assess this particular

process of citizen engagement? process of citizen engagement? Perceived strengths and weaknesses?Perceived strengths and weaknesses? Is there enhanced legitimacy for Is there enhanced legitimacy for

decisions?decisions? Is there increased interest in future Is there increased interest in future

engagement?engagement?

Data Collection: SourcesData Collection: Sources Survey of Participants In Heritage Survey of Participants In Heritage

Strategy Task ForceStrategy Task Force 78 completed interviews of the 530 names 78 completed interviews of the 530 names

on contact list (of 1300 total participants)on contact list (of 1300 total participants) 6 interviews with 6 interviews with

stakeholders/MLAs/public servantsstakeholders/MLAs/public servants Transcripts of Community Meetings - Transcripts of Community Meetings -

reviewedreviewed Documents submitted to Task Force – Documents submitted to Task Force –

review of 20% samplereview of 20% sample

Methods IssuesMethods Issues Small Sample SizeSmall Sample Size Limited Variation on Variables Limited Variation on Variables No Statistically Significant RelationshipsNo Statistically Significant Relationships My Focus- the Means for Questions and My Focus- the Means for Questions and

Patterns of Responses to the process Patterns of Responses to the process evaluationevaluation

Caveat: Absence of Government Caveat: Absence of Government Implementation/Action removes component Implementation/Action removes component of final judgment by participantsof final judgment by participants

Criteria for EvaluationCriteria for Evaluation Representative of Whom?Representative of Whom? Perceived Influence on ProcessPerceived Influence on Process Early InvolvementEarly Involvement Deliberative OpportunitiesDeliberative Opportunities TransparencyTransparency Citizenship Skill-BuildingCitizenship Skill-Building

Representative of Public?Representative of Public? Language and Gender Distribution Language and Gender Distribution Demographic Characteristics Demographic Characteristics

Age Age EducationEducation Rural/Urban Residence Rural/Urban Residence

Language and Gender Language and Gender Distribution: Sample vs. Distribution: Sample vs.

N.S. PopulationN.S. Population

0102030405060708090

100

English French Other Male Female

SamplePopulation

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Percent of People

Age Distributions

25-44

45-64

+65

25-44 2.59% 7.79% 12.67% 13.81%

45-64 33.76% 28.97% 14.33% 15.08%

65+ 11.68% 15.58% 6.50% 8.62%

Males Females Males Females

Sample Population

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

05

1015202530354045

Sample N.S. Pop.

High School or Less

College, Trade or Non-University degreeUniversity Degree

Post-Grad

20.78%18.18%

11.69%11.69%

16.88%20.78%

40.80%

10.97%

1.00%

15.58%13.43%

8.98%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

Percent of People

Population by Region

HRM 20.78% 40.80%

South Shore 18.18% 10.97%

Eastern Shore 11.69% 1.00%

Cape Breton 11.69% 15.58%

Annapolis Valley 16.88% 13.43%

Colchester/ Cumberland 20.78% 8.98%

Sample Population

Representative of Public?Representative of Public? Similar Language and Gender Similar Language and Gender

DistributionDistribution Sample Highly Dissimilar inSample Highly Dissimilar in

Age –Much OlderAge –Much Older Education – Much HigherEducation – Much Higher Rural Residence –Much Higher Rural Residence –Much Higher

Unrepresentative of PublicUnrepresentative of Public Representative of Participation Pool !?Representative of Participation Pool !? Rural Bias Reflects Meeting LocationsRural Bias Reflects Meeting Locations

How Representative in Political How Representative in Political Attitudes & BehaviorAttitudes & Behavior ? ?

Sample has Dissimilar Political Attitudes & Sample has Dissimilar Political Attitudes & Behavior from General PublicBehavior from General Public General Political Involvement –HigherGeneral Political Involvement –Higher General Political Efficacy -HigherGeneral Political Efficacy -Higher

An “Attentive Public”?An “Attentive Public”? Actively engaged in and aware of public affairsActively engaged in and aware of public affairs

Sample is Typical of Citizens Who Sample is Typical of Citizens Who Participate in Similar Processes elsewhereParticipate in Similar Processes elsewhere

Political Engagement: Political Engagement: SampleSample

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Read about politics innew spaper

Discuss politics w ithothers

Try to convince friendsto vote same

Worked w ithcommunity to solve

problem

Attended politicalmeeting

Contact politicians orpublic off icials

Often

SometimesSeldom

Never

Heritage InvolvementHeritage Involvement

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Attended Meetings

Spoke up at Meetings

Presented Ideas atMeetings

Visited VP Website

Commented on Website

Submitted Written Brief

Spoke to Task ForceMembers

Sent Letters to Task ForceMembers

Political Efficacy: % AgreePolitical Efficacy: % AgreeSample vs. Can. Election Sample vs. Can. Election

Study DataStudy Data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Lose Touch No Care No Say Complicated

Sample2000CES-NS04/06CES902

Sample Is A Distinctive Sample Is A Distinctive GroupGroup

An “Attentive Public”An “Attentive Public” Stakeholders ProminentStakeholders Prominent Strength: Highly Knowledgeable Strength: Highly Knowledgeable

GroupGroup Weakness: Voice of Public Opinion?Weakness: Voice of Public Opinion? Question: Means for More Inclusive Question: Means for More Inclusive

Group?Group?

Perceptions of InfluencePerceptions of Influence Early Involvement in Process?Early Involvement in Process? Perceived Policy Influence?Perceived Policy Influence? Process Effective for Participants?Process Effective for Participants? Participants Satisfied w/ Process & Participants Satisfied w/ Process &

Recommendations?Recommendations?

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

FrequencFrequencyy

Valid Valid %%

Cumulative Cumulative %%

No No ImpactImpact

11 22 22

Small Small ImpactImpact

1717 33.333.3 35.335.3

Large Large ImpactImpact

3333 64.764.7 100100

TOTALTOTAL 5151 100100MissingMissing 2727TotalTotal 7878

How Effective was the How Effective was the Process: Process: ((Means on Scale 1-10,Means on Scale 1-10, wherewhere 1 =Not Effective; 1 =Not Effective; 10= Very Effective)10= Very Effective) Mean

Std. Deviation

In providing adequate information about heritage issues? 7.0 1.9

In allowing sufficient time for people to participate in the consultation? 7.7 1.9

In asking questions that allowed people to express in-depth opinions?7.7 1.9

In generating public awareness about the Heritage Strategy process?6.2 2.1

In giving Nova Scotia residents a say in the Heritage Strategy Process?7.2 2.2

In giving Nova Scotia residents a stronger sense of connection to their provincial government? 5.6 2.3

In giving Nova Scotia residents a stronger sense of connection to one another? 6.0 2.2

SatisfactionSatisfaction w/Processw/Process

Strongly

DisagreeDisagree Agree Strongly

Agree

This planning process has allowed interested citizens to have their say about a heritage strategy. 1% 3% 46% 50%

I learned a lot about heritage issues from participating in this process 4% 18% 62% 17%

This is a good approach to use in developing policy proposals for our government to consider 4% 4% 49% 44%

I learned a lot about how to participate in community affairs from participating in this

process6% 35% 50% 9%

MEAN SCORES on Scale of 1-10(1 = Not satisfied at all; 10 = Very Satisfied) Mean

Std. Deviation

How satisfied are you with the heritage strategy recommendations going forward? 7.1 2.2

How satisfied are you with the public consultation you participated in? 7.4 2.2

Evaluating the Process 1: Open-Evaluating the Process 1: Open-ended Questions – Strengths of ended Questions – Strengths of ProcessProcess Gave Everyone Opportunity for Input Gave Everyone Opportunity for Input

(N=21)(N=21) Forum for Dialogue Among Interested Forum for Dialogue Among Interested

(N=8)(N=8) Wide Ranging Consultation Wide Ranging Consultation (N=8) (N=8) Great Voice for Those Concerned Great Voice for Those Concerned

(N=7)(N=7) Lots of Ways to Participate Lots of Ways to Participate (N=6) (N=6) A Nonpartisan Process A Nonpartisan Process

(N=6)(N=6)

Evaluating the Process 2: Open-ended Evaluating the Process 2: Open-ended Questions Questions

Concerns & Changes to MakeConcerns & Changes to Make CONCERNSCONCERNS Lack of Government Response Lack of Government Response

(N=13)(N=13) Lack of Follow-up with Participants Lack of Follow-up with Participants

(N=6)(N=6)

CHANGES TO MAKECHANGES TO MAKE No Change NeededNo Change Needed (N=9)(N=9) More Follow-up About What’s Being Done More Follow-up About What’s Being Done

(N=5)(N=5)

Enhancing Citizenship Enhancing Citizenship SkillsSkills

Political LearningPolitical Learning About Heritage Issues ( 78% learned a lot)About Heritage Issues ( 78% learned a lot) About how to participate in community About how to participate in community

affairs (59% learned a lot)affairs (59% learned a lot) Socio-Political AffectSocio-Political Affect

Increasing attachment to government (mean Increasing attachment to government (mean 5.6)5.6)

Increasing attachment to their community Increasing attachment to their community (mean 6.0)(mean 6.0)

Overall – Positive Impacts for CitizenshipOverall – Positive Impacts for Citizenship

Political Learning & Political Political Learning & Political EngagementEngagement

Agree/Agree/Strongly Strongly Agree % Agree % Low Low Engagemt.Engagemt.

Agree/Agree/Strongly Strongly Agree % Agree % High High EngagemtEngagemt

Total Total %%

Learned a Learned a lot about lot about heritage heritage issuesissues

76%76% 81%81% 79%79%

Learned a Learned a lot about lot about how to how to participatparticipatee

49%49% 70%70% 59%59%

ConclusionConclusion A process highly regarded by citizen A process highly regarded by citizen

participantsparticipants Judged to be open and responsive Judged to be open and responsive Fine-tuning - to make more Fine-tuning - to make more

inclusive and input friendlyinclusive and input friendly

Voluntary Planning Voluntary Planning QuestionsQuestions

General Awareness of Voluntary General Awareness of Voluntary Planning?Planning?

Awareness of VP Website?Awareness of VP Website? Assessment of VP Website on Ease Assessment of VP Website on Ease

of Use and Quality of Information? of Use and Quality of Information? Openness to Electronic Consultation Openness to Electronic Consultation

in Future?in Future?

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

Question Question YES %YES % NO %NO % NUMBERNUMBERPrior Prior

AwarenesAwareness of VP?s of VP?

59%59% 41%41% 7878

Aware of Aware of VP VP

Website?Website?

82%82% 17%17% 7777

Visited Visited VP VP

Website?Website?

92%92% 5%5% 5959

What do you think of the What do you think of the work that Voluntary work that Voluntary

Planning does?Planning does?FREQUENCYFREQUENCY VALID VALID

PERCENTPERCENTCUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE PERCENTPERCENT

POORPOOR 22 33 33

FAIRFAIR 44 55 88

GOODGOOD

3838 4949 5656

EXCELLENTEXCELLENT 2626 3333 9090

NA/DKNA/DK 88 1010 100100

TOTALTOTAL 7878 100100

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

Good)Good)

QUESTIONQUESTION MEANMEAN NUMBERNUMBEREASE OF EASE OF

USEUSE(Q17c)(Q17c)

7.567.56 5050

INFORMATIOINFORMATION N

(Q17d)(Q17d)

7.647.64 5050

Future Consultation Future Consultation ModeMode

QUESTIOQUESTIONN

YESYES NONO NUMBERNUMBER

BY VP BY VP WEBSITEWEBSITE

(Q18)(Q18)

88%88% 9%9% 7676

BY E-BY E-MAILMAIL(Q19)(Q19)

88%88% 10%10% 7777

Voluntary Planning Voluntary Planning ResultsResults

General Awareness of Voluntary General Awareness of Voluntary PlanningPlanning

Strongly Positive Assessment of its WorkStrongly Positive Assessment of its Work High Awareness of VP WebsiteHigh Awareness of VP Website Website Viewed Very Favorably on Ease Website Viewed Very Favorably on Ease

of Use and Quality of Information of Use and Quality of Information Participants Open to Electronic Participants Open to Electronic

Consultation in FutureConsultation in Future

Assessing the Heritage Assessing the Heritage Planning Process: the Planning Process: the

Views of CitizensViews of Citizens

Dr. Michael MacMillanDr. Michael MacMillanDepartment of Political & Department of Political &

Canadian StudiesCanadian StudiesMount Saint Vincent UniversityMount Saint Vincent University