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 Implementation/Action removes component of final judgment by component of final judgment by participantsparticipants
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
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 Public& Behavior 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 Actively engaged in and aware of public
affairsaffairs Sample is Typical of Citizens Who Sample is Typical of Citizens Who
Participate in Similar Processes Participate in Similar Processes elsewhereelsewhere
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
Sometimes
Seldom
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 100100
MissingMissing 2727
TotalTotal 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 Increasing attachment to government (mean 5.6)(mean 5.6)
Increasing attachment to their community Increasing attachment to their community (mean 6.0)(mean 6.0)
Overall – Positive Impacts for Overall – Positive Impacts for CitizenshipCitizenship
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 % NUMBERNUMBER
Prior 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 NUMBERNUMBER
EASE 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