3. Assessment of Methodology

3.1 Focus Group Meetings

During the initial focus group meetings, there was concern that the participants from the local community would have difficulty in understanding the purpose of the landscape character assessment process and their role within it. We were also aware that although their values could be readily incorporated into the study, their perceptions were often in conflict with known facts and their aspirations beyond the scope of influence of the study. However, it was this very conflict that brought certain aspects of the landscape into sharp focus. For example, a perceived lack of access to the countryside and fear of trespassing; a preference for managed landscapes such as country parks for recreational use; and a lack of interest in modern landscapes. Aspirations were often found to be either controversial or contrary to accepted policies. (See Focus Group Findings May 2003).

There was a positive benefit to setting up the focus groups early in the project, allowing participants to get to know each other and to be involved from the outset. This ‘blank page’ approach to the first focus group meetings provided a much better understanding of the views of people who live, work and play in the landscape and who have not had their perceptions influenced by specialist knowledge. The prompting through open questions helped to guide the discussion away from planning issues that tended to surface continually. It also led to the questioning of professional assumptions and the need for professionals to explain more clearly that, because the landscape was made up of a complex mix of different features, it both required and lent itself to classification.

By its very nature, qualitative research of the kind used for this study does not, and neither does it intend to, provide statistically robust findings. It does, however, offer a depth of insight which it is not possible to obtain by quantitative methods. As far as this particular exercise was concerned, it offered the further advantage that the views of people who did not have either a particular or specialised interest in the landscape could be sought.

The focus groups had a good cross section of age groups and backgrounds and were able to prompt each other. Their knowledge of the landscape was however very variable and participants were better able to discuss general trends than specific issues in their area at this stage. This contrasted strongly with the very specific comments made at the workshop.

Top

3.2 Workshop

The workshop was a very good forum for getting the local community to discuss the landscape types and character areas in some detail. However, the wisdom of mixing local stakeholders, who had a particular interest in the landscape, with members of the general public who had no such interest, needs to be questioned. It was observed that the local stakeholders often held very strong views which they were determined to put across. This had the affect of making some members of the general public feel intimidated and to question what they had to offer to the process. In the two groups where the facilitators were trained specifically to deal with this type of a problem, this was less of an issue than in the one group which was facilitated by the landscape professional. The landscape professional also tended to be drawn into the discussion with the participants, thus moving away from a pure facilitating role.

Overall, it was felt that because they had initially attended the focus groups, the input provided by local people was better informed and of greater value. The number of participants was however limited and there may have been a wider response from the local community if the focus groups had been supplemented by a questionnaire to the general public. Such a questionnaire is likely to more effective in landscape character assessments at more local level, and tailored to the participants.

The workshop forum provided considerable benefit in improving the awareness of the participants. The combination of a preview of the Draft Summary for Consultation, verbal illustrated presentation and the opportunity to discuss its contents amongst themselves was invaluable. The process seemed to help people articulate what they felt about the landscape and to see it in its parts as well as a whole. The local residents felt they were considerably better informed at the end of the process than at the beginning and that the information received had empowered them to take more of an interest in landscape issues in the future.

The timetable for the workshop was very tight and did not allow time for a discussion on the draft Guidelines. Where one group attempted to discuss these, it was difficult to sustain interest after working through the classification, key characteristics and issues for each landscape character type and area. A second workshop to develop guidelines might be useful, if resources are available, but may need to be undertaken in a different format to sustain interest.

The mix of a professional facilitator to run the workshop supported by landscape professionals, whose role it was to explain concepts and answer questions, worked well. Because the social researchers had been involved in the project from the outset, and had attended all the steering group meetings, they had acquired a good baseline understanding of landscape issues which was of benefit to them in running the workshop sessions.

Although there was a good cross section of age at the focus group stage, it was generally older residents who were prepared to attend the workshop session. The limitations of time meant that it was only possible to offer one date for the workshop. Younger members of the community tended to have more arduous family and work commitments and were therefore less able to drop everything to attend a whole day workshop event. There is a concern, therefore, that the views expressed during the workshop may not reflect a cross section of the local communities.

The workshop would have benefited from the use of aerial photographs, overlain with the character areas, and more photographs as reference. Participants found the double presentation long and difficult to grasp but appreciated that there was a benefit to being fully informed at the outset. They also found the repetitive format of the character types (12no.) and character areas (38no.) tiring. Each group considered 15 to 18 of these. This would have been overcome by a greater number of groups, each dealing with 10 of these, but this would have required an increase in facilitators and landscape professionals in attendance. It was also important to ensure that good recording facilities are available so that direct quotes can be used to inform the review.

Top

3.3 Written Consultations

The initial stakeholder consultations gave a poor return. Good up to date information at the outset is however invaluable, and use of existing studies, the web and contacts provided much of the information needed. It is evident that many of the statutory consultees do not have time to respond or contribute to a consultation requests at the early stages of the project except in broad terms.

The circulation of the Draft Summary for Consultation document to local residents, prior to the workshop, risked being off-putting as, to an untrained mind, the information may be inaccessible and apparently repetitive. However, it did enable participants to grasp some of the landscape character assessment process which was of benefit to their participation in the workshop.

The second stage of written consultation, using the Draft Summary for Consultation, produced a selective but more informative response and led to positive changes to the boundaries, greater clarity in terminology and revisions to key and local issues. The absence of a large scale map (1:50,000) on an OS base in the report was, however, a problem.