1. 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

2. Research Questions How do citizens assess this particular process of citizen engagement? How do citizens assess this particular process of citizen engagement? Perceived strengths and weaknesses? Perceived strengths and weaknesses? Is there enhanced legitimacy for decisions? Is there enhanced legitimacy for decisions? Is there increased interest in future engagement? Is there increased interest in future engagement?

3. Data Collection: Sources Survey of Participants In Heritage Strategy Task Force Survey of Participants In Heritage Strategy Task Force 78 completed interviews of the 530 names on contact list (of 1300 total participants) 78 completed interviews of the 530 names on contact list (of 1300 total participants) 6 interviews with stakeholders/MLAs/public servants 6 interviews with stakeholders/MLAs/public servants Transcripts of Community Meetings - reviewed Transcripts of Community Meetings - reviewed Documents submitted to Task Force – review of 20% sample Documents submitted to Task Force – review of 20% sample

4. Methods Issues Small Sample Size Small Sample Size Limited Variation on Variables Limited Variation on Variables No Statistically Significant Relationships No Statistically Significant Relationships My Focus- the Means for Questions and Patterns of Responses to the process evaluation 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 Caveat: Absence of Government Implementation/Action removes component of final judgment by participants

5. Criteria for Evaluation Representative of Whom? Representative of Whom? Perceived Influence on Process Perceived Influence on Process Early Involvement Early Involvement Deliberative Opportunities Deliberative Opportunities Transparency Transparency Citizenship Skill-Building Citizenship Skill-Building

6. Representative of Public? Language and Gender Distribution Language and Gender Distribution Demographic Characteristics Demographic Characteristics Age Age Education Education Rural/Urban Residence Rural/Urban Residence

7. Language and Gender Distribution: Sample vs. N.S. Population

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

11. Representative of Public? Similar Language and Gender Distribution Similar Language and Gender Distribution Sample Highly Dissimilar in Sample Highly Dissimilar in Age –Much Older Age –Much Older Education – Much Higher Education – Much Higher Rural Residence –Much Higher Rural Residence –Much Higher Unrepresentative of Public Unrepresentative of Public Representative of Participation Pool !? Representative of Participation Pool !? Rural Bias Reflects Meeting Locations Rural Bias Reflects Meeting Locations

12. How Representative in Political Attitudes & Behavior ? Sample has Dissimilar Political Attitudes & Behavior from General Public Sample has Dissimilar Political Attitudes & Behavior from General Public General Political Involvement –Higher General Political Involvement –Higher General Political Efficacy -Higher General Political Efficacy -Higher An “Attentive Public”? An “Attentive Public”? Actively engaged in and aware of public affairs Actively engaged in and aware of public affairs Sample is Typical of Citizens Who Participate in Similar Processes elsewhere Sample is Typical of Citizens Who Participate in Similar Processes elsewhere

13. Political Engagement: Sample

14. Heritage Involvement

15. Political Efficacy: % Agree Sample vs. Can. Election Study Data

16. Sample Is A Distinctive Group An “Attentive Public” An “Attentive Public” Stakeholders Prominent Stakeholders Prominent Strength: Highly Knowledgeable Group Strength: Highly Knowledgeable Group Weakness: Voice of Public Opinion? Weakness: Voice of Public Opinion? Question: Means for More Inclusive Group? Question: Means for More Inclusive Group?

17. Perceptions 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 & Recommendations? Participants Satisfied w/ Process & Recommendations?

18. How Much Impact Did the Consultation Have On The Final Report? : Responses Frequency Valid % Cumulative % No Impact 122 Small Impact 1733.335.3 Large Impact 3364.7100 TOTAL51100 Missing27 Total78

19. How Effective was the Process: ( Means on Scale 1-10, where 1 =Not Effective; 10= Very Effective) Mean Std. Deviation In providing adequate information about heritage issues? 7.01.9 In allowing sufficient time for people to participate in the consultation? 7.71.9 In asking questions that allowed people to express in-depth opinions? 7.71.9 In generating public awareness about the Heritage Strategy process? 6.22.1 In giving Nova Scotia residents a say in the Heritage Strategy Process? 7.22.2 In giving Nova Scotia residents a stronger sense of connection to their provincial government? 5.62.3 In giving Nova Scotia residents a stronger sense of connection to one another? 6.02.2

20. Satisfaction w/Process Strongly Disagree DisagreeAgree 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% 49%44% I learned a lot about how to participate in community affairs from participating in this process 6%35%50%9%

21. 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? 7.12.2 How satisfied are you with the public consultation you participated in? 7.42.2

22. Evaluating the Process 1: Open-ended Questions – Strengths of Process Gave Everyone Opportunity for Input (N=21) Gave Everyone Opportunity for Input (N=21) Forum for Dialogue Among Interested (N=8) Forum for Dialogue Among Interested (N=8) Wide Ranging Consultation (N=8) Wide Ranging Consultation (N=8) Great Voice for Those Concerned (N=7) Great Voice for Those Concerned (N=7) Lots of Ways to Participate (N=6) Lots of Ways to Participate (N=6) A Nonpartisan Process (N=6) A Nonpartisan Process (N=6)

23. Evaluating the Process 2: Open-ended Questions Concerns & Changes to Make CONCERNS CONCERNS Lack of Government Response (N=13) Lack of Government Response (N=13) Lack of Follow-up with Participants (N=6) Lack of Follow-up with Participants (N=6) CHANGES TO MAKE CHANGES TO MAKE No Change Needed(N=9) No Change Needed(N=9) More Follow-up About What’s Being Done (N=5) More Follow-up About What’s Being Done (N=5)

24. Enhancing Citizenship Skills Political Learning Political Learning About Heritage Issues ( 78% learned a lot) About Heritage Issues ( 78% learned a lot) About how to participate in community affairs (59% learned a lot) About how to participate in community affairs (59% learned a lot) Socio-Political Affect Socio-Political Affect Increasing attachment to government (mean 5.6) Increasing attachment to government (mean 5.6) Increasing attachment to their community (mean 6.0) Increasing attachment to their community (mean 6.0) Overall – Positive Impacts for Citizenship Overall – Positive Impacts for Citizenship

25. Political Learning & Political Engagement Agree/Strongly Agree % Low Engagemt. Agree/Strongly Agree % High Engagemt Total % Learned a lot about heritage issues 76% 76% 81% 81% 79% 79% Learned a lot about how to participate 49% 49% 70% 70% 59% 59%

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

27. Voluntary Planning Questions General Awareness of Voluntary Planning? General Awareness of Voluntary Planning? Awareness of VP Website? Awareness of VP Website? Assessment of VP Website on Ease of Use and Quality of Information? Assessment of VP Website on Ease of Use and Quality of Information? Openness to Electronic Consultation in Future? Openness to Electronic Consultation in Future?

28. Awareness of Voluntary Planning (Q16a & 17a) Question YES % NO % NUMBER Prior Awareness of VP? 59%41%78 Aware of VP Website? 82%17%77 Visited VP Website? 92%5%59

29. What do you think of the work that Voluntary Planning does? FREQUENCY VALID PERCENT CUMULATIVE PERCENT POOR POOR233 FAIR458 GOOD GOOD384956 EXCELLENT263390 NA/DK810100 TOTAL78100

30. 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) QUESTIONMEANNUMBER EASE OF USE (Q17c)7.5650 INFORMATION(Q17d)7.6450

31. Future Consultation Mode QUESTIONYESNONUMBER BY VP WEBSITE (Q18)88%9%76 BY E-MAIL (Q19)88%10%77

32. Voluntary Planning Results General Awareness of Voluntary Planning General Awareness of Voluntary Planning Strongly Positive Assessment of its Work Strongly Positive Assessment of its Work High Awareness of VP Website High Awareness of VP Website Website Viewed Very Favorably on Ease of Use and Quality of Information Website Viewed Very Favorably on Ease of Use and Quality of Information Participants Open to Electronic Consultation in Future Participants Open to Electronic Consultation in Future

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