Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method Andrew Buckwell, Chris Fleming, Maggie Muurmans, Jim Smart & Brendan Mackey

Project background – Pacific EcoAdapt  5 year project, based in Pacific  Aims to identify appropriate adaptation interventions in the coastal zone  Investigates the advantages and limitations of:  ecosystem‐based approaches to climate change adaptation  soft‐engineering approaches, which supporting natural processes  hard‐engineered solutions in different contexts (rural, urban…)

Republic of Vanuatu

Tanna

Port Resolution

Life in Port Resolution  ~500 people from 4 tribes  Village‐based subsistence gardeners ‐ all households grow some food, or catch fish  Strong tribal affiliations  Stronghold of ‘kastom’ – social, economic, natural resource management decision making is centred on the Nakamal  Tanna is a place where kastom and modernity co‐exist  Limited tourism activity, few formal jobs outside the major centre

Life in Port Resolution

Life in Port Resolution However…  Kastom is eroding under influence of ‘western’ economic, political and social thinking – cash / exchange is expanding  Need to question the current sustainability of kastom management of resources

Challenges  Climate change  More extreme weather (Category 5 Tropical Cyclone Pam, 2015)  Changing local microclimates causing change in ideal crop growing conditions  Coastal processes, erosion  Oceans warming; risk of coral bleaching; ocean acidification  Falling garden productivity  Over‐fishing on in‐shore reefs  Tourism expansion, population growth = resource pressures

Q ‐ method introduction  Called ‘Q‐method’ as it is in contrast to ‘R‐method’  R‐method looks for correlations amongst variables, rather than between respondents  Q‐method looks for correlations amongst respondents, rather between variables  Both a quantitative and qualitative method of discovery  Seeks to find common discourses / mental models amongst people about a domain of knowledge  Renders numerous perspectives into a few dominant perspectives  Can uncover non‐hypothesised concepts – starts with a ‘blank slate’  Works with small samples (“strategic sampling” ~ 40‐50)

Q ‐ method application  Reveals key discourses  Basic entities & institutions; assumptions about social relationships; defines agents & their motives; key metaphors & rhetorical devices  Understanding commonalities / differences can inform how and where development‐focused activities can be targeted  Identified issues for where there is consensus, contention or ambivalence  Can provide discreet information about best ways to approach a community  Can identify language and metaphors best suited to communicating with community  Can be used as the first phase of CE / CV design – provides insight into attributes to be traded‐off

Phases of Q ‐ method 1. Define participants (‘P‐set’) and a ‘primer question’ 2. Establish the extent of issues (‘the concourse’) through expert interviews, focus groups, interviews 3. Determine the draft set of cards (‘Q‐set’) 4. Test the draft Q‐set 5. Refine and finalise Q‐set 6. Run full Q‐set on all participants 7. Quantitative analysis 8. Articulate discreet discourses in plain language 9. Communicate results

Phases of Q ‐ method 1. Define participants (‘P‐set’) and a ‘primer question’  Stakeholder set: community members, policy makers, project members 2. Establish the extent of issues (‘the concourse’) through expert interviews, focus groups, interviews  Focus groups, expert interviews, literature search, experiences from project  Identified ~50 statements 3. Determine the draft set of cards (‘Q‐set’)  Iterative process to refine to a manageable number (34) 4. Test the draft Q‐set  Translated and tested with local Ni‐Vanuatu family 5. Refine and finalise Q‐set  Finalised language, tone, meaningfulness  Sketch artist employed

Q ‐ method overview  Respondents rank ‘issue cards’ in order of importance  People tend to think about issues in relation to each other, rather than in isolation  Analysis looks for overlapping patterns in the way respondents rank their cards – ‘factor analysis’  These dominant patterns can be interpreted as dominant discourses  Final step subjectively describes these discourses in plain language

Card sorting – Primer question “What are the most important issues in your community? There may be lots of challenges that are important, but which of these is most important?”

Statements – regulating ES

Statements – provisioning ES

Statements – cultural ES

Statements – social

Statements – health

Card sorting – in the field  Cards placed in quasi‐normal distribution  This makes respondents ‘work harder’ to sort their preferences  Respondents should be observed and questioned on sorting strategy to add qualitative richness to study  High level demographic information captured

Card sorting – in the field

Results from Tanna  Respondents = 55  Female / Male = 35/20  Community members / non‐community members = 46/9  Pure subsistence / other = 37/18  Other = wage‐earners, business owners, scientists, NGOs, IGOs

Analysis 1: Factor extraction  Use Ken‐Q for initial analysis  8 principle components (factors) identified  3 factors kept for Varimax rotation  1 dominant factor, 2 sufficiently significant, and ‘long tail’ F1 F2 F3 Eigenvalues 12.56 5.04 4.10 Explained variance 23 9 8 Cumulative % Expln Var 23 32 40 Number of people loading 16 17 9

Ideal sort for Factor 1 ‘Ideal sort’ is a hypothetical respondent who loads 100% into factor In reality, no one is this. F1a is between 0.4368 and 0.854

Ideal sort for Factor 1

Factor interpretation  Final stage – translate composite factors (ideal sorts) into plain language descriptions  For each composite factor, consider the following:  What are the statements that are strongly positive or negative  Are there patterns between the concepts  Which statements are distinguishing statements in that factor

Factors by statement category ‐4 = 1 Provisioning ‐3 = 2 Social ES ‐2 = 3 ‐1 = 4 0 = 5 Health Regulating +1 = 6 Cultural ES ES +2 = 7 Legend +3 = 8 +4 = 9

Factors by statement category Factor 2 Provisioning Social ES Factor 1 Factor 3 Health Regulating Cultural ES ES Legend

Discourse 1: Strong Kastom  Emphasis on traditional and customary practices.  Preoccupation with sustainability of provisioning ES and, to a slightly lesser extent, regulating ES.  All statements placed in the top positions related to kastom decision‐making & natural resource management.  Low emphasis on economic development opportunities and with elements of modernity, such as access to financial services, electricity and voting and health.

Discourse 2: Kastom + Health  Emphasis traditional and customary preoccupations, but generally lower concern with the sustainability of provisioning ES.  Demonstrate a strong affiliation with the two statements associated with modern health care and WASH.  Highest salience on concern for extreme weather, associated with climate change.  Three key kastom‐related statements associated with sustaining traditional practices in the management of resources and practices remained salient.  Respondents show less affiliation with statements associated with broader social change, such as access to information and financial services, economic development and voting.

Discourse 3: Tentative Modernity  Strong affinity to certain elements of kastom and customary management of resources.  Much greater affinity with cultural ES, demonstrating a desire to capture monetary value from nature, through tourism opportunities.  The two health‐related statements also ranked relatively highly.  Two female emancipatory statements (decision making and domestic roles) ranked highly.  Affinity to economic development and emancipatory concepts signifies a desire for modernisation towards an exchange‐based economy, however, the connection to kastom shows this affiliation is tentative.

Propensity to belong to discourse Normalised the value of membership of each factor by calculating how many respondents would load into each factor if the sample was 50% of each pairing (27.5 respondents)

Propensity to belong to discourse Gender driver of membership of Non‐community significant T.M. over Strong Kastom (sig.) and driver of membership of T.M. Kastom + Health over both Strong Kastom and Kastom + Health

Factors by tradition/ emancipatory concepts Traditional/ Economic Kastom development/ Emancipatory Other Legend