SWANSEA ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROJ - PDF document

1 – SWANSEA ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM – TAWE T
– SWANSEA ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM – TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROJECT(SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT Philip McDonnell – July 2015 TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 2 - Contents Executive Summary 31. Introduction The Tawe Trial 4 Swansea Environmental Forum 4 Project Development 5 Project Report Structure 5 2. Project Overview Objectives and Outputs 6 Management and Delivery 6 Finances and Resources 7 3. Public Consultation Surveys Approach and Methodologies 8 Survey Findings 10 Evaluation of Methodologies 20 4. Community Consultation Events Approach and Methodologies 21 Events Findings 23 Evaluation of Methodologies 26 5. Smart Nature Interactive Website Approach and Development 27 Promotion of Website 29 Website Data and Evaluation 30 6. Smart Nature Conference Aims and Approach 32 Workshop Findings 37 Other Comments 38 Event Evaluation 38 7. Final Conclusions 408. Appendices (separate document) 1. Public Consultation Survey Questionnaire Sheet 2. Online Survey Responses (Questions 3-6) 3. Face-to-face Survey Responses (Questions 3-6) 4. Community Consultation Events Outputs 5. Smart Nature Website Forum Comments 6. Smart Nature Conference Programme 7. Smart Nature Conference Workshop Outputs TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 3 - Executive Summary The Community Consultation Project (incorporating the Smart Nature brand) was one of several projects funded by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) as part of The Tawe Trial. The project was lead by Swansea Environmental Forum (SEF), a well-established and independent strategic local partnership with three decades of experience in collaborative projects and community engagement. The overarching objective of the Tawe Trial is to understand the best way of undertaking area-based planning by engaging with stakeholders, gathering evidence and facilitating projects. The Community Consultation Project aimed to contribute to the Tawe Trail and explore natural resource management and the ecosystems services approach through a varied programme of consultation activities using differ

2 ent techniques and targeting different a
ent techniques and targeting different audiences. The project had four main components: a public survey conducted both online and through face-to-face interviews at locations across the Trial area; a series of community evening events trialling different engagement methods; an interactive website based around a striking image of Swansea Valley and Swansea Bay; and a conference with workshops focussed on visioning and action planning to improve natural resource management. Over 130 people undertook the survey questionnaire and the results clearly suggest that the public value the natural environment and recognise many benefits they gain from it. They offered a long list of concerns about the natural environment and suggestions for improving the management of natural resources. The majority of respondents recognised that responsibility for looking after natural resources is shared amongst organisations and the general public themselves. Six community evening events were organised in six different locations within the Trial area in collaboration with local community groups. Attracting participants proved difficult and some of the events were poorly attended but each of the engagement techniques tried at the events was successful in extracting a wealth of opinions and ideas from participants. The new interactive website – Smart Nature: Beacons to Bay – took three months to develop and was launched towards the end of May. It is too early to determine how effective a tool it is at drawing comments from the public but the specially commissioned illustration featured on the site has already proved successful in attracting interest. The whole-day Smart Nature conference was attended by 90 delegates from a range of organisations and communities. The event included presentations on national policy, other Tawe Trial projects and a selection of local projects that demonstrate a holistic, integrated and innovative approach to natural resource management. The delegate feedback was generally positive and the outputs of the group workshop sessions were substantial. The project findings show that local people have an interest in the natural environment and there is evidence to suggest that many would like to be consulted on and involved in the way natural resources are managed. Another key conclusion from t

3 he project is that a mixed approach to c
he project is that a mixed approach to consultation using a variety of methods is more likely to engage a wider range of stakeholders. The project also established a new brand – Smart Nature – which could be used to promote the ecosystems services approach further and engage local communities and stakeholders in natural resource management for many years to come. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 4 - 1. Introduction This report outlines and evaluates the Community Consultation (Smart Nature) Project undertaken by Swansea Environmental Forum (SEF) as part of the Tawe Trial in 2015. The Tawe Trial The Community Consultation Project was one of several projects funded by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) as part of The Tawe Trial, which in turn was one of three trials taking place in different parts of Wales – the Tawe, Rhondda and Dyfi – set up by NRW to test and explore the ecosystem approach to natural resource planning at an area level. Once the Environment Bill is enacted, NRW will have a duty to develop and implement an area-based approach for the sustainable management of natural resources. The output from this approach will be an Area Statement which clearly sets out the priorities and opportunities for the management of natural resources on an area basis. NRW’s aim through the three trials is to understand the best ways of undertaking area-based planning by engaging with stakeholders, gathering evidence and facilitating projects. NRW decided to work with other organisations to facilitate and learn from a series of innovative projects that explore and test the ecosystems approach at a practical level. Swansea Environmental Forum SEF is the lead strategic partnership for all aspects of the natural and built environment in the City and County of Swansea. SEF is an independent, constituted organisation which was set up in 1986 as a partnership between statutory and voluntary sector organisations involved in environmental work. SEF’s overarching purpose is to promote and facilitate environmental sustainability in Swansea and it seeks to do this through the following actions: influence policy and action drive behaviour change encourage and support partnership working develop and support environmental projects and innovation provide expertise,

4 collate evidence and highlight priority
collate evidence and highlight priority areas for action. The initial purpose of the Forum was to ensure good communication and encourage collaboration amongst members. SEF has now become established as an influential body involved in both strategic and community engagement activity. SEF produced and continues to manage the Swansea Environment Strategy and plays an active role in the work of the Local Service Board and One Swansea Plan. It also facilitates and supports other thematic strategic groups and partnerships. SEF has also established, collaborates in and coordinates several community-focussed initiatives including Sustainable Swansea, Clear Streams Swansea and Low Carbon Swansea. SEF has always had a strong relationship with NRW and its legacy bodies; with NRW representation on the SEF Executive Committee and various subgroups and project boards; working in partnership with NRW on several collaborative projects and benefitting from NRW grant funding and officer support. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 5 - Project Development The project concept was developed following a series of meetings and discussions in the first half of 2014 involving SEF Executive Committee members and officers of NRW. These meetings had a dual focus: planning the future development of SEF projects in anticipation of potential funding bids; and the ways in which SEF might support the Tawe Trial being carried out by NRW. It was felt that SEF needed to consult with stakeholders and local communities in order to support future development and funding bids and that such community consultation activities might also make a valuable contribution to the Tawe Trial. NRW made funding available to support projects undertaken by partner organisations as part of the Tawe Trial. SEF considered various potential projects eventually submitting two proposals to NRW in July 2014: a User and Accessibility Study following up on ideas developed and work already undertaken as part of the Clear Streams initiative; and a community consultation project drawing on links SEF had established and developed over many years with a wide range of stakeholders. The Community Consultation Project was initially designed as a six-month project running from October 2014 to March 2015 with three ma

5 in components: a programme of community
in components: a programme of community consultation activities, the development of a new interactive website and the organisation of a conference. The start of the project was held up due to delays in receiving funding approval. However, a project board was set-up and the project started in January 2015, and an extension was agreed so the project could go on until the end of June 2015. There were numerous developments and changes made to the project from the initial project proforma written in summer 2014 to the final collaborative agreement of December 2014. The design and delivery of the project continued to be developed and modified by the project board and project coordinator, particularly in the first two or three months of 2015. It was eventually agreed that the project would have four key elements: a public survey, community consultation events, an interactive website and a conference – each designed to gather information, views and ideas about natural resource management in the Tawe Trial area. The project would not only use these consultation activities to gather information and views to support the development of the area statement but would also test and evaluate a variety of community consultation approaches and techniques. Project Report Structure The next chapter in this report provides an overview of the project: the objectives and outputs it was working to; how it was managed and delivered; and the finances and other resources used to support it. The report will then take each of the four components of the project in turn – the surveys, consultation events, website and conference – and in each case provide the following: an outline of the approach taken the findings from the activity an evaluation of the methodology The final chapter provides some final concluding remarks. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 6 - 2. Project Overview Objectives and Outputs The collaborative agreement between SEF and NRW stated that the overall strategic objective of the project was to bring together stakeholders within the Tawe Catchment to produce a common vision for the management of our natural resources. The specific project objectives listed in the collaborative agreement, were as follows: a) To take an ecosystems approach to the developm

6 ent of this project and to provide learn
ent of this project and to provide learning on the opportunities and constraints of utilising this approach. b) To engage with stakeholders in the Tawe Catchment to; understand issues and opportunities surrounding Natural Resource Management and to work towards producing a common vision for the area. c) To undertake an online campaign inspired by 'Bristol Futures' to engage and inspire people to take an interest in the future of their communities. d) To hold a conference that will bring together stakeholders in the Tawe Catchment to work together to produce a common vision for the area. e) To provide evidence to support the People and Places bid that is currently being developed by Swansea Environmental Forum. Four key outputs were also listed in the document: 1. stakeholder engagement through a programme of consultation activities using different techniques and targeting different audiences. 2. an interactive website, inspired by the Bristol Futures website, which will explain ecosystem services in the Tawe Catchment and gather views and ideas. 3. a conference event that will bring together partners, consultees and other Tawe Trial pilot projects to learn more about the ecosystem approach, share good practice and undertake action planning towards an area statement. 4. a report detailing the outcomes of engagement activities, an interpretation of the general themes and a discussion on use of the ecosystem approach. Management and Delivery SEF was the lead body for the project and the SEF Executive Board had ultimate responsibility for its delivery. However, the project was overseen by a project board involving representatives of both SEF and NRW, as required by the collaborative agreement. The project board met on average on a monthly basis throughout the project period from mid-January to early July. The early project board meetings were arranged to flow on from the equivalent meetings of the User and Accessibility Study as many of the participants were the same. After a few separate meetings, the agendas were merged. This became particularly useful once it was agreed that the Clear Streams Survey Officer would carry out the face-to-face survey for this project and assist with the conference. A Project Coordinator was contracted by SEF to manage the project and ensure the project aims and

7 outputs were delivered. Some elements o
outputs were delivered. Some elements of the project, such as the website design, the creation of an illustration for the website and the organisation and delivery of community consultation events, were contracted to other organisations or contractors to delivery but were all overseen by the project coordinator, who also organised the conference and produced the content for the website. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 7 - Finances and Resources The project was funded primarily through a grant of £24,400 from NRW with a contribution worth £7,100 from SEF. Whilst outline budget allocations were agreed as part of the collaborative agreement, it was also agreed that the project board could approve changes to the way funding was allocated for different aspects of the project. The final breakdown of project costs was follows: NRW Grant Funding: Budget Heading Amount project / conference coordination fee £8,000 SEF staff (survey / support work) £3,356 community consultation contract £1,900 community consultation event costs £262 website development fee £4,378 website artist fee £2,300 marketing and publicity costs £622 conference venue costs £3,582 Total£24,400 SEF Match Funding: Budget Heading Amount SEF Coordinator costs £3,400 SEF staff (conference support) £225 meeting room costs £748 administrative / finance support £1,000 overheads (including insurance) £1,432 project board meeting costs £295 Total £7,100 The project also benefited hugely from in-kind support from NRW staff and officers of Swansea Council’s Nature Conservation Team who participated in project board meetings and other planning meetings, and supported the community consultation events and the Smart Nature conference with facilitation and other support. NRW also provided some resources such as printing large maps and other materials for the community consultation events and the conference workshop activities. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 8 - 3. Public Consultation Surveys Approach and Methodologies A simple questionnaire was devised to obtain the views of the people living, working or visiting the Tawe Trial area on the natural environment and natural resource management. This was posted on

8 line using SurveyMonkey and also used in
line using SurveyMonkey and also used in surveys conducted at various locations across the Tawe Trial area. The questions were devised by the project coordinator in collaboration with the Clear Streams Survey Officer and in consultation with the project board. They were able to draw on the experience of a similar survey conducted a few weeks before for the User and Accessibility Study. Great care was taken over the wording of each individual question and the order of the questions. The questionnaire comprised a short piece of introductory text to explain its purpose and 10 questions: two introductory questions which were included to help put the participant at ease; four core questions to gather views on the natural environment and natural resource management; plus four questions to obtain demographic information about participants. Survey Questions The first question provided an easy introduction to the survey and had four optional answers: Q1. How important is the natural environment to you? very important quite important not really important not sure The second question included a list of common outdoor activities and asked: Q2. How often do you take part in the following activities in the natural environment? Activities Frequency visiting local parks or nature reserves very often cycling or horse riding quite often bird watching / wildlife activities occasionally walking or hiking rarely visiting local beaches never water sports / activities adventure sports / activities e.g. climbing, paragliding There was also an ‘other’ option to this question allowing participants to state other activities that they undertake in the natural environment. The next four questions were all open-ended and formed the core of the survey: Q3. What benefits of the natural environment do you most value? Q4. What are your main concerns about the natural environment? Q5. Who do you think is most responsible for looking after our natural resources? Q6. In what ways do you think our natural resources could be better managed? TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 9 - The final four questions asked participants for their gender, age, employment status and the first part of their post code. The age question was split into four categories – 24 or younger, 2

9 5-44, 45-64 and 65 or more – and the emp
5-44, 45-64 and 65 or more – and the employment status question offered five options – employed full-time, employed part-time, unemployed, student and retired. Online Survey The online version of the survey was constructed at the start of May 2015 using SurveyMonkey. A weblink for the survey was included in an email sent initially to about 200 people as a diary marker for the Smart Nature conference on 5th May. This email was sent to more people over the following weeks as other potential conference delegates were identified. Also on 5th May, the weblink was posted on the Love Your Countryside Facebook page. Initially, an answer was required for each question before the next was revealed but in the first few days of the survey, it became clear that too many respondents were not completing the survey and bailing out at question 3. The settings were changed to make questions 3-6 optional but the demographic questions remained compulsory. The overall completion rate did improve though some still didn’t complete one or more of questions 3-6 and some still bailed out before these or before the demographic questions. Exactly 50 people participated in the survey. Most of these (45) did so in the first three weeks of the survey being opened and promoted. The remaining five surveys were done in the last five weeks of the survey from late May to late June. The survey was closed on 22nd June. The response rates for the 10 questions are shown in the table below: Question Number Responses Response Rate Question 1 50 100% Question 2 50 100% Question 3 33 66% Question 4 34 68% Question 5 30 60% Question 6 29 58% Question 7 30 60% Question 8 30 60% Question 9 30 60% Question 10 30 60% Face-to-face Survey The face-to-face version of the survey was derived from the online survey using the same introductory text and question wording. A survey questionnaire sheet was prepared including space to note the location the survey was undertaken and allocate a consultee ID number (see Appendix 1). TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 10 - The Clear Streams Survey Officer was contracted to conduct the face-to-face survey at various locations across the Tawe Trial area. A month or so earlier, she had done a similar survey as part of the User and Accessibility Stu

10 dy so had recent experience of this work
dy so had recent experience of this work. Over a three-week period, 80 surveys were undertaken in six different locations (three additional surveys were carried out with associates of the surveyor). The locations, dates and number of surveys completed at each location are listed in the following table: Survey Location Survey Date No. of Surveys Fendrod Lake 15th May 19 Blackpill seafront 16th May 16 other individuals 19th May 3 Craig Y Nos Country Park 26th May 14 Singleton Park 27th May 13 Brynmill Park 27th May 5 Clydach 4th June 13 TOTAL 83 Survey Findings The responses from the online and face-to-face surveys were collated by the Clear Streams Survey Officer. The data from the two sources was analysed both separately, to compare the two approaches, and amalgamated to provide combined results. The main findings of each question are outlined in turn below. Question 1: How important is the natural environment to you? All respondents to the online survey chose ‘very important’ and most of those asked in the face-to-face survey also chose that answer with only 12 choosing ‘quite important’ and one person choosing ‘not really important’. As respondents independently chose to undertake the online survey, it might be considered more likely that those with an interest in the natural environment took part. The face-to-face survey offered a greater chance of meeting a wider range of people and though they still had the chance to choose whether to participate, it was more likely that some with little interest in the environment might still be willing to participate when approached.
 \n  \r\n \n \n  \n   \n \n    \n   \n \n   \n  \n TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 11 - It was interesting to note that those who responded ‘quite important’ or ‘not really important’ to question 1, showed a relatively low frequency of interaction with the natural environment in their responses to question 2 (compare to graph in following section). \n \n  !  \n !! \n \n ! "\n \r## \n  \n  "$%$\n' \r'   \n\n'(

11   \n)\n\r 
  \n)\n\r \r \n  \n  )(#\n  \n   #   #  \n\n \n  Question 2: How often do you take part in the following activities in the natural environment? The activities undertaken most frequently – with the most people choosing the ‘very often’ option – were ‘walking or hiking’, ‘visiting local parks / nature reserves’ and ‘visiting local beaches’. In the face-to-face survey, the order of ‘very often’ was walking then parks then beaches whereas with the online survey, the order was beaches then walking and then parks. When amalgamated and the ‘quite often’ option added, then the walking and parks activities stretched further from beaches. For each of these three most popular activities, very few respondent chose ‘rarely’ or ‘never’. *#\n \n \n  \n%$%+%%%&%,%%-%%%\n' \r'   \n\n'(  \n)\n\r \r \n  \n  )(#\n  \n   #   #  \n\n \n  TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 12 - The remaining activities were less frequently undertaken, as might be expected for more specialist and skills-related activities. Bird watching and wildlife activities was the fourth most popular in terms of frequency of participation followed by cycling and horse riding, which featured less ‘very often’ or ‘quite often’ responses but a larger number of ‘occasionally’ and ‘rarely’ responses. As might be anticipated, a large number of respondents replied ‘never’ to water sports and adventure sports. It is interesting to note that the frequency graphs for some activities are similar whilst others are opposite. For example, the number of people indicating each level of frequency for visiting parks and visiting beaches are very similar but the level of frequency selected for walking and water sports were almost opposite in the surveys. *#  \n'\n)\n\r\n%$%$+%+%%#  # \n\n\n   \n\n'(\n    \n)\n\r *#\n' \n\n  \n

12 %$%+%%%&%,%#  # 
%$%+%%%&%,%#  # \n\n\n \n' (\r' \n   Though some analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between the demographic data and the responses to question 2, it was felt that the sample sizes were too small for the findings to be considered significant. For example, there did appear to be a greater level of frequency of participation in adventure activities for males than females but as most answered never, with only sixteen people stating they did so occasionally or rarely, a much larger sample would be needed to draw valid conclusions. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 13 - Participants were invited to add other activities that they do in the natural environment. In the online survey, some specified particular activities which could have been considered to fall into the categories already provided e.g. rock climbing (an adventure activity), rowing (water sport) or volunteering for a conservation project (wildlife activity). Many on the face-to-face survey mentioned dog walking and a few mentioned children’s playgrounds and activities but these two areas of activity were not mentioned in the online survey. The responses to the ‘Other activities’ option were grouped under common themes and the graph below provides an overview of the frequency of particular activities. Dog walking was the most commonly mentioned activity (19 people), followed by BBQs and picnics (8) and specific sports (8). Other activities reported in surveys - %$&%$&$%gardeninggeo-cachingphotograpycampingrunningchildren's playspecific sportsBBQ's / picnicsdog walking Question 3: What benefits of the natural environment do you most value? The full sets of answers to questions 3–6 for the online and face-to-face surveys are provided in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 respectively.The benefits suggested by participants were grouped into themes and where a respondent suggested more than one benefit, they were all included in the tally. The most common answer related to peace and tranquillity (including relaxing and spiritual experiences) with 41 references to these or similar words. Wildlife, health and fitness, clean fresh air and outdoors enjoyment were all mentioned 24-26 times. Some of the groupings could

13 easily be combined to form broader theme
easily be combined to form broader themes e.g. beauty of nature is clearly linked to scenery and/or wildlife. Whilst most of these thematic groupings had a similar level of mentions in both the online and face-to-face surveys, there was a higher proportion of mentions in the online survey to wildlife, conservation of the natural environment and clean water – perhaps reflecting the greater likelihood that those involved in environmental work completed the online survey. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 14 - \n \n !)# # \r\n \n %$&%$& # \n \n #\n \n \n\n (\n \n )\n\r(\n(\n#\n(\r!\n     \n\n#)\n \n \n )\n #\n # \n(\n . \n#\r\n\r\n \r\n# #\n( \n (/  (\n0 ( \n
 Question 4: What are your main concerns about the natural environment? A large number of different issues were raised by participants in response to this question. These concerns were grouped and those with at least five mentions are shown in the graph below (the full answers can be seen in Appendices 2 and 3). The most common concern involved litter and the lack of litter bins (46). Pollution was also a common concern with 32 general mentions – 10 more specifically mentioning air pollution and 5 others concerned about water quality. A good number of participants expressed concern about development (22) and biodiversity loss (20) – 17 mentioning deforestation or trees being cut down and 6 mentioning invasive species. Several issues were only mentioned by online respondents, including plastic / marine litter, understanding of ecosystems services, invasive species, education and restricted access. Biodiversity loss and farming practices were of concerns to more online participants than face-to-face participants. In contrast, dog fouling, safety and flooding were only mentioned by face-to-face participants. Litter and the loss of green spaces were mentioned much more by the face-to-face participants than the online participants. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY C

14 ONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPOR
ONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 15 - \n \n !\n\n) \n \n %$&%$& \n#\n \n  # #/  \n\n (\n  \n # 12*(# ( #\n #\n' (3\n4\n \n)  \r  \n (0\r\n ## \n   (\n'#\n \n\n \r\n (56$( )\n\n # \n ( )  #\r\n) \n () \n\r ( \r   \n (  \r)
 Question 5: Who do you think is most responsible for looking after our natural resources? Responses to this answer were grouped into eight categories (shown in the graph below). Where a respondent gave more than one answer, these were all included in the count. The most common answer was that we are all responsible (this included answers such as ‘individuals’, ‘people’, ‘everyone’ and ‘the public’). The next two most common answers were national and local government. Only 14 respondents (less than 7%) referred specifically to NRW or one of its legacy bodies. The landowners / businesses category included farmers and developers. Four respondents specified the National Trust which could have been included in either the landowners or NGOs category but was kept separate because this was specified by more than one participant. Only two people answered ‘don’t know’. There were no notable differences between answers given in the online survey and the face-to-face survey – the graph below shows the combined results. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 16 - 7) #' \n# \n \n %8-88-+8&8&$8$$8,%8 don't KnowNGOsNational Trustland-owners / businessesNatural Resources Walescouncil / local authoritygovernmentwe are all responsible It is interesting to note that only 14 of all the respondents (13%) specified just one or two organisations so the vast majority (87%) suggested that responsibility is shared between at least three organisations or groups of people (including those that said the public or everyone is respons

15 ible). 9) #' \n# 
ible). 9) #' \n# \n \n  )+ \r ), TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 17 - Question 6: In what ways do you think our natural resources could be better managed? There were many different suggestions provided in the surveys for improving natural resource management. When grouped into themes, the most common ideas offered related to government cuts, support and funding (23 mentions) and secondly to planning and regulation (19). Education and awareness was also mentioned by many respondents (17). The need for more officers and wardens (15), more community projects (15) and investment in clean energy (14) were also prominent. Litter bins and better waste management were mentioned 4 times each. The responses in the online survey were more varied whereas most issues raised in the face-to-face survey fell more easily into groups. Most of the top suggestions listed above were mentioned much more frequently in the face-to-face survey with the exception of planning and regulation which was also mentioned several times in the online survey. The graph below shows those issues mentioned at least three times in the combined surveys. \n \n !) \n\n  #\n \n%%$%$\n \n \n(  )  \n()# \n \r'  0    \n\n)\n\n  \n \n\n  (\n'\n  )\r \r\n # \r   \n)\n\n  . \n\n\n  \n ##(\n (\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n (    ()  \n  /)\n':   (# TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 18 - Demographic Data All the face-to-face survey respondents provided answers to the demographic questions but only 30 out of the 50 online survey participants did so. The findings in this section relate to a total of 113 participants. The gender of respondents, both online and in the face-to-face surveys, was fairly evenly split with 5

16 2% female and 48% male overall. Gender
2% female and 48% male overall. Gender of survey participants (all responses) female52% male48% #\n \n There was a clear distinction between the two survey approaches in terms of the spread across the age group categories. The online survey results showed that there were no participants under the age of 25 whereas 17% of participants in the face-to-face survey fell within the 0-24 age category. Half the respondents in the online survey were aged 45-65 with 30% in the 25-44 age category and 20% in the 65+ category. In the face-to-face survey, the 25-44 and 45-65 age categories were fairly evenly matched at about a third of respondents each with the lowest proportion (15%) in the 65+ category ; #\n \n  \r/%+%%$%%%$%+%%%&%$$//&& TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 19 - ; #\n \n  \r#\n/ /#\n&8-++8,+8-8%%$%$+%+%$$//&& The proportions of full-time and part-time participants were similar for both the online and face-to-face surveys but there was a clear distinction with the other employment status categories. A quarter of participants in the face-to-face survey were retired but none fell into this category in the online survey, whereas 40% in the online survey declared themselves as unemployed in contrast to just 6% in the face-to-face survey. There was some variance in terms of students too with 13% in the face-to-face survey but just 3% in the online survey. Caution needs to be applied in comparing the demographic data from the two types of surveys as only 60% of participants in the online survey provided this data.  #\n \n  \r/+&8,$%8%%8%+8+%8%%%$%$+%+%#/ \n /     TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 20 -  #\n \n #\n/ /#\n+&88$&8+8+&8%%%$%$+%+%#/ \n /     The post code data shows that a large majority of the survey participants (77%) lived within or adjacent to the Tawe Trial area with a slightly higher proportion in the online surv

17 ey than the face-to-face survey (80% to
ey than the face-to-face survey (80% to 76%) which could be accounted for the fact that some tourists and visitors took part in the face-to-face survey. Those counted as within or adjacent included SA3 (South Gower), SA5 (Penderry) and SA18 (Ammanford) even though large sections of these post code areas fell outside the Tawe Trial area. Evaluation of Methodologies The use of a simple questionnaire proved to be an effective method of collecting people’s views. The careful wording of the questions ensured that most of the answers were focussed on the right issues and there were few instances of participants making unrelated comments or misinterpreting the questions. The four core questions were open enough to allow participants scope to offer a broad selection of answers. Using the questionnaire both online and in face-to-face surveys had different benefits and limitations. The online survey was more likely to draw in people with an existing interest (professional or personal) in environmental issues due to the way in which it was promoted e.g. to SEF contacts and members and through the Love Your Countryside FB page. The face-to-face surveys were more likely to get a wider spread of people and this is reflected in the demographic information for age and employment status. The online survey received longer and more detailed answers than the face-to-face survey but many participants didn’t answer every question. In some cases, the demographic details were not completed, which made it difficult to analyse the data fully. Analysis of the core (open) questions is not easy and the grouping of answers into themes can be a subjective exercise. However, the information gathered should prove useful to NRW for the development of an area statement. The questionnaire was a very low cost method of obtaining public opinion, particularly when administered online. The face-to-face surveys were more resource intensive but still more cost effective than other methods used in the project. However, this method did not allow for detailed information to be passed on to the participants and did not allow for constructive interaction and debate with or between stakeholders. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 21 - 4. Community Consultation Events Approach and Methodologi

18 es An external consultant was contracted
es An external consultant was contracted to develop, arrange and deliver a programme of six community consultation events as part of the community consultation project. The consultant was also contracted to deliver two sessions for the User and Accessibility Study. All eight sessions were developed as a single programme through collaboration between the consultant, the community consultation project coordinator and the Clear Streams Survey Officer. These officers met on a number of occasions to develop the programme and agreed to try a number of different engagement and consultation techniques. Three different methods were devised each of which would be tried at two different events as part of the community consultation project. A combined approach, using elements of two of the three methods, was developed for use at the two sessions arranged as part of the User and Accessibility Study. Consultation Techniques Each event started with a brief introduction from the facilitator explaining the purpose of the event as part of the Tawe Trial. The first part of each community consultation event then involved one of three different activities: TIMELINE – Three body-shaped boards had been constructed for this activity and labelled past, present and future. Participants were asked to think about what the environment was like when they were younger and to share memories of how they had interacted with it e.g. where they played, favourite places and important spaces in the area, and things that were not so good. These memories and anecdotes were written on sticky notes and placed on the board representing the past. Participants were then asked to focus on the natural environment now – how they use it, how they feel about it, what they value and how it has changed. Finally, the group were asked to contribute suggestions for the future board – how they saw the future of their local natural environment. MAPPING – This more traditional approach encouraged participants to interact with maps of their local area, and the Tawe Trial area as a whole, to share feelings and views about their environment. A number of questions were posted above the maps as prompts: What is important to you when you use the Tawe Catchment? Where do you visit / when / why / how? How could the Tawe Catchment be improved for your

19 use? How do you feel about your local e
use? How do you feel about your local environment? Firstly, participants were asked to use green dots to mark points on the map that they valued and red dots to mark places that need improvement. They were asked to jot down their feelings and suggestions on sticky notes. THOUGHTSCAPES – A set of 12 large photographs were displayed, each illustrating aspects of the local natural environment and human interaction with it. This visual imagery was intended to act as a stimulus to engage participants and encourage them to provide feedback on their thoughts and opinions about the natural environment. Participants were asked to put sticky dots next to each of the images to show how they felt about each of them: red dot = dislike; green dot = like; and yellow dot = unsure (the yellow dots were not actually used at the events – instead, participants were invited to put both a red and green dot if they had mixed feelings). The facilitator then asked participants to select 3-5 images and, using sticky notes, describe their thoughts about each of them. The notes were stuck on laminate cards below the relevant picture. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 22 - The second half of each event followed the same process. After a short refreshment break, the NRW Tawe Trial introductory video was shown. This provided a useful explanation of ecosystems services and the approach being taken by NRW. The final part of each session was designed to be a group discussion exercise involving three questions: What benefits from the natural environment do you value most? What are your main concerns about your local environment? How could our natural resources be better managed?Where a session involved a small number of participants, these discussions took place as a whole group rather than splitting up into smaller groups. For the events organised as part of the User and Accessibility Study, a COMBINED approach was used involving the Thoughtscapes imagery and the Mapping activity. Community Engagement and Venues In order to engage community representatives across the Tawe Trial area, six community groups were identified as key contacts that would help find a venue and promote the consultation events to other community groups and community members in their area. These key

20 groups were Swansea Canal Society, Ystra
groups were Swansea Canal Society, Ystradgynlais Volunteer Centre, Clyne Valley Community Volunteers, Kilvey Community Woodland Volunteers, Mumbles Development Trust and the Vetch Community Garden. They were chosen as the key community partners because of existing relationships they had with SEF, the project coordinator and the external consultant. Also, because the communities in which they operated were spread across the Tawe Trial area. The two sessions organised as part of the User and Accessibility Study were planned for Craig-y-Nos and the Environment Centre – providing a more northerly venue and a central Swansea venue but the Craig-y-Nos event was cancelled. The list of event dates, venues, methodology used and attendance figures are provided in the following table: Event Date Event Venue Methodology Attendance 7th May Forge Fach Community Centre, Clydach Timeline 8 14th May The Welfare Hall, Ystradgynlais Mapping 14 26th May Vivian Hall, Blackpill Timeline 1 rd June Crymlyn Bog Visitor Centre Thoughtscapes 4 th June Ostreme Centre, Mumbles Thoughtscapes 3 10th June Veg Vetch Community Garden, Sandfields Mapping 16 TOTAL 46 The event at the Vivian Hall fell in the same week as another community event taking place in the same venue, involving the same audience and including a talk from NRW. This resulted in poor attendance and the event being effectively abandoned. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 23 - Events Findings The full results of the five community events (the Vivian Hall event excluded) are provided in Appendix 4. The comments from all the events were collated according to activity or question and where possible grouped into themes or issues. The responses were so diverse that it was not possible to group them effectively for conversion into graphs. However, the following observations were made: Timeline Comments There were 16 comments about the past, 9 about the present and 12 about the future collected at the Clydach event. PAST: There were four comments about industry, four about water quality and two about air quality. The remaining six comments referred to open space, landscape and nature. PRESENT: There were two comments about the environment being cleaner or greener and two about increased traffi

21 c and the associated noise. There was re
c and the associated noise. There was reference to improvements in air quality and control of industry. There were also comments suggesting children don’t get outside enough, partly due to health and safety concerns. FUTURE: There were two comments each about energy, transport and heritage. Other comments related to not paving gardens, using grey water for flushing toilets and encouraging children to get outside. Mapping Comments The combined outputs from two events (Ystradgynlais and Sandfields) had 27 comments about the upper catchment, 20 about the middle catchment and 17 about the lower. UPPER TAWE: There were several positive comments about the quality of specific sites and the catchment but there were also several calls for improvements to the preservation, management and interpretation of specific sites and across the area in general, including improvements to cycle paths and footpaths. There were also mentions of regeneration, marketing, tourism, water quality, air quality, litter, hydro-energy, access, growing, education and fish spawning. MIDDLE TAWE: Six comments related to protecting wildlife and the river and two each about increasing interpretation and promoting tourism. Other suggestions included supporting mixed use of the river, dealing with rubbish on the river bank and having more environmental voluntary programmes. There were also references to specific heritage sites and parks. LOWER TAWE: Six comments related to biodiversity and six to green or community space, with some referring specifically to the Vetch site. There were also comments relating to tourism, building, consultation and collaboration. Thoughtscape Comments Coincidentally, participants at both the Crymlyn and Mumbles events placed red and green dots on the same nine images out of the twelve displayed. These are listed in the table below. Though no dots were placed on the images of the Vetch community garden or the community boat, comments were made about these on the sticky note ‘thought cards’. The images appear to have provoked many more positive (green) thoughts and the pattern of dot placing was similar in the two events. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 24 - Crymlyn event Mumbles event combined Images red green red green red green wind turbine 1 0

22 1 0 2 0 Craig-y-Nos 1 4 0 3 1 7 milli
1 0 2 0 Craig-y-Nos 1 4 0 3 1 7 millipede 0 3 0 3 0 6 fisherman and trolley 0 3 0 2 0 5 Copper Quarter and Liberty 2 3 1 2 3 5 Beacons mountain 0 3 0 2 0 5 Beacons river 0 4 0 2 0 6 children playing in trees 0 3 0 3 0 6 docks 1 1 1 0 2 1 cyclist 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vetch community garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 community boat 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 24 3 17 8 41 The combined outputs from these two events (Crymlyn and Mumbles) included 39 ‘thought card’ comments about the images. There were many positive comments about the community boat and using the river for leisure activities (7) and community growing (5). Comments about wind turbines were mixed and there were several comments about litter. Looking after and enjoying wildlife was a common theme and other issues raised included areas in need of redevelopment, heritage, access, education and dog walkers. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 25 - The comments gathered from the final discussion at all five community events were collated for the following analysis. The range of comments was very wide but several key themes were shared across the events. What benefits from the natural environment do you value most? A total of 41 comments were made in response to this question. Five comments related to open space and freedom to roam and four each referred to health and biodiversity. Two mentioned trees in relation to reducing flood risk and three mentioned walking, exploring or finding new things. Fresh air was mentioned twice, as was clean water. A few comments referred specifically to the Tawe Catchment suggesting that unspoilt places still exist, that it has much to offer and is an ideal place for harnessing natural resources. What are your main concerns about your local environment? Across the five events, a total of 57 comments were made in response to this question. About a third of the comments related to buildings and development including several references to building on flood plains, concreting over gardens and incorporating solar panels on buildings. There were nine comments about energy issues, particularly renewable energy, with concerns expressed about the tidal lagoon, wind farms and fracking. Four comments were about invasive species and a few related to protecting biodiversity and to

23 water quality issues. Several comments r
water quality issues. Several comments related to communications between organisations, community involvement in decision making and developments, and land ownership issues. Other concerns raised included mobile phone masts, litter, heritage, grass fires and the management of parks. How could our natural resources be better managed? Across the five events, a total of 45 comments were made in response to this question. Almost half the suggestions related to better communication, collaboration, education and community involvement. There were several comments relating to tourism and the potential for job creation through better use of natural resources. There were several suggestions about water management and some about litter and waste management. There were also a few suggestions specifically about Kilvey Hill and other sites. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 26 - Evaluation of Methodologies The run-in time for these events was very short and this probably had an impact on the promotion. The target number of participants for each event (12-20 people) was only achieved at two events and so the group dynamics and the actions of the facilitator at most of the events did not play out as planned. It was also the intention to run each of the three start activities twice but only one session using the Timeline activity took place as only one person turned up for the second event that would have tested this activity. At the sessions with low numbers, the initial activities became very discursive and the facilitators were drawn into dialogue with individual participants, or whole group discussion, on specific issues. The atmosphere did not lend itself to individuals working on their own ideas first before sharing with the whole group. The second part of these sessions (after the video was shown) was intended to involve the participants in small group discussions but, with such small numbers, the group was kept together to discuss the three key questions. Though a useful set of views and ideas were obtained from each part of each event, it was felt that the Timeline and Thoughscape methodologies were not properly delivered or tested. However, the use of images or an historic context to stimulate discussion did seem to have potential and did work wel

24 l, even with smaller numbers of particip
l, even with smaller numbers of participants. The two Mapping sessions did meet the target numbers and these events ran more closely to what had been planned with individual activities, group discussion and feedback at the intended times. The level of interaction was greater at these events and the maps proved to be a good stimulus for discussion. As might be expected, there were generally more specific (location-related) issues raised in these sessions – though the Crymlyn event also had a lot of focus on Kilvey Hill because of the interests of the participants. The mix of people at the two Mapping events was good too – councillors and a group of young people from the local secondary school attended the Ystradgynlais event. The approach of promoting the events and attracting participants through key community groups had mixed success. The Crymlyn event only had members of the Kilvey Community Woodland Volunteers whereas the Ystradgynlais event didn’t have any staff or volunteers of the Ystradgynlais Volunteer Centre, though their promotion of the event had clearly attracted others in the community to go. Key contacts within the Mumbles Development Trust were away at the time of the Mumbles event and this probably impacted on the numbers attending that event. Many of those attending some of the events did so because the facilitator had invited them directly. It may also be that the good weather at the time of a couple of the events had an impact on attendance. Though the outputs from the events should prove useful to NRW, the cost and resources required to organise and deliver these events was probably difficult to justify given the small number of participants at most of them. In addition to venue and refreshment costs, three facilitators attended each event just n case three discussion groups were needed. If all the events had reached the target numbers, then the costs would have been easier to justify. This method did allow for greater information provision and participant interaction than the surveys. The mapping activity clearly worked well but the other two approach probably need further testing with larger groups. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 27 - 5. Smart Nature Interactive Website Approach and Development The inspiration for usin

25 g an interactive website as a consultati
g an interactive website as a consultation tool came from the Future Bristol website ( http://www.futurebristol.co.uk/ ) which was mentioned in initial meetings in spring 2014. The proposal was to create a website based on an image of the Tawe Trial area that was both visually appealing and with interactive features to enable visitors to explore it and engage with it. By doing this, it was hoped that people would more easily be attracted to visit and explore the site, and to leave comments about the issues it raised. The design brief for the interactive website was to: engage and inspire ‘real’ people to take an interest in the future of the Tawe River catchment area and the relationship between people and their environment (reaching people / communities beyond the usual sphere of the project partners) help people understand the concept of the ecosystem approach with examples of good practice: avoiding jargon and demonstrating the relevance to everyday lives gather comments and ideas about use and management of natural resources in the area which will contribute towards a common vision being produced by NRW. Three companies were invited to tender for the web design contract and Swansea-based Copper Bay Creations was chosen. Though initially it had been anticipated that the web design company would provide the central image for the site, it was later agreed to commission a local artist to undertake that aspect of the project. The project coordinator, in consultation with the project board, provided the website structure and all the text for the website, and worked closely with both the web design company and the local artist during the development of both the creative and technical aspects of the project. An Inspiring and Interactive Image The image of Tawe Trial area, used as the basis of the home page and the background for all other pages, was developed to include a broad range of features relating to natural resources and ecosystem services, with additional local features that visitors who know the area would readily recognise from the Brecon Beacons, down the Tawe Corridor and across Swansea Bay to Mumbles. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 - 28 - A set of fourteen themes related to natural resource features and ecosystem benefits were a

26 greed by the project board to form the c
greed by the project board to form the core of the site’s interactive, information and comments structure. Fourteen areas on the image were identified as hotspots related to these themes so as users move their curser around the image on the home page, these areas zoom out a little and, when clicked, a pop-up window appears with a short piece of information about the theme and users are invited to make a comment. The fourteen themes are: Upland areasMines and quarriesWoodlandsCountry ParksTrees Green spaces and parksPonds and wetland areas Rivers Food productionThe seaSand dunes and beaches Renewable energy Waste and pollution BiodiversityForums and Comments If the user chooses to make a comment, a typical forum window opens with a series of prompt questions (an initial post from the administrator) and an invitation to comment. Once comments are posted, and approved for publication, these are added below the comments box for future users to see. The thematic forum topics can be accessed via the hotspot pop-up windows or from the main menu bar by selecting the Your Comments page which provides a list of the forums available. In addition to the 14 thematic forum topics, a ‘General Comments’ forum can also be accessed via the Your Comments page. Local Project Examples Another key feature of the website is the local project examples. These seven brief case studies offer examples of natural resource management with multiple benefits and, in some cases, community engagement. These were selected to cover a broad spread of natural resource issues and locations across the Trial area. The case studies are accessed via seven related hotspot pop-ups (though not necessarily the nearest geographically) or from the main menu bar by selecting the Local Examples page which then provides a list of the projects. It was expected that more projects might be added to the site in the future. Additional Pages Three other, standard pages were included on the website: About the Project – with a brief overview of the consultation project and a video introducing the ecosystems approach in the context of the Tawe (also used at the consultation events). News and Events – three articles were initially posted on this pages with the intension that further articles will be added about the ongoing Tawe Trial, associated proj

27 ects and events. Contact Us – with conta
ects and events. Contact Us – with contact details for SEF and NRW, an enquiry form and location map. Welsh Language Web Pages Once the core text of the English version of the website was finalised, it was translated and the web design company were commissioned to create Welsh language pages. There were some anomalies with the translated pages as some of the standard templates used could not be converted to Welsh e.g. the column headings on the forum pages. Some font, window and button sizes had to be adjusted to enable the Welsh text to fit. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 29 Promotion of Website Developing a new website does not necessarily mean that it will be visited or used – this depends on the extent to which and ways in which it is promoted. The Smart Nature website was promoted in a number of ways: through emails to partner organisations; through emails promoting the Smart Nature conference; through website articles and news outlets of partner organisations; through Facebook and Twitter, and through direct advertising – both online e.g. using Facebook campaigns, and in hard copy e.g. magazine advertising and postcards. Use of Facebook and Twitter A key promotion of the Smart Nature website was via the Love Your Countryside Facebook page. This page was initially set up by the City and County of Swansea’s Nature Conservation Team to promote the Love Your Countryside Festival which took place in September 2014. However, as the number of users and visitors to the page continued to increase after the festival, it was agreed to maintain the page to promote countryside and environmental events and activities. A promotion of the Smart Nature website, featuring the main illustration, was initially posted on the page on 1st June and had an immediate impact – attracting a flurry of post likes and shares. By early July, the post had established a reach of 3,238 people with 95 likes, 28 shares and a total of 422 post clicks (including 168 photo views and 65 link clicks). This was one of the most successful posts on the Love Your Countryside Facebook page. A repost on 20th July resulted in 26 post clicks and 5 likes in just a week. A Facebook advertisement campaign to promote the Smart Nature website was conducted via the Love Your Countryside page

28 on 5th June. The campaign lasted 5 days
on 5th June. The campaign lasted 5 days and cost £17.47. The total reach of the advert was 5,923 people with an average service frequency of 4 times per person. The campaign resulted in 70 Smart Nature website clicks at a rate of 25p per click. It is proposed that further promotions will be posted on the Love Your Countryside Facebook page and a second Facebook campaign will be conducted in August to further promote the Smart Nature website. The website was also promoted on the Love Your Countryside Twitter page on 2nd June. The tweet was favourited by 5 people and retweeted 9 times. Google Analytics (on 5th August) showed over 300 site visits had come via Facebook with almost two thirds of these using mobiles and tablets. Over 40 site visits had come via Twitter with half using mobiles and tablets. What’s On in Swansea Advert A simple half-page advert was commissioned for the July/August edition of the popular What’s On in Swansea magazine to promote the Smart Nature website. 20,000 hard copies of the magazine are produced and distributed to venues across the area and it is also available online via their Facebook page. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 30 Postcards and Posters A limited number of postcards (500) and posters (10) were produced to promote the website, primarily for use at the Smart Nature conference event. The postcards were included in the delegates packs and the posters erected around the event venue. The remaining postcards and posters will be distributed to key venues. Website Data and Evaluation Website Analytics According to Google Analytics on 5th August 2015 there had been 1,550 visits to the website involving 1,150 different users. Whilst the site administrators will account for some of these sessions, 74% were shown to be new users rather than revisits. In total, there were 6,079 page views with an average of almost 4 pages visited per session. The average session duration was over 3 minutes and the bounce rate was 55% overall. An analysis of access via mobiles and tablets shows there were 380 visits involving 314 different users, 1,082 page views, an average of almost 3 pages per session and just over 2 minutes average duration. These figures should be treated with some caution as they do include a significant

29 number of hits from Internet bots (autom
number of hits from Internet bots (automated computers), particularly from Russia. However, though excluding these would reduce the total number of sessions and users, they would also improve the average session duration, page visits per session and bounce rate. Also, some of these figures may not fully reflect use of the site due to its structure e.g. it is uncertain whether clicking hotspots on the homepage are counted as separate page views. There are several peaks in website use which coincided with the initial promotion at the start of June, the FB campaign in early June, the Smart Nature conference at the end of June and when emails associated with the conference were sent out before and after the event. The largest peak occurred following a second FB post in mid-July. Almost all visitors enter the site at the home page and the drop off rate for this page is around 60% – though this appears to have improved over more recent months, moving from about 75% to 50%. Most of the through traffic from the home page appears to be via the hotspot pop-ups and a large proportion of visitors go to the About the Project page. The drop off rate from this page is below 30% with a large majority of these users then going on to the Local Examples page. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 31 Forum Posts By 5th August 2015, just 19 comments had been posted on the website forums. These were spread across ten of the fourteen themes: 4 posts on renewable energy; 3 on mines and quarries and upland areas; 2 on food production and trees; and one each for woodlands, waste and pollution, rivers, parks and green spaces, and sand dunes and beaches. The full transcripts of these posts are provided in Appendix 5. Evaluation of Website It is perhaps too early to make a full assessment of the effectiveness of the interactive website as a way of engaging people and gathering their comments. However, it is clear that the image has been successful in attracting attention – evidenced by the tremendous response to the Facebook posts and ad campaign. With a bounce rate around 50% and average duration averaging 3 minutes, the figures do suggest that many users are clicking on several pages and exploring the site but this has not (yet) been translated into many comments being made.

30 Had the website been developed and estab
Had the website been developed and established earlier in the project, not only would we have a better idea of its impact but it might have benefitted from other aspects of the project e.g. if it had been live before the community consultation events, then it could have been promoted through these and may have drawn more comments as a result. The use of social media has clearly been shown to be effective in the promotion of a website, particularly with those using mobiles and tablets. The development of the site has not been without problems. Whilst the overall content and structure of the site is quite simple, the specific requirements of the project have clearly challenged the capabilities of the web design company and the standard software that was used. Some technical issues remain unresolved – largely around the way the website appears on different hardware and using different web browsers. The overall cost of the website development is large and includes not only the contract fees for the web design company and artist but also the cost of the coordinator and project board involved in preparing the text and developing the structure of the site. More time is needed before a judgement can be made about the cost-effectiveness of this innovative approach. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 32 6. Smart Nature Conference Aims and Approach Organising a whole-day conference event offered the opportunity to consult with a larger and more mixed group of people over an extended period of time. It provided more opportunity to give contextual information so that those being consulted could make a more informed contribution, and more time for those contributions to be developed through discussion. The conference also provided an opportunity for other Tawe Trial projects to report on their findings to a broad audience and for the Welsh Government to share its perspective on natural resource management. A programme was constructed to include a mix of presentations and workshop activities. The Liberty Stadium was chosen as the venue because of the positive experience that project board members had previously had at the venue, the quality of the food and service, and ease of access and parking facilities – though delegates were also encouraged to use public t

31 ransport and cycling to the event. A con
ransport and cycling to the event. A conference team was pulled together, using SEF, NRW and CCS officers to help with facilitation of the workshop activities and provide general support for the event, including helping to set up and managing the registration desk. Four laptops were set up with the Smart Nature website and delegates were encouraged to try it out and leave comments during the event. An information table was made available for delegates to put leaflets about the organisations and projects they were representing. Conference Aims The agreed aims of the conference event, included in event invitations and on the conference programme, were as follows: To inform delegates about an integrated approach to natural resource management in Wales To inspire delegates about natural resource management through examples of good practice To involve delegates in planning for natural resource management by gathering views and ideas Conference Presentations There were three types of presentations at the conference event: two keynote speaker presentations, four Tawe Trial project presentations and five exemplar project presentations. The brief for the keynote speakers was to provide a national and strategic context for the conference event. Peter Davies, Wales Commissioner for Sustainable Futures provided a history of sustainable development policy in Wales from devolution to the recent Well-being of Future Generations (WFG) Act. He outlined the Well-being Goals and governance approaches of the WFG Act and also made reference to the Wales We Want campaign and the importance of community participation in the process. Andy Fraser, Head of Natural Resource Management at the Welsh Government, provided an overview of the approach to natural resource management in Wales with particular focus on the Environment (Wales) Bill and the role of NRW. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 33 An introduction to the Tawe Trial was provided by Martyn Evans, Head of Ecosystems Planning and Partnerships with NRW and an introductory video was shown. This was followed by presentations from four of the Tawe Trial projects. In each case, the presenting organisation gave an overview of the research project that was undertaken and a summary of their findings. These Tawe

32 Trial project presentations were: Swans
Trial project presentations were: Swansea Bay Marine Symposium and Mapping presented by Ruth Callaway, Swansea University Valuing the Tawe’s Urban Forest (i-tree project) presented by Dafydd Fryer, Natural Resources WalesTawe Catchment User Study presented by Winter Dotto, Swansea Environmental Forum Eastside Connections presented by Ben Reynolds, Trilein At the start of the afternoon session, a series of five presentations were made about exemplar projects, most of which were local to the Tawe Trial area. The purpose was to offer inspiration from projects that demonstrated a holistic, integrated approach to natural resource management with multiple benefits for the environment, people and business. Each project involved NRW in some capacity e.g. as lead body, partner or funder. These project presentations were: Clear Streams presented by Fran Rolfe, Natural Resources Wales Biochar Project presented by Siôn Brackenbury, Commons Vision The Pontbren Project presented by Elen Richards, Coed Cymru Lower Swansea Valley Flood Scheme presented by Phillip Pickersgill, Natural Resources Wales Come Outside! presented by Kate McCabe, Natural Resources Wales TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 34 Workshop 1 There were two workshop sessions at the conference event. The first was designed to contribute to creating a vision for natural resource management in the Tawe Trial area and the second was to focus on what specifically needs to be done to enable the vision is to be realised. Delegates were allocated to one of nine workshop groups and remained with that group for both workshops. Delegates from the same organisation were allocated to different groups, where possible, with no more than two from any organisation in each group, where more than nine were attending from the same organisation. The aim of the first workshop was to answer the following question: What will the Tawe Trial area look like if our natural resources are managed sustainably for the benefit of people, the environment and the economy? A number of supplementary questions were also provided to the workshop leaders as prompts to help the delegates in their group better understand what the question was trying to discover. These supplementary questions were: What are the key issues / pr

33 oblems that need to be addressed? What
oblems that need to be addressed? What are the main things that need to change / be changed? What could be different about the physical environment and the way people and organisations interact with it? The facilitators were asked to lead the group through two stages during the workshop: identifying key issues / things that need to change generating positive statements that describe how things might be The purpose of discussing issues initially was to provide delegates with an opportunity to air any concerns or ideas – it was felt that many might be attending the event with issues that they wanted to get off their chests and so getting an early opportunity to raise these would enable the group to move on to the next step in the process. Before the event, the facilitators were given examples of how to turn issues into positive statements e.g. if the issue of litter / fly tipping was raised as a key issue, it could be turned into a statement such as ‘the area would be free from litter and fly tipping’; or if poor communication and collaboration between organisations was discussed, this could lead to a statement such as ‘organisations communicate and collaborate effectively on natural resource management’. The benefit of generating positive statements in the first workshop was to switch the focus from negative issues and problems and contribute to a positive vision for the area. These positive statements would also be a more effective starting point for action planning which would be the focus for the afternoon workshop. In the first workshop, after initial introductions, delegates were asked to jot down issues on post-it notes. These were then shared by each delegate in turn, collected by the facilitator and grouped into themes. Where appropriate, delegates could locate specific examples on the large maps of the Tawe Trial area that had been placed on each workshop group table. Once all issues had been collected and grouped, the facilitator would help the delegates to devise positive statements for each of the themes or groups of issues. One or two themes and statements were then shared in a short plenary at the end of the workshop session. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 35 Workshop 2 The aim of the second workshop was to answer the fo

34 llowing question: What needs to happen t
llowing question: What needs to happen to enable us to make the changes we want? The supplementary questions (prompts) provided to facilitators were as follows: What extra or different needs to happen? Why isn’t this happening already (existing barriers) and what might stop it in the future (potential barriers)? What are the top priorities? What actions could make the biggest difference or unlock the barriers? What structures, relationships and resources would help? The group was asked to focus on two or three specific issues, themes or statements that were raised in the first workshop and explore the key question in relation to these issues. Whilst it was preferable to start with a positive statement, delegates were asked to be mindful of the issues that they raised and opportunities for multiple benefits. Facilitators were asked to direct and record the discussion under the following two headings: actions that could make the biggest difference (in achieving the statement) barriers to progress / change (and how to deal with them) For each statement, the group were asked to identify the top priorities (most important actions) and most significant barriers – marking them with an asterisk. In the plenary at the end of the workshop, the facilitators were asked to feedback the key points for one of the statements / themes discussed. Closing Remarks The conference closed with a brief overview from a senior NRW officer about how the Tawe Trial will progress and what will happen to the information gathered at the event and the other Tawe Trial projects. It was suggested that the area statement would be in place for April 2016. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 36 Range of Delegates The target audience for the conference was very broad and included professionals from statutory bodies, businesses and voluntary organisations across a wide range of disciplines, including countryside management, planning, regeneration, community development, outdoor recreation and tourism – plus politicians, community groups and individuals. Geographically, the main target area was the Tawe Trial and surrounding areas – across eastern parts of the City and County of Swansea, north-west Neath Port Talbot and south-west Powys – but some professionals from further afie

35 ld also took an interest in the event. I
ld also took an interest in the event. Invitations were directly emailed to over 250 people including SEF members and partners; local environmental groups and partnerships; members of the Swansea Local Service Board and its subgroups; individuals involved in the community consultation events; all councillors and key officers of the City and County of Swansea; and a selection of councillors and officers from Neath Port Talbot Borough Council and the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority. Invitees were encouraged to pass on the information about the event to colleagues and associates that might also have an interest. 90 delegates attended the conference. Approximately 110 people actually registered for the conference but about a dozen withdrew ahead of the event and others failed to turn up on the day. Of those that did attend, 48 were from the public sector, including 15 from NRW, 21 from local authorities (Swansea, Bridgend, Neath Port Talbot and Brecon Beacons) and 12 from other bodies such as Swansea University (6), Gwalia Group (2), health authorities and Welsh Government. This was over half the delegates but it should be noted that many of these, particularly from NRW, were presenters and facilitators. Of the remaining delegates, 29 were from voluntary sector or community groups, 6 were from commercial organisations (mainly sole traders or small businesses involved in environmental, sustainability or community regeneration work) and 7 were individuals who didn’t associate themselves with organisations when booking for the event. 9\n #=\n �\n 5# \n   \n    +$) + \n  ,\n TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 37 Workshops Findings The full set of comments from the two workshop sessions (all post-it notes and flipchart sheets) from each of the nine workshop groups are provided in Appendix 6. Issues and Opportunities Almost 300 comments, with a wide range of issues, concerns, problems, opportunities and ideas, were recorded by delegates on post-it notes in the first part of workshop 1. These reflected a wide range of issues and were a mix of positive and negative comments. To help analyse these comments, they were sorted into broad topic areas.

36 Where more than one issue was mentioned
Where more than one issue was mentioned in the same comment, then it was placed under the predominant topic mentioned. The numbers mentioned below in connection with specific topics are therefore only approximates and would probably be higher if comments were counted more than once where they related to more than one topic. One of the most commonly mentioned issues was biodiversity (wildlife and habitats) with approximately 28 comments, of which 8 specifically referred to trees and woodlands, and 7 were related to invasive species. Community involvement and ownership (28) and awareness and education (14) were also popular themes, as were access issues (26), transport and walking (22) and connectivity between places (8). Many issues raised related to organisation and organisations, with comments about strategy and policy (18), finances and funding (14), conflicts between interests (12) and the need for better collaboration and communication (8). There were 15 comments about development, 13 related to water resources, 10 each about tourism and recreation, waste and litter, and green spaces and parks. Other topics with at least 4 comments each were energy, food and farming, industry and pollution, heritage and culture, and flooding. \n=\n �\n 5#'\r $$$&$$+$%%% %%$%$+%)   (\r\n \n (\n'  \n  ( #\n(# \n\n(\n \n # )    \n\n \n (  \n(\n'\n)\n (\n    TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 38 Positive Statements (visioning) Across the nine workshop groups, 44 positive statements were produced. When grouped into topics, two key themes dominated: 12 related to community engagement and understanding (including education) and 8 were specifically about biodiversity and nature. Topics that featured in more than two statements were regeneration and the economy (5), access and transport (4) and water resources (4). Other topics included funding and investment, pollution and litter, tourism and recreation and renewable energy, each of which featured in two statements. There was also a stat

37 ement about avoiding conflict at an earl
ement about avoiding conflict at an early stage and two further statements about the broad vision for the area. Barriers and Actions In workshop 2, most groups focussed on just one or two statements that they had produced in workshop 1, but one group managed to work through four statements and another through three statements. Some groups changed the wording of statements or created new statements at the start of the second workshop. The groups discussed and listed barriers preventing each statement from being realised and the actions and opportunities to help make it happen. In total, 16 statements were worked on. The range of statements worked on in workshop 2 was spread across most of the themes mentioned above. Just three groups highlighted key actions that they felt were a priority or could make a significant difference. As the lists of barriers and actions were specific to a particular statement, these have not been collated or grouped for analysis. Other Comments Burning Issues A writing space was provided in the information area for delegates to add comments, or burning issues, that they felt they didn’t have opportunity to raise in other parts of the event. Just four comments were written on this space: two relating to engaging businesses and two about specific projects. These are listed at the end of Appendix 7. Use of Website Several delegates used the laptops to try out the Smart Nature website but only three forum comments were added on the day. Some technical problems were experienced and this may have had an impact on the number of comments made. Event Evaluation Delegate Evaluation Forms A simple event evaluation form was included in the delegate packs. This was a single A4 sheet with Welsh and English on separate sides. The forms were anonymous. There were just four questions: 1. What aspect(s) of the event did you find most useful / enjoyable?2. How has the event improved your understanding of Natural Resource Management?3. How has this event inspired you to make changes in the way you work or live?4. Any other comments? TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 39 A total of 33 forms were received: 27 handed in at the end of the event with a further 6 emailed after the event. This equates to over a third of all the delegates, or, if pre

38 senters and facilitators are excluded, i
senters and facilitators are excluded, it would be closer to half (though it may be that some of these also completed evaluation forms). Almost all respondents (94%) suggested that the event had improved their understanding and a large majority (70%) also said it had inspired them. Most forms (55%) included an overtly positive comment about the event in answer to questions 1 or 4 e.g. thanking the organisers or complimenting the organisation of the event, praising the quality of presentations or expressing gratitude for the opportunity to network with others. Several criticisms were also made, including: the dominance of NRW and local authority delegates and the need to involve more from the private sector, farming community and a greater diversity in delegates. Some felt that too much was asked in the workshops, suggesting they were rushed and not all comments were being picked up. One suggested that the structure of the day, and particularly the workshops, were too restrictive and suppressed open discussion. Another delegate complained that not all speakers were introduced properly and a further form said not enough alternative perspectives on the relationship between humans and environment were given (all about natural environment as separate from humans and as a commodity). There was the suggestion that the event was very Swansea-orientated with little engagement with other local authority areas. There was also concern from two delegates that they and their activities were being criticised by some speakers. In contrast, many specifically praised the presentations and others praised the workshops. In almost all of the forms which included criticism, there was also praise and the delegates suggested they had still enjoyed and/or benefitted from attending. Evaluation of Approach The chosen structure and content of this whole-day event did allow for interaction with a larger number of participants, a greater amount of information to be disseminated and a higher degree of discussion and, as a consequence, outputs of greater quality and detail than those gathered through the other activities in this project. The workshop groups, to differing degrees, did produce the desired outputs in terms of issues, statements, barriers and actions – though with more time to prepare, there may have been gr

39 eater consistency in the way the worksho
eater consistency in the way the workshops were facilitated with greater focus on the key questions and tasks. The range of delegates and their interests will have made it challenging to most facilitators to keep on track. The programme for the day was very full and intense and it was a particularly hot day (the second workshop session was shortened because of these factors), so the level and quality of the outputs reflects the enthusiasm and commitment of the delegates and facilitators. The cost of the event, however, was large both in terms of venue costs and staffing resources – involving 10 facilitators and 14 presenters – though none of these, except the project coordinator incurred a direct financial cost to the project and most were also participants in the event. Though a few participants were not happy about the balance between presentations and workshops and, in some cases, the way some of these were delivered, both aspects of the event were generally well received and the comments and suggestions gathered should make a useful contribution to the development of the area statement. TAWE TRIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (SMART NATURE) PROJECT REPORT: JULY 2015 40 7. Final Conclusions This project set out to test several different approaches and techniques for engaging a wide range of stakeholders in discussing and planning for natural resource management. The level of success or effectiveness of the different methods did vary but where there were problems, such as poor attendance, this was, at least in part, due to organisational constraints such as the short timescale for the development and delivery of the project. An evaluation of each activity and method is provided at the end of each relevant chapter in this report but here are a few final conclusions about the project. Significant Outputs Overall, the project was successful in actively gathering views and ideas from over 250 different people (accounting for a degree of overlap with some people participating in more than one activity). Approximately 1,300 comments were collected from the various events and activities, which should make a significant contribution to the development of an area statement for the Tawe Catchment. The project has raised awareness of the ecosystems approach to a much larger audience – in the thousan

40 ds – particularly through the website. A
ds – particularly through the website. A Mixed Approach Comparing the effectiveness of the different approaches and methods is not simple as the audiences engaged and resources needed differ considerably and there were many other variables that affected the outputs of the individual activities. However, one key message that can be drawn from this project is that a mixed approach to consulting and engaging stakeholders can be beneficial – making it more likely that a wider range of stakeholders are engaged and that stakeholders have opportunity to engage at a number of different levels. For example, the demographic information obtained as part of the survey questionnaire suggests that conducting the survey both online and by face-to-face interviews at various locations resulted in a wider range of people participating e.g. the online survey alone did not engage anyone under 25 or retired people and the face-to-face survey engaged very few unemployed people but the two approaches combined resulted in a much more balanced spread across these two demographic variables. Similarly, the evening community consultation events attracted those with an interest in the natural environment, or their local community, in a non-professional capacity whereas the majority of those attending the whole-day conference where professionals from statutory bodies and other organisations. Stakeholder Involvement Another key finding from the project was the degree of interest people have in the natural environment and in being consulted on and involved in the way that it is managed. This was a theme brought up in most of the activities – there was a clear consensus in the surveys that responsibility for looking after natural resources is a shared one and in the community events and conference, and on the website forums, people expressed the importance of community involvement in both planning for and delivering natural resource management. Smart Nature Brand The Smart Nature brand, introduced as part of the project, has now become established within professional circles and the wider community through the website, conference event and associated publicity and marketing. Retaining, developing and utilising this brand could help in engaging people in the ecosystems approach and natural resource management project in th