The Design and Application of the Delphi Method in the Upper Mersey

It was suggested in the literature review, that the application of a Delphi method would aid the understanding of environmental foresight, by offering a possibility to understand stakeholders’ visions and views on a certain topic. Considering these

70 benefits, a Delphi method was applied in the Upper Mersey Estuary. Delbecq, van de Ven, & Gustafson (1975) base the success of a Delphi on three criteria:

1) The process should not take longer than 45 days, 2) Participants are skilled in written communication, and 3) The motivation of the participants is high.

Since there was not a large group of researchers available to work on the implementation of the method, the process was expected to take longer than the suggested 45 days, although the time spent on the data collection was kept as short as possible. Delbecq's et al. (1975) second criterion, the participants’ skill in written communication, was assumed to be fulfilled without any doubt, as this project was based in an area of high literacy. The last point to successfully conduct a Delphi method, the high motivation of the participants, was ensured through the hand-out of participant information sheets and, where possible, personal communication between the researcher and the participant before and during the Delphi process. As some authors point out, the drop-out rate is expected to rise after the first round, especially if the first round of questions is not well understood by the participants (Adler & Ziglio, 2002; Delbecq et al., 1975). To keep the participation rate high, the intentions of the method and the relevance to the research had to be understood by the participant.

It is suggested in the literature that the identification of experts is often based on existing networks which get extended by the snowball principle (Nahuelhual, Carmora, Lozada, & Jaramillo, 2013; Scolozzi et al., 2012). The experts for participation in the Delphi method were identified mainly in co-operation with the Mersey Gateway Crossings Board and the Mersey Gateway Environmental Trust, which operate a joint database of contacts available in the Upper Mersey Estuary. The design of the survey was tailored to the study area. The survey had been developed over several months at the University of Salford and received ethical approval by the university (approved 30/03/2015, Appendix 2). This Delphi technique used a questionnaire to collect first results in a non-intrusive and anonymous way for the participants, which was followed up with a workshop

71 (Figure 14). To keep the motivation of the participants high, a site visit to the estuary and the construction site was arranged as part of the workshop.

Due to its altered process, the Delphi can be considered to be a modified Delphi. The traditional elements of the Delphi were extended to fit the purpose of the project, but continued to include the aspects that are expected as part of this method (see section 2.8.1 and this section).

Figure 14 Conceptual presentation of the modified Delphi method used in this project.

The modifications were justified by a number of reasons which are important with regard to the success of the research project:

72

Consensus: Following the original idea of the Delphi, a continuous iteration

process is employed to reach consensus in one or more topics. However, for this research project, the consensus of the group was not the thematic focus – the collection of ideas and gathering of knowledge in a semi-anonymous way was valued as more important than reaching consensus at the end of the exercise.

Anonymity: the first round of the Delphi was conducted anonymously. This was

important in order to capture the individual viewpoints of the participants. With no one interfering with more dominant opinions, the participants could submit their answers at their own pace, without the pressure of other participants or an interviewer.

In the workshop, a more open environment was created. However, in two of the three exercises of the workshop the results were collected anonymously, with only the researcher being able to access the full results, including names. The third exercise (developing an ecosystem services map), an open working environment was supported, enabling the participants to work alone or in small groups.

Response rate: Generally speaking, a high response rate is preferable. The rate,

however, is influenced by several factors; in case of internal surveys among a known group of respondents, for example, the response rate is expected to be higher than in external surveys distributed among an unknown group of people. It has been established that internal surveys can receive a response rate of 30– 40 % on average, whereas external surveys obtain a 10–15 % response rate (Fryrear, 2015). A response rate between the minimum and maximum values was expected for the Upper Mersey Estuary.

3.6.4.1. The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed through literature studies and working together with the Mersey Gateway Crossings Board and the Mersey Gateway Environmental Trust. A pilot was run within the University of Salford and the Mersey Gateway Crossing Board, and feedback was given regarding the comprehensibility and technical issues of the questionnaire.

73 The questionnaire was distributed to the stakeholders of the Upper Mersey Estuary at the beginning of summer 2015. The participants were initially contacted by a member of the Mersey Gateway Crossings Board by e-mail, to introduce the research project and its objectives. This seemed to be an appropriate step to engage the participants’ interest in a project they were not aware of. Following this, the participants received an e-mail including the questionnaire, participant information sheet, and a consent form. The first round of data collection ended in October 2015.

The questionnaire comprised four questions. The aim within this round of the Delphi was to collect information about the relevant ecosystem services, the triggers of change and information regarding possible land use changes within the Upper Mersey Estuary (Figure 14). The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 3. All answers were collected in excel spreadsheets, protected by passwords, as set out in the ethical approval.

Regarding the identification of relevant ecosystem services in the Upper Mersey Estuary, an ordinal Likert scale from ‘very important’ to ‘not important at all’ (5 = very important, 4 = important, 3 = neither important, nor unimportant, 2 = of little importance, 1 = unimportant, 0 = I don’t know) was used. The 75% mark was used to indicate a majority decision. Stevenson, Campbell, & Kielmann (2003) use a mark of 80% as a cut-off point in their study. However, it can be argued that in the case of the Delphi technique of this project, the majority did not need to exceed a three-quarter majority. The objective was to identify the most relevant ecosystem services for the Upper Mersey Estuary, which was achieved by this cut-off point and indicated the overall direction of thinking of the experts asked to adapt their management, so that it supported an ecosystem approach.

3.6.4.2. The workshop

The second stage of the Delphi was conducted as a workshop. This workshop had the objective to collect further data, to look at the previously collected information from the questionnaire in more detail, and to widen the knowledge regarding the ecosystem services and possible changes in the Upper Mersey Estuary (Figure

74 14). The participants who took part in the questionnaire were invited to take part in a one-day workshop on the 7th June 2016. The aims of this workshop were:

1) To confirm and/or narrow down the list of relevant ecosystem services relevant for the Upper Mersey Estuary.

2) To discuss where and when changes within the Upper Mersey Estuary are most likely to occur.

3) To present and extend the list of triggers that might affect the Upper Mersey Estuary.

4) To produce a map of ecosystem service locations in the estuary.

5) To experience the knowledge of the people, who know the estuary, from different perspectives.

The participants were mainly identified from the respondents of the first Delphi round. All participants who submitted the questionnaire were invited to the workshop. Additional participants were suggested by the Mersey Gateway Environmental Trust.

To answer the questions relevant for the data collection, two techniques were employed:

1) Kahoot (Kahoot, 2017): This online educational platform was used to design voting exercises. It was utilised for the two main activities of the workshop. The tool provided an opportunity to collect anonymous3 and spontaneous answers.

The first part of the exercise worked with the previously identified list of relevant ecosystem services. The ecosystem services were to be ranked according to their importance in the ecosystem services. As they were all considered to be relevant, the participants were asked to rate between ‘+++’, ‘++’. ‘+’, and ‘I don’t know’.

3

The answers were submitted anonymously at the time of the exercise. The results were downloaded in form of an excel sheet after the exercise, including a breakdown of answers by name.

75 The second part of the exercise collected information about when the participants expected change in the individual site compartments to happen. The options given in the Kahoot were: ‘within the next 5 years’, ‘within the next 15 years’, ‘within the next 26 years (end of 2043)’, or ‘not before 2044’. This was based on several assumptions:

 Change within the next 5 years: this is a short-term change. The participants will be able to picture the future to some extent.

 Within the next 15 years: this is mid-point of the operational period of the Mersey Gateway Environmental Trust. Changes occurring between year 6 and 15 can be understood to be medium-term changes, which can be predicted by the participants with knowledge of the area and specific information.

 Within the next 26 years: these changes will fall between year 16 and 26, until the end of 2043, which marks the end of the operational period. These are long-term changes and are difficult to predict, but their documentation provides an indication and a vision of the future of the study site.

 Not until 2044: change is unlikely, especially in the operational period. Changes might still take place, but are not likely to fall into the operational period.

2) Mapping Exercise: A mapping exercise was used to identify the location of ecosystem services in the Upper Mersey Estuary. The participants identified the occurrence of ecosystem services by using coloured dots and could note specifications on post-it notes. These maps were later digitalised in QGIS (QGIS Development Team, 2009).

It was ensured that all participants were aware that they could ask questions in case of uncertainties (email or telephone, during the first round, or in person at the workshop).

Using a Likert-type scale in the questionnaire, facilitated an understanding of the agreement of the participants on the relevance of ecosystem services. Data such

76 as Likert-type data are inherently difficult to analyse, due to its characteristic as ordinal data (Allen & Seaman, 2007). However, it allowed extraction of the information needed for the purpose. The interpretation of the data aimed to construct a list of ecosystem services which could be achieved with this questionnaire and rating system. As no further statistical analysis was intended, the use of ordinal data can be justified for this case, as it is the commonly used scale in a Delphi method and offered a user-friendly approach for the participants (Murry Jr & Hammons, 1995).

The second round of the Delphi, aimed to rate the importance of the identified ecosystem services, used a Likert-like scale, employing the ‘+’-symbol. The plus- sign is commonly associated with positivity and, therefore, was an appropriate symbol to describe the importance of the selected ecosystem services. At this point in the data collection, the participants had already selected the relevant ecosystem services in the Upper Mersey Estuary. By using a positive scale, the connection between the relevant ecosystem services and the importance rating could be denoted.

The bias of participants towards certain ecosystem services had to be recognised and is discussed in the analysis of the responses. By using a modified Delphi technique, the informant bias could be kept low, as the data were collected anonymously in both rounds.