Sample selection and conducting qualitative interviews

Consideringthe intensity of the study and the complex nature of the questions to be asked of respondents, face-to-face in-depth interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire were used in both countries (see Appendix C for questionnaire for planners and experts). In New Zealand, qualitative interviews were conducted with planners and EIA experts; in Sri Lanka, in addition to planners and EIA experts, qualitative interviews were conducted with selected community members (Table 3.5), using a separate semi-structured questionnaire (see Appendix D for questionnaire for community members).

Samples drawn for the qualitative interviews in both Sri Lanka and New Zealand were based on non- probability sampling techniques. Considering the exploratory nature of the research, purposive sampling was carried out to select interviewees relevant to the research topic (Sarantakos, 2005). Planners and experts were selected based on their role in the EIA process and project planning. Knowledge and expertise of the interviewees about the EIA process of the selected projects was also used as a criterion in identifying the interviewees.

Five planners (i.e., a CEA (Central Environmental Authority) planner, two RDA (Road Development Authority) planners, a UKHP planner, and a DMC planner) and four experts (i.e., legal, disaster management, and two EIA experts) were interviewed from Sri Lanka. Six planners and six EIA experts were selected from New Zealand. Planners represented a district council, a regional council, a major developer and three national agencies, namely, the Department of Conservation (DoC), a national

53 hazard management agency and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Two of the six experts are social scientists. Three of the remaining experts are: an EIA expert, a hearing commissioner, and a retired Environmental Court (EC) judge. The perceptions of one of the

supervisors of this research, who is a hearing commissioner, were also used where needed [listed as an EIA expert in Table 3.5].

Table 3.5 Interviewee categories and sample sizes for qualitative interviews Interviewee category Number of interviewees

from Sri Lanka

Number of interviewees from New Zealand

Total number of interviewees

National and local level planners responsible for the EIA process

/development planning

5 (CEA planner, two RDA planners, UKHP planner,

DMC planner)

6 (hazard planner, two local council planners, EPA planner,

DoC planner, environmental planner of a major developer)

11

EIA practitioners and experts

4 (legal expert, disaster management expert, two

EIA experts)

6 (two EIA experts, two social scientists, hearing commissioner, environmental

court judge)

10

Civil society groups/ community leaders living in project area

17 - 17

Total respondents 26 12 38

The selection of the community members in project-affected areas in Sri Lanka was done using a snowball sampling technique. The term ‘community’ does not have a standard definition in literature and scholars have treated the term based on the context in which the term is used. In this study, MacQueen et al.’s (2001) definition of community is considered appropriate to describe the communities from which members were selected for the interviews and the FGDs. According to MacQueen et al. (2001, p. 1936), a community is “…a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings”. Project-affected community members in selected project areas are confined to a distinct geographical location and with close social ties.

Two different methods were adopted in screening and selecting community members for qualitative interviews. In STDP, first, the project-affected districts and divisional secretariat (DS) divisions were identified based on newspaper archives, the national disaster event database, and inputs from national and district level disaster management officials. Bandaragama and Dodangoda DS divisions in Kalutara district were selected for data collection. Then, highly affected villages were identified using district disaster management data, disaster relief distribution data and inputs from social services officers of the respective divisional secretariat divisions. Grama Niladharis (village officers) of the identified villages were contacted and consulted with the permission of the divisional secretariats

54 to identify affected community groups. FGDs were then held with the community members; 11 key informants for in-depth interviews were identified during the FGDs (see section 3.7.3).

In the UKHP, first, the permission of the project director was sought because the resettlement sites were still under the control of the project. Then, based on the project resettlement plan and information from environmental activists, community groups were identified from Kotmale DS division of the Nuwara Eliya district. However, initially I was accompanied to the project-affected areas by the project officials, which obstructed free discussions with community members. Therefore, I waited till the weekend to start the FGDs and qualitative interviews with community members without the influence of the project staff. This also limited the number of FGDs and number of qualitative interviews conducted in the UKHP project sites, but the quality of data was considered high. One FGD and six qualitative interviews were conducted in the Kotmale DS division.

Qualitative interviews in Sri Lanka were carried out from 17 December 2012 to 25 January 2013. Initially, selected planners and EIA experts were contacted either by email communication, via phone calls or meeting them physically. They were briefed about the research and provided with a research information sheet that includes the research objectives, nature of the interview and anonymity of data gathered. Then, a suitable time and venue were fixed for the interviews. Similarly, selected community members were met and basic information about the research was verbally conveyed to them before agreeing on a time and venue for qualitative interviews. Some interviews were

conducted at the project sites because the interviewees wanted to show specific project impacts on the environment. Probing and revisiting of responses was done in both countries to explore and inquire further into important aspects raised by the interviewees (while their anonymity was maintained). All interviews were digitally recorded and notes were also taken on the consent of the interviewees. Some planners and community members opted to answer sensitive questions, especially related to political support and influence, off the record. Such interview data were not used in the final analysis, considering the safety of both interviewees and the researcher.

In New Zealand, qualitative interviews were carried out in two rounds. After conducting initial analysis of collected data, it was decided to conduct a further round of interviews to substantiate the data gathered in the first round. Planners and EIA experts for the second round were selected based on the interviews in the first round. The first round was carried out from 25 April to 30 May 2013 and the second round from 1-30 September 2013. Like in Sri Lanka, planners and EIA experts were contacted and the research information sheet was shared with them before requesting

appointments for interviews. In two cases, the experts favoured online interviews over physical meetings because of the flexibility of such interviews to fix an appropriate time. Other interviews

55 were conducted in person. Like in Sri Lanka, all interviews were digitally recorded with the consent of the interviewees.