Semi-structured interviews

Primary data for this thesis was gathered through 40 semi-structured interviews with conservation agency staff, academics, consultants and other stakeholders conducted in 2014 and 2015.50 _{These key informant interviews, ensured that the research took into}

account the complex operation of laws and policies in the ‘real world’.51 _{Participants were}

selected using a purposive sampling approach to achieve diversity across a range of specified criteria – such as governance scale and ‘categories’ of expertise – rather than a statistically representative sample.52 The sampling approach targeted potential participants across national, state, regional and local governance scales in the nested analysis

jurisdictions;53 and across a range of academic, government and policy, environmental consultant and NGO and conservation advocacy contexts.

Fourteen of the 40 participants contributed a national perspective, including two employees of the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, as it then was, six academics, two representatives of advocacy organisations and four environmental consultants. Eleven participants were based in Victoria, with two of those employed by NECMA and two by the Wodonga City Council. Fifteen participants were based in Tasmania and, as in Victoria, two of those participants were associated with NRM South and two with the Kingborough City Council (Figure 2.2). Some participants could have been grouped into more than one category, for example, participants located in one of the state jurisdictions that spoke exclusively or primarily about national issues, or representing a national advocacy organisation but spoke exclusively about state-based conservation laws and policies. Each of those participants were allocated the category that best fit their interview contribution, after their interview was transcribed.

50 _{A full list of participants is set out in Appendix 2.}

51 _{In keeping with the critical realism framework discussed above; Gilchrist, VJ ‘Key informant interviews’}

in Crabtree BF and WL Miller (eds) Research methods for primary care, vol. 3: doing qualitative research (Sage Publications, 1992) 70; this approach does not purport to be a quantitative, probabilistic ‘expert elicitation’ process, see Morgan, M. Granger, ‘Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy’ (2014) 111(20) (May 20, 2014) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 7176.

52 _{Eg Trost, Jan E, ‘Statistically nonrepresentative stratified sampling: a sampling technique for qualitative}

studies’ (1986) 911(Spring) Qualitative Sociology 54.

53 _{Each participant agreed to be interviewed in their professional or representative capacity; Appendix 2}

Figure 2.2 Number of interview participants by governance scale and expertise

To maximise the value of the data collected, the project targeted informed stakeholders at each governance scale and in each of the contexts listed above. Informed stakeholders are defined here as individuals with demonstrated specialised knowledge about the operation of conservation law and climate adaptation in Australia. Expertise was determined according to experience in climate change adaptation projects, through authoring peer-reviewed publications, or as a result of a relevant academic or organisational position.54

A major strength of key informant interviews as a qualitative research method is that they do not seek consensus from participants on any issue, but highlight diversity and areas of agreement and disagreement that may not be voiced in more public fora.55 The research interviews were semi-structured. This approach provided some continuity in the data collected across different interviews and adaptation strategies, but also ensured sufficient flexibility for participants to express value positions;56 emphasise perceived links between the broad questions and their own experiences;57 and introduce new themes and concepts that were not identified in the literature review.

54 _{A similar process was adopted by Hagerman and colleagues, Hagerman, Shannon et al, ‘Expert views on}

biodiversity conservation in an era of climate change’ (2010) 20(1) Global Environmental Change 192.

55 _{Hagerman, above n 54, 194-5.}

56 _{Both biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation can be described as ‘mission-oriented’ issues,}

involving strongly-held value positions as well as requiring technical and practical expertise, Meine, Curt, Michael Soulé and Reed F Noss, ‘“A mission-driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology’ (2006) 20(3) Conservation Biology 631; Hagerman, above n 54, 194-5.

Potential participants were identified through government agency directories, web searches for well-known conservation NGOs and statutory agencies, and through the thesis

supervision team’s networks. Each was sent an invitation email, attaching an indicative interview schedule, a project information sheet and an ethics consent form.58 Participants all read the information sheet before the interview, and were asked to sign an ethics consent form. Interviews took approximately 45 minutes. Most interviews were conducted in person, with a small number conducted by telephone or Skype.

The indicative interview schedule contained eight overarching questions designed to investigate the practical operation of conservation legal frameworks in facilitating or hindering adaptation (see Appendix 1). Participants were also encouraged throughout the interview to reflect on and make suggestions about opportunities for law reform to

overcome the challenges that they identified.59 Each interview began with a question about the need to revise conservation legal objectives in the context of climate change. The next two questions were directed to the establishment of new, adaptation-oriented protected areas; and a fourth question to the legal frameworks for managing protected areas under climate change. The fifth question asked participants to identify the most important non- climatic stressor for biodiversity, in their experience or observation, and to discuss legal options for addressing that stressor to increase the adaptive capacity of species and ecosystems as the climate changes.

The final three interview questions were very general. Question six asked participants to identify existing laws that are already facilitating climate adaptation, and question seven asked about laws that currently create challenges for helping biodiversity to adapt. The final ‘catch all’ question asked whether anything important had been missed or whether there was anything more to add to previous answers. These three general questions encouraged participants to discuss practical examples of their experiences with existing conservation law and policy, highlighting particular areas of concern or enthusiasm that were not captured by more specific questions. In answering these general questions, participants raised challenges and opportunities for law that had not been identified in the doctrinal analysis and were not prominent in the formal biodiversity adaptation literature.

58 _{Appendix 1.}

The overarching interview questions did not explicitly prompt discussion about some important adaptation concepts – such as conserving refugia, pursuing connectivity and engaging in adaptation-oriented ex situ conservation. These concepts were not included in the overarching questions due to practical constraints such as time limits, and research decisions about, for example, the volume of literature already available on these issues, and the expertise of participants. However, the semi-structured nature of the interviews allowed these concepts to be raised, either by the researcher or the participants, as part of an answer to one of the substantive or general questions described above. The semi-structured

interview approach also meant that on the few occasions that a participant chose not to answer a particular research question – because it was outside their expertise or raised sensitive political issues – the question could be omitted.

At the conclusion of each interview, participants were encouraged to share the invitation to participate with interested colleagues. They were also asked to share the information sheet and the researcher’s contact details so that new participants could initiate contact if they were happy to do so – avoiding ethical concerns associated with ‘snowball’ or chain referral sampling.60

An additional 33 people were contacted but not interviewed.61 _{Some initially expressed}

interest but did not respond to follow up contact, while others did not respond to the initial invitation. Some chose not to participate or, having indicated an interest, excused

themselves before the interview took place. There were a range of reasons for withdrawing from participation, including personal reasons; the potential participant identifying an alternative participant that they considered would be more useful to the research; or their unavailability during the interview period. A particular challenge for securing interviews was that the interview period coincided with the lead up to a Victorian state election, so many Victorian government employees were unable, or unwilling, to be involved.62

60 _{See, eg Brace-Govan, Jan, ‘Issues in snowball sampling: the lawyer, the model and ethics’ (2004) 4(1)}

Qualitative Research Journal 52.

61 _{Appendix 2 includes a list of organisations that were contacted but which did not result in an interview.} 62 _{Four of the nine state government participants listed in Figure 2.2 were from the Tasmanian Department of}

Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE), four were employed by Victorian statutory authorities (Parks Victoria or Trust for Nature) and only one was employed by the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

Participants’ responses are used throughout this thesis to provide examples, and to illustrate and provide practical context to the arguments made. However, there are not large numbers or an even division of participants from each of the nested jurisdictions. To ensure that participants are effectively de-identified, interview responses cited in this thesis are referenced either as: (1) ‘local’, ‘regional’, ‘state’ or ‘national’, or (2) ‘government’, ‘research’, ‘advocate’ or ‘consultant’, but not both.63