Semi-structured questions for case study interviews

Semi-structured interview questions allow the researcher to ask predetermined questions of an interviewee in a systematic and consistent order, with the ability to digress and probe beyond their original questions (Berg, 2007). Berg (2007, p93) outlines the following key features of semi-structured interviews, in that they are:

• More or less structured;

• Questions may be recorded;

• Wording of questions is flexible;

• Level of language may be adjusted; and

• The interviewer may answer questions and make clarifications.

Due to the range of participants in the interview process (i.e. from central government representatives to special interest groups), it was imperative that the wording of the questions could be altered depending on the participant, and that the level of language could be adjusted. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Three types of questions were asked: essential questions (are central to the focus of the research); extra questions (to clarify a response, e.g. re-worded essential

questions); and probing questions (to draw out further information) (Berg, 2007). When developing these research questions, Flick (2006) recommends the researcher asks the following to determine the relevance of the questions:

• What is the theoretical relevance?

• What is the link to the research question?

• Why did I ask this question?

• Why are the questions in this order?

The purpose of the interviews was to gauge perceptions and build understanding about the role that land-use planning can play in reducing natural hazard risk. In particular, who is responsible for risk reduction?; what constitutes and who instigates innovative risk reduction practices?; the role of land-use planning in natural hazard risk reduction; and what are the obstacles and opportunities for improving risk governance (how is governance perceived amongst a range of stakeholders?). Following is an example of the questions for participants. As discussed, the wordings of the questions were slightly amended for the different participants e.g. national and iwi contexts, and for the Environment Court judge. The questions are provided in italics, with the justification for them (as per Flick 2006, above) bullet pointed:

1. Are natural hazards of concern to you, given the many priority concernsthat face

the Thames-Coromandel community? If so, what hazards?

• An ice-breaker question, with the purpose of easing into the interview process.

• Enabled analysis of perceptions of natural hazards in the district i.e. are they a

concern or not?

2. There are management options for areas already developed in at-risk locations. (a) In the case of known hazard risks, should we focus on keeping people out of harm’s way (e.g. not allow new development in floodplains) or allow people to develop in risky locations and provide protection (e.g. stopbanks?).

• Links to the interpretation issue of avoidance and mitigation as discussed in

Chapter 4.

• Good practice to avoid first, then mitigate

(b) At what point should additional protective works (e.g. stopbanks, seawalls) be stopped, and communities relocated?

• To see if there is an acceptable level of risk that crosses into intolerable risk

(refer Chapter 6)

• In order to achieve risk reduction, must be able to qualify and quantify what

levels of risk are acceptable, tolerable or intolerable (Chapter 6).

3. Responsibility for risk reduction can lie with various parties in an area.

(a) What (if any) responsibility does each of the following parties have to reduce disaster risk: councils, market (e.g. developers), communities?

• To understand their view on what role and responsibilities each party (i.e.

market, state, or civil society) has for risk reduction?

• Who should be taking the lead on risk reduction, the state, market or civil

society? Has implications for what approach should be taken (Chapters 5 and 6).

(b) If development takes place in an area that increases the risk of disaster, what are the responsibilities and obligations of the property developer, the council, the purchaser of the property, and the wider community?

• To ascertain who is responsible for the risk i.e. market, state, or civil

society?

• Implications for how risk governance (Chapter 6) is structured.

4. How should the (often) conflicting interests of economic, social and environmental pros and cons be balanced when there is an opportunity for development in a hazard prone area? For example, a commercial development in a known floodplain (e.g. a supermarket), which will have strong economic and social benefits for the community.

• To gain their view on how the economic, social and environmental elements

• Assists in the decision making process of the risk-based approach, in particular

the economic, social and environmental consequences (Chapter 6).

5. What innovative risk reduction measures are already being undertaken in Thames- Coromandel? What innovative measures should be taken?

• To gain their perceptions of innovation

• Does it relate to the theoretical review of innovation in Chapter 5?

6. Innovative risk reduction provides an opportunity to improve on traditional risk reduction measures.

(a) Why aren’t more innovative risk reduction measures underway?

• To understand their perceived barriers to innovation.

• Implications for innovative framework (Chapter 6) i.e. need to provide

options for overcoming any existing barriers.

(b) What could be done to implement more innovative risk reduction measures?

• To ensure all options are assessed for their availability to encourage

innovation.

• Implications for innovative framework (Chapter 6) i.e. ensure all

opportunities are addressed.

7. Do you think there are any changes required to laws, policies, procedures, etc. to promote innovative risk reduction?

• To consider what (if any) changes are required.

• Assess answers against critique of existing legislative framework outlined in

Chapter 4;

• To consider any recommendations for changes to laws, policies, procedures

etc. in the future (Chapters 4 and 7).

In some instances, an extra question was included to clarify the participants’ position:

A final question was asked of all participants: Do you have any other issues or any

details that weren’t discussed that you would like to discuss? This provided them with

the opportunity to highlight any specific issues that had not been covered by the questions.

The questions were ordered as above to provide a cascading flow to the questions. They start with Question 1, setting the scene for natural hazards in the district. Question 2 then leads on to whether these hazards should be avoided or mitigated against, and at what time. Question 3 follows on from this, as to who should be responsible for the avoidance or mitigation of the risk. Appreciating the social,

economic and environmental benefits of developing in a hazard prone area, Question 4 aims to gain their view on how these factors should be weighted. Questions 5 and 6 then focus on innovation, in particular what is considered innovative, and barriers to implementing innovative measures. Question 7 finalises the semi-structured questions to summarise what changes need to take place to encourage innovative risk reduction measures.

The questions were pre-circulated to allow participants to think and prepare for the interview. Interviews varied in time from 30 minutes to two hours, and took place at a location of the interviewee’s choice. Locations varied from offices (workplace and home) to cafes. Interviews were undertaken on an individual level (i.e. single participant), except for interviews at WRC and MfE, where the participants were interviewed together at their request.

Transcriptions from the interviews were circulated to participants for their confirmation of it being a true and correct record. At this time participants were able to make any changes they felt necessary. The content of the transcripts was then analysed (see Chapter 5 for results).