This project is a single-case study of two COAST workshops in Broward County, Florida. This particular case was selected because it provided an opportunity for me to observe how to facilitate a new approach to the process of policymaking – identifying and engaging local stakeholders in deliberation about regional planning for climate change adaptation. Additionally, the larger context of this case
29
(scientific uncertainty) has provided data and useful insight into how non-scientists and decision makers perceive of and respond to risk and uncertainty.
The first COAST workshop was held on January 29, 2015 from 9:00am – 4:00pm at the Garfield Community Center in Hollywood, Florida (approximately 11 miles south of Ft. Lauderdale). The second workshop was held on March 26, 2015 from 9:00am – 1:30pm at the I.T. Parker Community Center in Dania Beach, Florida (approximately five miles south of Ft. Lauderdale). Participants included local stakeholders and private citizens, with the majority of participants consisting of county commissioners, urban planning and design professionals, transportation engineers, water advisory board members, and local business owners.1 The majority of participants for the in-depth interviews conducted for this dissertation were identified during the second COAST meeting, as described below. A total of 50
participants attended workshop one and 45 participants (consisting of 27 who had attended workshop one and 18 new participants) attended workshop two.
2.3.1 Field Notes
I attended both workshops as a grant team member and as an observer taking field notes. In the field notes for workshop one, I focused on transcribing as much communication as possible – everything from the grant team’s presentations to participants’ questions and conversations during the deliberative sessions of these workshops. Field notes for workshop one consist of 13 single-spaced pages of notes taken during this seven-hour meeting and workshop two field notes consist of seven single-spaced pages of notes taken during the three-hour meeting. Workshop two field notes focus primarily on the
deliberative sessions of the workshop, in which a grant team member facilitated participants’ discussion about the feasibility of the adaptation options that had been modeled based upon participants’ votes in workshop one (elevation/floodproofing and voluntary relocation).
1 See Appendix D for a list of workshop attendees.
30 2.3.2 Surveys
The second source of data used in this project was collected from two surveys, which were developed by the grant team and administered to participants at both workshops. The first survey
(referred to throughout as “survey one”) collected participants’ demographic information (e.g., age range, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation, level of education) as well as information about their experiences with coastal hazards, their level of concern about the short- and long-term implications of coastal hazards, preferences for adaptation actions and a preferred timeframe within which to take action, as well as preferences for funding sources (e.g., a county-wide resiliency fund, an increase in sales tax, a low-interest loan program, etc.).2 Although the grant team developed this survey prior to my involvement with the grant, I participated in the review and revision of the survey questions and asked that the following question be added to the survey (survey one, question eight): “Some people in your community may NOT want to support local government adaptation plans. What do you think are some of the most common reasons for not supporting plans?” This question was developed to provide this project and the grant team with data on the specific, local barriers to adaptation in this community. The information provided in this question contributed significantly to the process of reframing climate change adaptation in this region – the purpose of Chapter Four of this project. This question was also a response to calls for researchers to analyze the specific barriers of a community (e.g., attitudes, values) and to define very clearly what may prevent individuals in this region from supporting adaptation and other climate-related initiatives
(Eisenack et al., 2014; Gifford, 2011; Moser & Eckstrom, 2010). Understanding these specific barriers to action informed my approach to developing alternative terms for communication and framing about coastal adaptation in this region – terms that are hopefully more situated, democratic and rhetorical.
The second survey (referred to throughout as “survey two”) was administered to participants at the end of workshop two, after they had been presented with the cost-benefits analysis of the two adaptation actions and participated in deliberative sessions to discuss the feasibility and likelihood of
2 See Appendix E for Survey One.
31
implementing those adaptation actions in their communities. This survey asked most of the same questions as survey one, in order to allow for analysis that could assess changes in participants’ choices about adaptation over time. However, it also asked three new questions. The first new question asked about participants’ preferences for action (i.e., now, in the next 10 years, in the next 25 years, in the next 100 years, never or “unsure”) regarding the two adaptation actions discussed during workshop two.3 The second question asked about participants’ opinions about the clarity and trustworthiness of the technical information presented (i.e., the GIS maps showing levels of inundation in the study area), whether they felt more knowledgeable about adaptation and coastal hazards as a result of attending the workshops, and whether they agreed with the judgments expressed by other participants during the deliberative sessions.
The third question asked participants to identify their intentions for acting on what they had learned during the workshops. This multiple-choice question included options such as, “contact my local elected official …” and “conduct an internal review of plans and budgets.”4
2.3.3 In-Depth Interviews
In addition to the two sources identified above – field notes and surveys one and two – data was also obtained through in-depth interviews which were held during the week of May 4-8, 2015 at neutral locations throughout south Florida that were convenient to the respondents.5 The sample size consisted of 10 respondents (n=10) and the study population was defined as stakeholders and private citizens who had attended both COAST workshops. Out of a total of 50 participants at workshop one and a total of 45 participants at workshop two, 10 agreed to in-depth interviews. The interviews were conducted face to face and each interview lasted from between 60 to 90 minutes. Interview scheduling was coordinated by email and per IRB protocol for human subjects considerations, participants’ verbal informed consent was obtained prior to interviewing and at this same time, participants were provided with a brief synopsis of
3 See “Q” and “R” of question five on Survey Two; Appendix F.
4 See Appendix F for the complete list of options for question 12 on survey two.
5 See Appendix G for the interviewing instrument.
32
the research purpose and goals after obtaining consent.6 All interviews were transcribed and together, the 10 interviews consist of approximately 50 pages of documentation.