Stage One

This stage investigated all the natural resources aspects of the study. It investigated the following: underlying perception of the understanding of the general public; the most significant natural resource issues; knowledge gaps, real world examples that explained the gaps; and defined basic requirements for reasonable understanding of the identified issues.

The aim of this stage was to identify natural resource dynamics that would benefit from greater understanding and dissemination within the community. One of these dynamics was then to be chosen as the topic for the final TUI application of the research.

Secondly, the research set out to determine the defining requirements of the term encourages understanding of natural resources. These parameters were obtained by questioning experts to identify what should be understood. The responses provided a reasonable minimum level of understanding (facts and theories) required to demonstrate some understanding of the concepts in the stage one expert opinion. The same process was used to quantify the underlying perception that the general public struggle to understand the dynamic nature of natural resources specifically the way that changes in one natural resource influences another in direct and sometimes indirect ways – from the stage one experts’ perspective.

Importantly, the starting point for stage one was to identify the current natural resource issues most significant to Tasmania, because current significant problems should elicit the most relevance to and attached meaning for the target audience.

3.5.1.1 Semi-structured Interview of local experts

A more balanced approach, than a desktop review, is to ask those who are affected by natural resource issues in a professional capacity, preferably experts with extensive experience. A qualitative semi-structured interview of such experts suits the purpose well ensuring that all subjects are asked the same questions, yet have the flexibility to reply in their own terms supplying more or less information as their own expertise dictates (Oates, 2006). The semi-structured interview provides comparative qualitative data. A minimum of 15 subjects is needed to reflect the views of the population (Sokal & Rohlf, 1995).

The natural resource expert semi-structured interview aims to obtain information about real world examples, key principles, overall take home message and essential elements of the natural resource problem that should be known but are not generally well understood. Some responses provide the foundation to define the boundaries for the study. Other questions seek information about knowledge gaps, specifically the key elements for understanding the natural resources issue, which address the requirements

for how the comprehension of dynamics of natural resources are determined. The responses from the semi-structured interviews contribute information to answer the first research question.

The results from the experts supply three sections of information that define the boundaries for the study:

1. identification of specific instances of Dynamics of Natural Resources that are a

significant natural resource issue potentially suitable for the study,

2. a breakdown of the facts and concepts that underlie these instances, along with

relevant experts, location of datasets and real world examples. The breakdown when combined with results from stage two, provides sufficient information for

development of a method to meet the comprehension of dynamics of natural

resources requirement of the study and

3. the definition of levels of understanding representing depth of knowledge, where

the lowest level is the simplest view, while the highest level is a detailed knowledge and understanding of the interconnectedness of elements within the instance of dynamic of natural resources.

The interview was conducted primarily in–person at the offices of the participant, because it ‘puts the interviewee at ease because of the familiar surroundings and is in context of the interview topic’ (Sharp et al. 2011, p. 237). Also, the interviewee is less inconvenienced and has access to his or her own supporting material, if required. Participants outside of Launceston were interviewed by telephone.

All interviews were recorded for audio to ensure accuracy of transcription of responses.

3.5.1.2 Participants for Stage One

The aim of the first stage of the research was to identify natural resource dynamics that would benefit from greater understanding and dissemination within the community. The participants in stage one were adults who have extensive experience in natural resources - preference was shown to those who currently work in natural resource disciplines. Participants were preferred to have a minimum of 3 years work experience with natural resources involvement.

The study requested a participant from each of the main organisations that make extensive use of natural resource information, refer Figure 14. Participants were sourced from, but not restricted to, the following organisations: NRM North, federal government, state government, local government, environmental consultancies, UTAS, Environment Tasmania and volunteer natural resource organisations. Using a broad selection of agencies as a pool for participants was intended to ensure a balance of viewpoints reflecting the views of the whole population of natural resource experts. Representative were included from organisations that significantly impact the environment, both adversely and in a supportive role. The pool of participants ideally included participants from traditionally opposing viewpoints and perspectives, such as Forest Industry and Conservation, in the interest of balance. A minimum of 15 participants was required as this is the smallest sample meeting the requirements for qualitative analysis (Guest et al., 2006), however a sample of 20-30 was preferred.

Potential candidates were approached to participate in a semi-structured interview.

Figure 14: Tasmanian Organisations involved with Natural Resources

3.5.1.3 Assessment - Questionnaire Design

The semi-structured interview questions were a mix of open and closed questions. Initially all the questions were designed as open questions because they are ‘especially useful for questions when you realize there is a wide range of possible answers, or you

do not know how the respondents are likely to answer’ (Oates 2006, p. 223). Open questions encourage flexibility with answers in the respondent’s own words. However, time constraints by the experts limited the time available for interview. Preliminary consultation with potential participants indicated the interview session length should be no more than one hour – including project brief, all questions and all post interview discussion.

Pilot tests of early interviews showed they took too long to complete, therefore some questions were replaced with closed questions with multiple-choice tick boxes derived from the range of pilot test answers. Review of the audio logs highlighted questions that took the longest to answer and also highlighted questions where the participant was unsure of what was expected. These confusing questions were rephrased for clarity, while the time consuming questions were optimised based on post interview feedback about the interview.

In the interview each participant was required to identify three natural resource issues that they deemed particularly significant. Successive questions harvested details specifically relating to the primary purpose of each of the issues. Three issues was determined to be an optimal number; the pilot study showed that choosing a single natural resource issue was difficult (and prolonged), whilst choosing five natural resource issues was too many, as participants tended to nominate issues quickly with apparently little thought for their significance. Limiting the selection to just three caused the participants to pause for thought, but not for too long. Also, asking for the issues in no particular order significantly hastened the thought time. The survey evolved as a balance between ideal and achievable, given the time constraints of participants. The revised interviews could be completed within 30 minutes.

The closed questions were a mix of Likert scale (Benyon, 2010), yes/no and tick all that

apply pre-determined answers. The Likert scales all ranged from the most negative on

the left to the most positive on the right. Likert scales are particularly designed to collect perceptions and are the most common method to elicit opinions (Benyon, 2010). One restriction of closed questions is that they may miss an answer that a respondent wants to give (Oates, 2006). To allow for this condition, all closed questions in the questionnaire contained an optional freeform comments line to remove limitations on potential responses.

3.5.1.4 Analysis

The quantitative information gathered in stage one was analysed using Excel for closed questions having an empirical answer, such as a number or a Likert scale. All questions with ordinal or numeric responses were analysed in Excel. These questions were analysed only using basic summary statistics and graphs.

The qualitative data analysis (QDA) computer software package NVivo was used to analyse all quantitative questions. For example: interview question three requests three natural resource issues that the participant feels are significant to the environment. These issues were entered as parts i, ii and iii to the question. In this way there were three times as many natural resource issues as there are participants. However, parts i, ii and iii were all analysed as if they are the answer to the same question. Natural resource issues that have similar meaning were coded as equivalent. An independent natural resource expert verified this coding. The issues were ranked them in order of importance by their frequency.

At the end of the analysis all information directly related to each Natural Resource Issue was collated using searches within NVivo, then exported to a single Excel spreadsheet. This created a single page summary document containing the justification of the issue, comprehension gaps, real world examples and main cause and effect relationships for each significant natural resource issue.