VULNERABILITY METHODOLOGY

The interviews detailed above aimed to establish practical methods being used to assess and monitor climate change impacts on cultural heritage. The development of a vulnerability assessment method goes towards addressing an identified gap within the current practice.

The potential impacts of climate change on the case study sites of Brú na Bóinne and Skellig Michael were assessed using a Vulnerability Framework developed in this thesis (chapter 6).

The method adapts previous work by Schröter, Woodside, and the author, to the current purpose (Woodside, 2006, Schröter et al., 2005, Daly, 2008). The provision of downscaled future climate data by the Climate for Culture project provided the opportunity to utilise state of the art modelling to heritage sites in Ireland for the first time. Further discussion on the methodological issues and final Vulnerability Framework will be provided in chapter six.

The development of indicators is part of the vulnerability methodology but has wider implications for tracking climate change impacts. A detailed review of indicator theory and sources for the indicators utilised in the case study assessments are provided in chapter nine.

2 Pauline Kleinschmidt Knudsen, National Museum of Greenland, [email protected], 24.1.2012.

62

The need for site specific indicators lead to the development of a Legacy Indicator Tool (LegIT), the methods and activities relating to this are detailed in chapter ten.

2.6.1. Stakeholder interviews Design

For the vulnerability assessment of Skellig Michael and Brú na Bóinne interviews were conducted with specialists, guides, management and local stakeholders. The aim was to build as complete a picture of the sites and their vulnerabilities as possible. Initially semi-structured interviews were conducted but as the process evolved it was decided that a structured approach would yield more information (Appendix 2). This was because many respondents had little familiarity with the subject of climate change. A University College London study illustrated the use of structured stakeholder consultation; it outlined climate change scenarios and impacts before asking for opinions on risk (Cassar, 2005). For this thesis a brief general description of predicted climate change was outlined using bullet points (see Appendix 2, Q.3. stakeholder consultation documentation). The Impacts Matrix (table 3.1) developed from the literature review was also adapted and used as a menu for the respondents.

Administration

Most interviews were carried out in person or by phone; in a few instances respondents preferred to self-administer and this was accommodated. The face to face and phone interviews were recorded (subject to permission). Some of the semi-structured stakeholder interviews for Brú na Bóinne conducted in 2008 for a Masters in World Heritage thesis

63

(Daly, 2008) were included in the analysis. This occurred with five individuals (see list of contributors Appendix 4) all of whom were contacted in writing to obtain permission for this use of their data. They were also asked if they had further involvement with the topic in the intervening period, and if they had any comments in relation to the structured set of questions. Two of the five respondents volunteered to be interviewed again using the structured interview format.

Analysis

All of the recorded interviews were transcribed in full. Given the diversity of stakeholder backgrounds, the interview material varied greatly and general thematic analysis was not practical. The recordings, transcripts and written submissions were used to fill in a spreadsheet divided according to question and respondent. Once assembled in this format the data could be extracted and organised under headings that correspond to the elements of vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Further categorisation was then carried out as the Vulnerability Framework was implemented, with the information being used to evaluate potential effects of different climate impacts on identified values. Thus, the spreadsheet was used as a reference data-bank for completing the Vulnerability Framework.

Limitations

Given the complexities of climate change and the holistic nature of the vulnerability approach, ensuring relevance of the questions to every stakeholder was problematic. Foddy discusses applicability when designing interview questions, i.e. respondents should not be asked for information which they don’t have or should be provided with a suitable filter such

64

as ‘undecided’ or ‘don’t know’ (Foddy, 2001). While many of the stakeholders interviewed were expert in their field they generally did not have the knowledge to comment on all aspects. For this reason respondents were verbally asked to give their opinion only where they felt comfortable at the start of the interview. In the phrasing of the closed questions (1

& 2) the option unsure was included. In questions four and five the phrase based on your knowledge was included to the same end.

2.6.2. Stakeholder review

The purpose of stakeholder review was to inform those expert stakeholders who contributed to the vulnerability analysis of the results and to obtain their feedback. In this case, the review was carried out by contacting the individuals by post with hard copies of the assessment, followed up by Email and phone reminders. Each stakeholder was sent the following documents, for either Skellig Michael or Brú na Bóinne, by post (see Appendix 2):

• Draft copy of the vulnerability analysis chapter with personal communications attributed to the relevant individual highlighted in red.

• Feedback form asking for comments, corrections and approval of both the results and personally attributed information.

• Summary table of the vulnerability assessment results.

• Cover letter.

• Stamped self addressed envelope.

Comments on the accuracy of the results were invited as well as on any omissions or factual errors within the text. The comments from the returned forms were used to correct factual

65

errors and refine the findings. The general consensus on the appropriateness and usefulness of the findings provided validation of both the method and the result.

Limitations

The limitations of the individual researcher were most apparent in the design of the stakeholder feedback method. Focus group was the method initially considered for obtaining respondents comments, and a seminar followed by discussion session for all stakeholders was devised. Attendance at a seminar or workshop requires time away from work however, involves travel costs and personal inconvenience. As the respondents were distributed around Ireland (see list in Appendix 4) bringing them together would have been logistically difficult necessitating substantial amounts of travel for many individuals. For a researcher operating under the auspices of an institution these obstacles may be surmountable. For example inter-departmental meetings could be arranged, travel expenses paid and time away from work officially sanctioned. In the case of an independent researcher however, the focus group scenario was found to be unfeasible. For this reason one-to-one review was finally selected as the method for obtaining feedback. Although contacting each contributor individually to obtain their comments and approval was time consuming, nevertheless it was effective in obtaining an 80% response rate and was therefore an appropriate solution for this thesis.