"A Survey of Stakeholders over Davis Pond Diversion"
A Survey of Stakeholders Opinions on the Davis Pond Diversion (Sponsor: Louisiana Sea Grant) Jae-Young Ko, PhD Coastal Ecology Institute Louisiana State University Premises & Objectives (1) • Decision-making based on well-informed understanding of the diversion is critical. Fact- based-decisions as much as possible will lead to the best decisions about operating the diversion. • Significant gaps between the perceptions and the facts might result in unnecessary conflicts among stakeholders. Premises & Objectives (2) • However, we are not sure – Whether all major conflicts/concerns among stakeholders are clearly understood; – Whether the current communication channels between decision-makers and local stakeholders are working properly. Premises & Objectives (3) • We want to accomplish the following objectives: - find out and document explicit and implicit sources of conflicts and concerns; - measure initial perceptions and understanding of the diverse participants - pass out scientific, historical, legal, and other socio- economic information through newsletters over three months - evaluate the impacts of the information distribution - use this information to provide input to the structure operation Background We carried out a similar stakeholder survey for the Caernarvon diversion View Down Mississippi From New Orleans To Delta Breton Sound Caernarvon Photo by M. Allison Diversion Structure 1100 km2 Breton Sound • Courtesy of Emily Hyfield Low Flow (<40 m3s-1) High Flow (211 m3s-1) Discharge (m3 sec-1) 250 200 150 100 50 0 F M M A SS OO NN DD JJ F M AA M JJ JJ AA SS OO NN DD JJ FF MM AA MM JJ JJ A -- 2000 -- ---------------2001------------- --------2002-------- • Courtesy of Emily Hyfield Stakeholder Analysis of the Caernarvon study Objective: to reflect diverse opinions of various stakeholder groups (e.g., land owners, shrimpers, oyster fishermen, local people, scientists, agency personnel), aiming for improved communication among the multiple groups about the river diversion, and developing the basis for optimal operation of the diversion facility. Period: October, 2001-2002 Method: a questionnaire distribution through meetings, mailing and a door- to-door delivery, including on-the-spot interviews. Among the 106 responses from local people in parishes of Plaquemines (24 %) and St. Bernard (26 %), New Orleans (9 %), other areas in Louisiana (37%), and out-of state (3 %). Preliminary results (Questionnaire; targets: NGO, locals, experts, gov’t ; n=106) Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know Answer (%) Q1. Is the coastal wetland loss a serious problem? 84.6 12.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 Q2. Does the diversion improve ecological condition in Breton Sound? 56.6 23.6 3.8 5.7 6.6 3.8 Q3. Does the diversion increase oyster production? 24.8 17.1 11.4 15.2 16.2 13.3 Q4. Does the diversion increase largemouth bass production? 64.4 13.5 3.8 1.0 2.9 12.5 Q5. Does the current level of diversion reduce the land loss problem? 38.7 30.2 10.4 4.7 6.6 6.6 Parishes New Louisiana Shrimpers Oyster Sports Land Orleans fishers fishers owners Frequency (as 1st choice) Q6. Who is getting benefit from the diversion? 41 6 17 4 5 22 20 Q7. Who is experiencing disadvantages from the diversion? 2 5 14 23 46 4 8 Q8. What is the main information source for your responses? (%) Personal News Town Local School/ Other experience media meeting gathering education 65.6 10.9 0.0 1.0 11.9 10.9 Preliminary conclusions of the stakeholder analysis for the Caernarvon study • Significant perception differences exist among groups and local people about the diversion even though there is strong agreement about the land loss problem. • It is not easy to define losers and winners from the impacts of restoration project. • There is access to decision makers, but most local stakeholders don’t use it. Diversion Structure 1100 km2 Breton Sound • Courtesy of Emily Hyfield Preliminary conclusions of the stakeholder analysis for the Caernarvon study • Significant perception differences exist among groups and local people about the diversion even though there is strong agreement about the land loss problem. • It is not easy to define losers and winners from the impacts of restoration project. • There is access to decision makers, but most local stakeholders don’t use it. Working Plan • April 27, 2005. Initial meeting of the focus group - Explain project; measure initial understanding • April 27- July 6, 2005. Bi-weekly newsletter containing information of scientific, historical, legal, and other socio-economic issues over the Davis Pond Diversion (6 volumes). • July 21, 2005. The second meeting of the focus group – Evaluate impacts of the information distribution – Discuss for optimal operation of the diversion over diverse stakeholder interests • Your active participation is CRITICAL! • We need your input for a successful project! • Contact info: Jae-Young Ko, email@example.com, 225-578-6505 Emily Hyfield, firstname.lastname@example.org, 225-578-2732