INDEPENDENT PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN ALL PARTNER COUNTRIES carried out by survey through the use of questionnaires Survey preparation and analysis: RAI Consultants Ltd* MEDSCAPES PROJECT: The development of Landscape Character Assessment as a tool for effective conservation of natural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean (2014 & 2015) Funded by ENPI (European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument) The aim of this two year project was the development of a common methodology for mapping and assessing landscapes in the eastern Mediterranean, to be used by decision-makers in regional planning and resource management, and also by academic institutions as educational material. About the Project By using landscape maps as a tool of analysis and assessment, Medscapes provides support not only to landscape decision-makers, but also to other stakeholders and interested institutions. The mapping included physiographic, cultural, environmental and other landscape elements, contributing to a holistic understanding of the dynamics generated in different regions. This enables those involved in landscape issues to better assess the constantly evolving nature of the landscape and to implement suitable management practices. The project presents new methods for identifying, assessing and conserving key aspects of the landscape character. Furthermore, project activities helped develop and enrich the concept and role of landscape in the eastern Mediterranean. These activities included the publication of a 'Best Practice Methodology'; the development of a 'Community Participatory Process and a Decision Support System'; the establishment of the 'East Mediterranean Landscape Observatory', and the production of educational material for postgraduate courses. The project partners are: In Cyprus: Laona Foundation for the Conservation and Regeneration of the Cyprus Countryside, coordinator Open University of Cyprus (OUC) In Greece: Mediterranean Institute for Nature and Anthropos (Med-INA) University of the Aegean In Jordan: Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN) German Jordanian University (GJU) In Lebanon: Society for Protection of Nature in Lebanon (SPNL) American University of Beirut (AUB) About the Survey (text provided by Laona) The Project s Work Package 2, Communication, Visibility and Dissemination, developed an action plan (CVD Plan) that included Production of a web-site in English, Arabic and Greek Workshops for technocrats and other stakeholders in each country, on completion of the landscape and mapping. Workshops for the same audiences on completion of other project outputs, viz. the HIMA participative process, the risk assessment to landscapes plus the decision support system, and the production of educational material. Follow-up meetings with stakeholder groups. General publicity based on dissemination of a quarterly newsletter in the three project languages, at least six press releases per country (24 in total) and newspaper/radio/tv interviews. RAI Consultants Ltd was established in Cyprus in February 1995, by a team of qualified professionals, each with a solid market and social research background and a vast experience in this domain. It is currently the largest market research agency operating in Cyprus and it is one of the leading agencies in the field of Opinion Polls.
Page 2 of 17 Moreover, para 2.5 of Work Package 2, provided that an assessment of the project s communication impact would be carried out by an independent consultant surveying 1000 people. During the progress of the project it became evident that the requirement for a survey of 1000 respondents aimed at the general public would not provide meaningful results, since there had been no analogous survey at the project outset to provide a base-line for comparisons. It was therefore, proposed to JMA and accepted, to make this survey more meaningful by assessing the views of project stakeholders as to whether the project s outputs were considered useful, and how they might best be utilized. This end-of-project survey was thus re-designed to build on the survey by interview conducted at project start-up. That survey, led by the University of the Aegean, had assessed stakeholders needs and perceptions and involved 15 landscape-related stakeholders from each country (WP4, para 4.1), a total of 60 respondents. The findings from this original questionnaire which contained 29 questions both multi-choice and openended, indicated that although interviewees from private organisations had a better concept of landscape character assessment than academics or technocrats, and although the Arab language does not contain a one-word term for the word landscape, all aspects of the physical and cultural dimensions of landscape were included in interviewees answers. And whereas private and public sector interviewees differed in their assessment as to whether their national legislation adequately protected landscape, there were great commonalities among the four partner countries as to the pressures on and threats facing landscapes. The findings also showed, however, that the understanding of landscape even where it existed, was at a basic level focusing on the visual/aesthetic perspective (Terkenli, 2014). Bearing these findings in mind, it was felt more productive to concentrate our end-of-project survey on these same stakeholders and to identify whether their understanding of landscape had been so enriched that project outputs would be of interest and value to them in a more holistic way. Other stakeholders were also included of which the partners became aware in the course of the project. By narrowing the survey from 1000 members of the general public to about 100 landscape-related respondents, there was a budgetary saving that was transferred into another dissemination activity. The saving was used to fund translations from English to Arabic and Greek for some of our outputs for which there was no budgetary provision in the project. We considered that this would make our project work more readily available to our beneficiaries and therefore assist dissemination more effectively. The end-of-project questionnaire was prepared in cooperation with all partners and the questions were then formatted by RAI, a Cyprus-based research bureau, which also undertook the survey analysis. The questionnaire contained five basic questions, some of them multi-choice three of which evolved into further open-ended questions, plus two open-ended ones. The questionnaires were translated into Arabic and Greek and were disseminated at the various stakeholder workshops and other events held by the partners n their countries, or sent to stakeholders by email. The total number of responses was 96, composed of 26 from Cyprus, 23 from Greece, 32 from Jordan and 15 from Lebanon. Respondents were given the choice of providing their replies anonymously if they wished. Τhe analysis was made by country and by type of question. As will be seen from the graph below the overall composition corresponds largely to the target groups of the CVD plan, in varying percentages. A copy of the questionnaire appears at Appendix 1. Graph no.1 Background composition of respondents
Page 3 of 17 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES 1. How do you know about the Medscapes project? Graph no. 2: Means of awareness about the project During a conference/ seminar/event Through MedScapes newsletters Through a press release University Colleague/work Personal phone call/email Friend/third party 49% 58% 59% 53% 30% 22% 19% 14% 12% 13% 13% 13% 11% 8% 9% 7% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% Total As will be seen from the above graph, getting to know about Medscapes through project-organised events was the most common response in Cyprus, Lebanon and Jordan with over 50% of the interviewees in each country selecting this response. The exception is Greece where 30% of respondents got to know about the project through the project newsletter and only 22% during a project event (this choice ranking second). In the other three countries the second place is held by colleagues and work. We are informed that this difference for Greece is due to the fact that the responses for Lesvos were obtained by contacting recipients of the project s newsletter. It will also be seen from the graph above that other methods of awareness e.g. personal contact, the press, academic colleagues and Medscapes newsletters in general ranked fairly low. 2. Are the project s outcomes useful to you, your organisation and/or others and how? This was a complex question for which many responses had to be given at the personal and collective level. The analysis is given with reference to areas of potential application identified in the questionnaire, viz. regional plans, spatial planning, policy making, implementation of the European Landscape Convention. The responses of all countries are combined in the following six graphs: No.3 useful to me taken as an average from country responses and no. 4 useful to me by country No.5 useful to my organisation taken as an average from country responses and no. 6 useful to my organisation by country No. 7 useful to others taken as an average from country responses and no. 8 useful to others by country A discussion of responses is offered at the end of Graph no.8.
Page 4 of 17 Usefulness to me Graph no.3: whether project s outcomes are useful to me, by area of application (given as an average on the basis of all replies) No Somewhat Yes DK/NA 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 8% 9% 68% 64% 46% 20% 4% In regional plans/projects 1 18% 21% 34% 3 19% 13% 16% 11% In spatial planning In policy-making In ELC implementation Graph no.4: whether project s outcomes useful to me by country (on the basis of all positive replies)
Page 5 of 17 Usefulness to my organisation Graph no.5: whether project s outcomes useful to my organisation, by area of application (as an average of all responses) No (1.0) Somewhat (2.0) Yes (3.0) DK/NA 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 16% 19% 17% 3 53% 61% 63% 4 17% 17% 10% 9% 6% 8% 14% 10% In regional plans/projects In spatial planning In policy-making In ELC implementation Graph no.6: whether project s outcomes useful to my organisation by country (on the basis of all positive responses)
Page 6 of 17 Usefulness to others Graph no.7: whether project s outcomes useful to others by type of application (as an average of all responses) No (1.0) Somewhat (2.0) Yes (3.0) DK/NA 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19% 18% 29% 18% 63% 63% 5 52% 18% 20% 1 21% 1% 4% 6% In regional plans/projects In spatial planning In ELC implementation In policy-making Graph no.8: whether project s outcomes useful to others by country (on the basis of all positive responses)
Page 7 of 17 Discussion The two areas in which respondents from all countries found the project outcomes most useful to themselves were regional plans/projects (68% of all respondents) and spatial planning (64% of all respondents), rising to an impressive 83% and 70% respectively for Greeks. Accepting that responses are a reflection of the composition of participant groups, it is specially interesting that Greek respondents found the project s outcomes regarding all four areas of application, including implementation of the European Landscape Convention, highly useful for themselves, their organisation and others (70% of total) compared to around 50% for Cyprus, Jordan and Lebanon. The responses for the latter two countries are understandable since the ELC does not apply to their countries, but less explicable in the case of Cyprus, except perhaps in the sense that a limited number of officials are involved in implementation of the ELC. Interestingly the responses from all countries showed a strong belief that the project outcomes would be useful to others in their country with average scores ranging from 52% to 62%. This is higher on a per country basis, except for Greece, than the scores given by respondents for usefulness of the outcomes to their own organisation. After indicating their interest, respondents were also asked to indicate how/in which way the project outcomes were useful. This was a rather ambitious open-ended question requiring some time to be spent on reflection, so it is perhaps not surprising that a very high percentage of respondents chose to answer Don t know/not applicable. However, those who took the time to think and respond gave interesting answers of which highest scores were given to developing research projects and assisting in policy-making when planning development projects. Despite the small number of responses to this question, the table below distinguishes between the four areas of application to which they refer (viz. regional planning, spatial planning, policy-making and ELC implementation). Table no.1: In which way were the project outcomes useful? Ways useful In regional plans/projects In developing other research projects 10% 14% Assisting in policies when planning development projects 11% 7% Developing strategies/management for protecting landscapes 4% 7% Ways useful In Spatial planning Assisting in planning decisions 13% Understanding relations between natural elements and types of landscape variability 4% 4% In developing other research projects 4% 13% Ways useful In policy-making Assisting in policies when planning development projects 7% 16% 14% Assisting in planning decisions 7% 9% In developing other research projects 13% Ways useful In ELC implementation In developing other research projects 11%
Page 8 of 17 Assisting in policies when planning development projects 8% 6% Adapting new outcomes 8% 3. Have the project outcomes given you a better insight/understanding regarding (a) landscape? (b) landscape management and (c) how? The response to the first part of this question is given in graph no.9 below while the responses to the open-ended question about the way in which their understanding has improved is given in the table no.2 that follows the graph. For the responses to question 3(b) please see the relevant question on the next page. Graph no.9: Better understanding/insight regarding landscape The same (1.0) Somewhat (2.0) Yes (3.0) DK/NA 100% 90% 4% 13% 7% 80% 70% 60% 50% 66% 77% 48% 66% 73% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 26% 21% 2 1 13% 9% 8% 13% 9% 7% Average This was a key question showing that almost half the respondents in Greece (48%) and well over that figure in other countries gave positive responses, the highest 77%, being from Cyprus. If one considers the composition of respondents from Cyprus at graph no.1 which shows than an above average number of respondents were technocrats it is comforting to know that decision-makers now have a better understanding of the concept. Table no.2: In what respect has the project helped your understanding regarding landscape? Understanding on-going landscape initiatives 4% 13% 7% Understanding relations between natural elements/type of landscape variability 4% 1 7% Improving usage of the land/management of landscapes 8% 7%
Page 9 of 17 Raising awareness of the importance of landscape 8% 3% With general classification/identification of landscape types 4% 3% Coverage of the project is restricted to certain areas DK/NA 73% 80% 81% 86% Approximately 20% of respondents explained their reasons as presented in the table above. Taking into account the earlier comment regarding DΚ/ΝΑ replies, it is clear that a higher percentage of respondents from Cyprus, Jordan and Lebanon consider they have obtained a better understanding, with the top reason being the understanding of landscape initiatives. A lower percentage of Greek respondents improved their understanding and for them the main area of improvement was understanding the relations between natural elements and landscape diversity. 3(b) Have the project outcomes provided a better insight regarding the management of landscape? This question took the inquiry one step further. Respondents were asked to assess whether they had a better understanding, not only of landscape which they had already answered above, but of landscape management. Graph no.10: Better understanding/insight regarding the management of landscape 3% The same (1.0) Somewhat (2.0) Yes (3.0) DK/NA 100% 90% 80% 7% 4% 9% 9% 7% 70% 60% 54% 62% 57% 41% 67% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 41% 26% 1 22% 20% 19% 13% 13% 9% 7% Average While all responses show an encouragingly positive response, the highest percentage of positive replies, 67% came from Lebanon, whereas the highest percentage of those who are unsure 41%, came from Jordan. One could speculate whether the fact that Lebanon is a leader in applying the HIMA system which encourages communities to take collective decisions about common land issues, has already predisposed them to the idea of landscape management.
Page 10 of 17 Table no.3: Reasons given for a better understanding of landscape management based on the 20% of responses which provided reasons Assisting in policies when planning development projects Improving usage of the land/management of landscapes Developing strategies/management for protecting landscapes 8% 3% 7% 8% 3% 8% 3% Understanding on-going landscape initiatives 3% Assisting in planning decisions 4% 3% Understanding relations between natural 4% elements/type of landscape variability Encouraging locals in keeping cultural values & historical sites Raising awareness of the importance of landscape Developing strategies based on society's opinions DK/NA 76% 76% 86% 93% This was possibly the most complicated question (and possibly outside the competence of some respondents), leading inevitably to the highest percentage of DK/NA responses. The percentages for specific replies indicate that only few persons were responding in each group. The highest ranking responses were assisting in policies when planning development projects and improving usage of the land. 4. What kinds of future actions and initiatives do you envision which could further support and develop the landscape cause (landscape planning, protection and management), in your country? Table no.4 below lists the replies to the question What kind of future actions and initiatives do you envision which could further support and develop the landscape cause in your country? Interestingly many respondents offered their views, and judging from the lower percentage of DK/NA responses which did not exceed 48%, it seems that more respondents were prepared to hazard replies than in the previous questions where the percentage of DK/NA responses were rich highs. The highest ranking response is using the project results in policy/decision making. Table no. 4: Future actions envisaged Use of results in policy/decision making 23% 4% 9% Better protection of the landscape 12% 4% 9% 7% Promotion/respect of cultural landscape 12% 4% 6% 7% Better landscape planning 12% 13% Lectures/more workshops/training programs/public 8% 4% 9% 7% awareness campaigns Action planning/implementations 17% 3% 7% Include acting local foundations 4% 9% 6% To establish a landscape typology in the national and 4% 13% 3% regional level Better assessment/detailed scale 12% 4% Integrated and sustainable land management 4% 20%
Page 11 of 17 Changes in landscapes/updating landscape mapping 4% 3% 13% Regulations in cooperation with ministries/municipalities 4% 4% 3% Legislations/regulations 4% 6% Upgrading the area of study to include all the country 9% 3% Sharing of data 4% 6% Increase awareness of landscapes 4% 4% 3% Create a landscape law 4% 4% 7% Better management 8% Identification of objectives 4% 3% Use of results in education 4% 4% To customize the characterization to the country level 4% 3% Internet publishing for geodata base maps 4% 3% Adapting the findings within the National System 4% 3% Classification/identification of landscape types 4% 3% Similar initiative on a social level 4% 3% Practical projects with the target organization 3% 7% DK/NA 42% 3 34% 27% 5. Is there anything else you would like to add? Do you have any suggestions for better utilisation of the Project s outcomes? Table 5 below lists the suggestions and comments of the stakeholders with a fairly high percentage of DK/NA. The highest ranking response was the need to publish the outcomes of the project (34%) followed by better communication of the outcomes so that more people could get to know about them. Table no. 5: Recommendations made by the respondents Publish outcomes of the project 12% 9% 6% 7% Better communication 8% 4% 6% Better promotion of events/presentations 8% 3% Dissemination of results in local communities/authorities 4% 3% 7% Land management planning 4% 4% 3% Upload all reports on the website of the project 4% 3% Targeting different countries from the Mediterranean 3% 7% Better maps 4% To continue with other areas of the country 3% Use of satellites to be an integral part of assessment and monitoring 7% Settlement can also be a source of re-habitation of degraded land Suggest that half the land be managed as Hima & the other half as a natural landscape 7% 7% DK/NA 73% 83% 81% 67%
Page 12 of 17 CONCLUSIONS 1. This survey has answered some useful questions: it confirms that the project has addressed and reached the right stakeholders and that the audience addressed has acquired a better understanding of the term landscape and how it can be used in their work, in four specific areas, viz. regional planning, spatial planning, policy making and implementation of the European Landscape Convention. It is interesting that although the Convention does not apply in two of the partner countries, Lebanon and Jordan, it seems that aspects of the Convention will be used in those countries. 2. It should be remembered however that we are dealing with four countries each at a different level of understanding of landscape, both as a concept and as an element in decision-making. So apart from national comparisons there is probably limited value, if any, in trying to obtain or present a general picture. 3. The low results concerning the effect of newsletters in response to how one heard about the project in Cyprus, Lebanon and Jordan leads us to question the effectiveness of electronic newsletters in a world where everyone is suffering from information overload. On the other hand given the impressively high response from Greece, it could be interpreted that the newsletter recipients in Greece were better targeted than in the other countries. 4. It seems clear that disseminating information about complex matters and landscape characterization is such a matter one has to distinguish between transferring ideas to practicioners and raising the awareness of the general public. Not only should dissemination tools differ, but one has to question whether a short project of two years, addressing a specialist/technocratic issue can also hope to reach the wider public within such a short period. Successful examples from Catalonia, Portugal and Italy indicate that reaching the public is a long term process aided by the establishment of institutions such as dedicated observatories, public participation traditions in land use and introduction of educational material regarding the Landscape concept from school level upwards. Since the Medscapes project is only now setting up these institutions in the partner countries, it was rather over-ambitious and premature to assume that it could reach the general public as well. 5. On the positive side a lot of ideas have been generated, even from a small number of respondents and all these will be available to relevant national agencies. Moreover, it is clear that all national groups, despite differing percentages, have acquired a better understanding than they previously had as to how landscape can be utilized in the decision-making process. This is a gratifying conclusion regarding the usefulness of the Medscapes project.
Page 13 of 17 Appendix I END OF MEDSCAPES PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS/ PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE General information: (Your answers can be in Greek or English) Position Organization Country 1. How do you know about the MEDSCAPES project? (Your answers can be in Greek or English) During a Conference/Seminar/event Through the MedScapes website Through MedScapes newsletters Through a press release Other (please specify): 2. Are the Project s outcomes useful to you, your organization and/or others and how? 2.1 Usefulness to me In spatial planning In regional plans/projects In policy-making In ELC implementation Other (please specify) Yes Somewhat No In what ways (how?) 2.2 Usefulness to my organization Yes Somewhat No In what ways (how?)
Page 14 of 17 In spatial planning In regional plans/projects In policy-making In ELC implementation Other (please specify) 2.3 Usefulness to others: Yes Somewhat No In what ways (how?) In spatial planning In regional plans/projects In policy-making In ELC implementation Other (please specify) 3. After your acquaintance with MedScapes, do you have a better insight or understanding regarding a) the landscape and b) landscape management, and how? Regarding the landscape Regarding landscape management Yes Somewhat The same In what ways (how?) 4. What kinds of future actions and initiatives do you envision which could further support and develop the landscape cause (landscape planning, protection and management), in your country? 5. Thank you. Is there anything else you would like to add? Do you have any suggestions for better utilisation of the Project s outcomes?
Page 15 of 17 Appendix II Table A: Ways useful In regional plans/projects per country In developing other research projects 10% 14% Assisting in policies when planning development projects 11% 7% Developing strategies/management for protecting landscapes 4% 7% Assisting in planning decisions 4% With academic management/lectures 7% Understanding undergoing landscape initiatives With general classification/identification of landscape types Developing strategies in protecting natural heritage sites Understanding relations between native elements/type of landscape variability Improve usage of the land/management of landscapes Encouraging locals in keeping cultural values & historical sites Raising awareness of the importance of landscape Updating knowledge/gis maps 7% Developing strategies based on the society's opinions DK/NA 7 77% 79% 57% 7% 7% Table B: Ways useful In spatial planning per country Assisting in planning decisions 13% Understanding relations between native elements/type of landscape variability 4% 4% In developing other research projects 4% 13% Assisting in policies when planning development projects 4% 13% With general classification/identification of landscape types Improve usage of the land/management of landscapes 4% 13%
Page 16 of 17 Updating knowledge/gis maps 4% With academic management/lectures 4% Developing strategies/management for protecting landscapes Help to reorganize master plans of the municipality 4% Helping students/others in landscape architecture studies 13% DK/NA 80% 87% 71% 50% Table C: Ways useful In policy-making per country Assisting in policies when planning development projects 7% 16% 14% Assisting in planning decisions 7% 9% In developing other research projects 13% With academic management/lectures Developing strategies/management for protecting landscapes Developing strategies in protecting natural heritage sites Encouraging locals in keeping cultural values & historical sites DK/NA 87% 79% 77% 88% Table D: Ways useful In ELC implementation per country In developing other research projects 11% Assisting in policies when planning development projects 8% 6% Adapting new outcomes 8%
Page 17 of 17 Assisting in planning decisions 6% Fundamental if other environmental attributes are incorporated 8% Encouraging locals in keeping cultural values & historical sites DK/NA 77% 84% 94% 100%