Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Scottish Independence Forum 3 June13 (Second Half)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Scottish Independence Forum 3 June13 (Second Half)


Data from the second half of the 3rd June forum on Scottish Indepedence.

Data from the second half of the 3rd June forum on Scottish Indepedence.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • We can continue like this for as many questions as we have time for, but each will probably require a minimum of 15 minutes. If we are feeding a larger information system then we should focus on what people still need to know. If we are gathering information about where participants’ opinions lie, then gathering comments moves us further in that direction.
  • We can combine questions and comments or have one slide each for each question, depending on the number of topics we want to tackle.
  • We can combine questions and comments or have one slide each for each question, depending on the number of topics we want to tackle.


  • 1. Phew! Now it’s Break Time! • When we come back we’ll delve into the most important questions in more detail. • Be back in 15 minutes.
  • 2. Form of the Session • Short Presentations on the most relevant, least informed topics. • Feedback from Participants • Question 1: – Presentation/Discussion – Feedback. • Question 2: etc…
  • 3. To what extent will the likely result of the 2015 UK general election influence your vote? Notatall Onlyslightly M oderately ConsiderablyItw illm atter... 43% 18% 11% 18% 11% 1. Not at all 2. Only slightly 3. Moderately 4. Considerably 5. It will matter greatly
  • 4. Do you consider yourself to be: EntirelyScott... M ore Scottish ... Equally Scotti... M ore British t...EntirelyBriti... Other 11% 26% 2% 9% 4% 48% 1. Entirely Scottish 2. More Scottish than British 3. Equally Scottish and British 4. More British than Scottish 5. Entirely British 6. Other
  • 5. Do you believe an independent Scotland should have a written constitution? Yes No 74% 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 1. Yes 2. No
  • 6. Are you concerned that an independent Scotland will not be able to pay her way? Yes No 83% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1. Yes 2. No
  • 7. NOW How Certain Are You of Your Vote? I’m QuiteCert... I’m PrettySur... I’m Leaning To... IAm StillThi... 41% 6% 24% 29% 1. I’m Quite Certain 2. I’m Pretty Sure I Know How I’ll Vote 3. I’m Leaning Toward A Particular Decision 4. I Am Still Thinking About It.
  • 8. Of the Questions We’ve Posed Today, How Many of Them Do You Believe Will be Answered by September 18, 2014? M ostofAllof... The M ajority AboutHalf M aybeOneQuar... Alm ostNone of... 2% 13% 22% 33% 29% 1. Most of All of Them 2. The Majority 3. About Half 4. Maybe One Quarter 5. Almost None of Them
  • 9. Do You Expect that You Will Have Enough Information to Make a Confident Decision? Yes No NotSure 60% 15% 25% 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not Sure
  • 10. How satisfied are you with this process? 42% 10% 31% 0% 6% 0% 6% 0% 6% 1. Very unsatisfied 2. 3. Moderately unsatisfied 4. 5. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6. 7. Moderately satisfied 8. 9. Very satisfied
  • 11. The Structured Public Involvement team High Performance Participation for Better Governance The Structured Public Involvement team
  • 12. Who are we? And why listen? More than a decade of high performance process design. More than thirty successful public involvement projects. Professional awards e.g. Herrington Award (2008) Variety of partners (e.g. Federal and State agencies, Metro Planning Organizations, citizens gropus, private consultants). More than ten thousand stakeholders involved. Fifty peer-review publications. Committee memberships on National Academies panels. Service on professional organizations, journal, grant proposal review from environmental management to civil engineering. Largest Arnstein Ladder data set published internationally. Largest Q-metric data set for public processes. SPI. Just Google it!
  • 13. Some SPI Projects Scottish Independence Forum. Perth, Scotland (June 2013) Partners: University of the Third Age; University of Dundee; Five Million Questions. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: Collaborative Visioning for Future State Use (2009-11) Partners: US Department of Energy; Paducah; Ballard County; numerous organizations inc. Chamber of Commerce; West End Neighborhood Association. Large context-sensitive bridge design: Western Kentucky Bridges Project (2007-08) Partners: FHWA; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet; Michael Baker Associates.
  • 14. Some SPI Projects Louisville Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project (2005-07) Partners: Ky Cabinet; Ohio DoT; City of Louisville; Jeffersonville, IN; TARC; Michael Baker Associates; Parsons Brinkerhoff; numerous local groups. Participatory Electric Power Transmission Line Routing (2004-06) Partners: National Science Foundation; University of Arizona; University of Kentucky; several electric utility companies. Integrated Transportation/Land Use Planning, Jeffersonville, IN (2006-08) Partners: Federal Highway Administration; City of Jeffersonville, IN. Community-Based Transit-Oriented Development, Louisville, KY (2001-03) Partners: Federal Transit Administration; Federal Highway Administration; Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY.
  • 15. Process Metrics: Q, I, C and E Criterion Indicator Data Inclusion Number of organizations, citizens and groups Count attendees, participant groups Process quality Satisfaction Open quality evaluation Clarity/utility of decision support Expert evaluation Testimonials, narratives, comparisons to state of the art methods Efficiency Cost and time $ spent on public involvement, time taken and demanded
  • 16. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Q I C E Focus group methods Town hall Deliberative democracy SPI Online participation Phone survey Comparison of process methods across QICE
  • 17. Metrics: Q 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rural Highw ay improvement (KY, 2000) Transit Oriented Development (KY, 2002) Noisew all Design (KY, 2004) Noisew all Design (AZ, 2006) Bridge AAT (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 1 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 2 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 3 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 4 (KY, 2005) Bridge Meeting 5 (KY, 2005) Land Use Planning (KY, 2005) Bypass study (KY, 2008) Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007) Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007) Mean satisfaction with SPI Processes
  • 18. Wrap Up and Summary: • • “Structured Public Involvement” • You can Google the term for information, project data, articles, and more