REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION SUMMARY
In
order to take forward Action for Sustainability, the Regional Sustainable Development
Framework, it was identified that it was essential that the North West Regional
Assembly engages with all stakeholders within the region, including those traditionally
defined as “Hard to Reach”. Clearly to engage “Hard to Reach”
groups it was first important to define the term “Hard to Reach”. Therefore
the first step taken in the project was to engage with representatives from community
groups throughout the Northwest within a focus group environment. This was achieved
through working in partnership with Community Northwest, a regional membership
organisation with members drawn from all sectors of community activity in the
region. In total 25 community representatives
attended 3 focus groups in Lancaster, Liverpool and Warrington. Feedback from
the participants at the focus groups was used to define a series of engagement
trials that would engage 1000 consumers by direct mail, use video as a tool for
“young people to consult with young people” and build awareness of sustainable
issues through promotional events and activity. From
the focus groups there was clear feedback from participants on their views of
“sustainability”. These views included key words and images such as
“activity and health”, “outdoors and green/organic”, “care,
pure, clean”, “awareness and information is key”, “local activity
is solid and reliable” and “visibility and transparency are important”.
Four key defining characteristics of “Hard to Reach” individuals were
identifed. These were: - Physical
and Geographic - People excluded due to disability, lack of transport or
geographic isolation such as rural communites
- Emotional
- People who choose for whatever reason to be “Hard to Reach” at a period
in their life
- Economic
- It was stressed that low income was not the primary defintion of “Hard
to Reach” people but that it did play a factor. One of the other key issues
that emerged was that “Hard to Reach” people had a mistrust of commercial
messages
- Cultural -People
who are excluded due to language or culture
These
characteristics and views of sustainability were further reinforced during the
engagement trials. Feedback from direct mail was that although it was clear that
people saw sustainability as wider than recycling they still placed a heavy emphasis
on green issues and the environment. Also, whilst particpants recognised that
“Sustainabilty” was the name used and had to remain (“you have
to call it something”) “Sustainability”, as a marketable word was
too large to really understand and this swamped or confused participants. However,
once engaged through the use of core words such as “caring” and “environment”
participants quickly linked the word to health, activity and action. In
summary the key messages from the project are a mistrust of commercial messages,
green issues come first from which we can quickly “jump” to other sustainable
issues and most importantly local activity beats global education in encouraging
real involvement in sustainability. Back
to TOP 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
In order to take forward Action
for Sustainability (AfS), the Regional Sustainable Development Framework, it is
essential that the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) engages with all stakeholders
within the region, including those traditionally defined as “Hard to Reach”.
Evidence from the work undertaken since the adoption
of AfS by the Assembly in 2000, including a series of sector specific engagement
seminars across the region, has indicated that the message of sustainable development
is not reaching or being embraced by those at most disadvantage in society.
The Assembly is seeking to establish the nature of the
barriers to engagement and identify successful methods for securing the engagement
of these groups and individuals. The purpose of this is to ensure that the views
of all sections of the community are considered in the future development of objectives
and priorities within AfS and that the principles of sustainability are made meaningful
to those communities. 1.2
Project Aims
To investigate and analyse the
barriers to engagement regarding sustainable development issues and in doing so
identify successful methods of engagement for future use. 1.3
Project Objectives
- To work with Community
North West to establish links with individuals from “Hard to Reach”
groups
- To draw on the experiences of the individuals/groups
identified to design questionnaires that will be used to obtain the views of a
wider cross-section of the community
- To undertake a
series of events to “road test” the suggested methods of engagement,
based upon this feedback
- To assess the effectiveness
of different methods and from this develop an Action Plan to secure the future
engagement of people within “Hard to Reach” communities
1.4
Project Outcomes
The
key outcomes for this project will be: - Engagement
with 60 people across the region in depth with sustainability issues
- 5000
members of the public engaged through the use of questionnaires, to ascertain
their perception of barriers to engagement in sustainability
- Testing
of different methods of engagement with “Hard to Reach” groups
- Increased
awareness of the barriers to engagement and the subsequent development by the
AfS team of an Action Plan to plan further targeted engagement
1.5
Summary of Methods and Programmes
The project
was split into two phases. The first step taken in the project was to engage with
representatives from community groups throughout the Northwest. This was achieved
through Community Northwest, a regional membership organisation with members drawn
from all sectors of community activity in the region. Clearly to engage “Hard
to Reach” groups it was first important to define the term “Hard to
Reach”. The community representatives were
invited to 3 focus groups covering the North, Central and South sectors of the
region. The primary aims of the focus groups were to: In
total 25 community representatives attended the 3 focus groups in Lancaster, Liverpool
and Warrington. One focus group was held at David Lloyd in Speke as it had recently
won a regeneration award and represented a real example of sustainability in action.
Feedback from the participants at the focus groups was used to define a series
of engagement trials. These were: · Direct
mail with freepost reply postcards to 1000 members of the public covering ethnic
minorites, low income families and people with an interest or involvement in community
and voluntary activity · Video participation activity
with young people in Cumbria and St. Helens young people would produce and direct
their own ten minute video short on the issues of sustainability and their understanding
of them · Attendance at a mid scale promotional
event in Carlisle City Centre to distribute freepost reply postcards The
key elements of the project were to actively listen to participants, make ongoing
improvements throughout the project based on participants recommendations and
carry out the project in a time restricted period and to a budget that could be
replicated post trial phase. 1.6
Main Conclusions
The following common characteristics
of “Hard to Reach” groups were defined by participants at the focus
groups: Common issues faced: Poverty
Health and stress
Disaffectedness
Marginalised
Lack of ‘security’
Often have a ‘primary issue’ that is their focus to address such
as community safety, health, transport or housing issues
Reduced ability
to travel
Disability and literacy issues
“Don’t need to know”
i.e. those who are finacially secure and are remote from the issue
Common
feelings and emotions: Powerless
Inequality
Feel that ‘secret’ decisions are made
Less likely to be involved
in decision making process
Think locally
Strong value positions
Remoteness and privacy
Other common defining factors: Swamped
with decisions to make. ““Hard to Reach” is someone who doesn’t
know where to start”
Small things matter. “It is a mistake to assume
“Hard to Reach” people are not discerning”
Everyone can be
“Hard to Reach” at some point. The participants invited to the focus
groups identified “Hard to Reach” as wider than low income i.e.“no
money, no job”. This is best defined by the following comment: ““Hard
to Reach” as a statement is flawed. Make’s you think of poverty. However
“Hard to Reach” is not just about the poorest groups. “Hard to
Reach” individuals are people who choose not to be reached”. This definition
could also include those individuals who don’t know the NWRA are trying to
reach them.
Views of sustainability as defined
by the words and phrases used: Running and active Outdoors Green/organic Soft
muted colours Care, pure, clean Awareness
and information is key Commitment Information Health Local
activity is solid and reliable Quality brands matter Easier Natural Visibility
and transparency Associate with success, a benefit and
reduced time i.e. make it easier to be sustainable These
characteristics and views of sustainability defined at the focus groups were further
reinforced during the engagement trials. A clear example of “remoteness”
was that during the video trail there was only one bus home for many participants
who would have otherwise engaged with us in the rural areas. Also one key theme
from direct mail feedback was that although it was clear that people saw sustainability
as wider than recycling they still placed a heavy emphasis on green issues and
the environment. Whilst participants recognised that “Sustainabilty”
was the name and had to remain (“you have to call it something”) “Sustainability”
as a marketable word was too large to really understand and this swamped or confused
participants. However once the participants were engaged through the use of core
words such as “caring” and “environment” they quickly linked
the word to wider sustainability issues such as health, activity and action.
4 key demographics of “Hard
to Reach” people: The participants
in the focus groups suggested that we market to ‘everybody’ but group
by the following key segments: 1. Physical and
Geographic. People excluded due to disability, lack of
transport or geographic isolation such as rural communites
2.
Emotional. People who choose for whatever reason to be
“Hard to Reach” at a period in their life
3.
Economic It was stressed that this is not the primary
defintion of “Hard to Reach” people but that it did play a factor. One
of the other key issues that emerged was that “Hard to Reach” people
had a mistrust of commercial messages. (Please note: no research was carried out
on those individuals for whom branding and labels were important as it became
clear that a key definer of “Hard to Reach” individuals (in this project)
was a mistrust of commercial messages)
4. Cultural People
who are excluded due to lanaguage or cultural barriers
Think
Globally but Engage Locally: It was agreed
(at the focus groups) that a key issue for engaging with “Hard to Reach”
groups was that activities should be localised. To meet this criteria key local
people were engaged in designing and delivering the trials. It was clear from
the speed at which trust was built locally that involvement of local people especially
local young people reduced barriers. Activity was key in creating a real shift
in understanding of the issues of sustainability. However localisation does create
issues of scale, realistic budgets and the need for contingencies if the local
contact was unable to be involved. In summary
the common defining factors are a mistrust of commercial messages, green issues
come first from which we can quickly “jump” to other sustainable issues
and most importantly local activity beats global education in encouraging real
involvement in sustainability.
Back
to TOP | 
