PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND
The rationale behind the project is that if citizens have access to information about the changing environment and social conditions in their cities, it will also be possible to encourage them to take action to implement the changes that will support their needs. Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI's) are a way of presenting information about the "state of the city". Policy makers are familiar with indicators, some of which are also known to the public. Often however, the SDI's that are developed are technical in nature and not easily understood by the public. By developing a set of SDI's with the community (CSDI's), that reflect the issues of concern to the general public, and by ensuring that information is easily understood, the indicators will be of more value to citizens. Finally, the dissemination of the community indicators will be most effective and adapted better to the individual areas if published through the local media.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the project was to demonstrate that community sustainable development indicators (CSDI's) could have a significant influence on the awareness and behaviour of individuals when made highly resonant and communicated extensively through the media. The project would test the hypothesis that: · CSDIs can only have a significant influence on the awareness and behaviour of individuals through extensive media coverage; · this coverage would only happen if the indicators are of genuine interest to local people; and · indicators chosen by local people which are suited to community data collection would be of greater interest than indicators based on existing data sources. The hypothesis was to be tested over a three year period in ten European cities: Vienna (Austria); Bristol, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Newcastle (England); Athens (Greece); Belfast and Derry (Northern Ireland); Stockholm (Sweden). Within each city, up to three partners were to be involved. The municipal authority was to be a partner in every city except Vienna. Other partners would be either community-based NGOs or Media organisations. Guidelines would be produced to enable other Cities throughout the European Union to form effective partnerships with the media that would secure the active participation of citizens in sustainable development. The project aimed to increased awareness about sustainable development, European policies, actions and legislation, and change individual behaviour as a result. The evaluation would quantify the changes in awareness and behaviour. Changes in the environmental, social and economic well-being of the cities would be monitored by the indicators. The indicators would most likely cover a whole range of urban issues, as chosen by local people, such as unemployment, crime, waste, health, education, etc.. Over the three year duration of the project there were to be three main activities. 1. Review of CSDI activity in Europe A desk-based literature study, followed by a telephone survey to obtain a broad overview. This would be followed by visits where necessary to obtain detailed information. 2. 2. The CSDI development process On completion of the review, the CSDI development process would commence in each of the ten cities according to the five steps set listed below: Step 1 - Engage the community (identify stakeholders then develop a partnership) Step 2 - Consult the community to identify the issues Step 3 - Develop the indicators to describe the issues Step 4 - Gather the data Step 5 - Communicate the indicators The main focus would be on steps 4 and 5 - gathering and communicating the data. There was also to be a major emphasis on community involvement in data collection. 3. Evaluation of the project impact on community awareness and behaviour A questionnaire was to be designed to investigate public awareness about the sustainable development issues described by the CSDIs. This would include knowledge of local, national and European initiatives. The questionnaire would also establish the extent of individual behaviour for a number of actions relating to the indicators. It would be administered both before and after the communication phase of the CSDI development process and a comparison made of the results. The project outputs were to include a report of the findings of the desk review, a guide to community data collection, a CD ROM guide to media-based communication using indicators, and a project report for public distribution which would include the evaluation results.
RESULTS
For each of the three main activities, the results were as follows: 1. Review of CSDI activity in Europe The desk review was finalised in July 2000 and included a literature search - it was supported by telephone interviews with municipalities across Europe. 1000 copies of the review were published and distributed. The Desk review was also made available on the project's website: http://www.makingnews.org.uk/ The report became quite popular in the partner cities. 2. The CSDI development process Community Engagement, Consultation and Indicator Selection There were a number of key steps involved in developing the CSDI, which took place in the 10 cities of the partnership. These included undertaking public consultations with the public at large and with key stakeholders. Different cities required different approaches to the consultation, based upon previous and possible future actions. However, guidance and support were provided through external consultants to ensure that the consultation was effective and appropriate. Through the consultation each city selected an “indicator set” appropriate to and resonant with the community targeted. A final set of indicators was selected by all of the city partners in March 2001. Community Data Collection Following the development of the indicator set a methodology for data collection was developed in each city. This formed the ground rules to support local organisations and individuals in the collection of the necessary data. The selection of the indicators in the previous task needed to reflect the possibility for community data collection. Data collection started late due to previous delays, and it was decided that the main emphasis of the project should be on communicating the results of the indicators as this was more time critical. Some partners progressed with the data collection quicker than others and the success of this task did vary widely from city to city. 3. Evaluation of the project impact on community awareness and behaviour The project developed an evaluation technique based on questionnaires to test the hypothesis. The evaluation took place before and after the communication of CSDIs to test the hypothesis. The technique was developed in partnership with external consultants and sought to build on previous and contemporary survey work conducted by the European Commission on public attitudes to the environment. Interviews or surveys were carried out with people living in eight of the ten cities involved in August 2001. A total of 653 members of the public, drawn from a wide range of age groups, participated. Results revealed, as expected, a generally low level of public awareness at this point. However, reported levels of local newspaper readership were very high, suggesting the impact of media campaigns over the next year could be considerable. The interviewees also reported a high level of newspaper readership, with nearly 65% claiming to read the environment page of their preferred publication. As with the other cities involved, people were mostly likely to have taken environmental action concerning waste (90 per cent), followed by water, food, transport and energy. These surveys were not repeated in full after the 12-month interval as planned, due to continuing funding problems. Indicator Communication The newspaper, the Leicester Mercury achieved feedback through their readers resulting from the ‘Grot Spot’ campaign, including letters and telephone dialogue with the general public, concerning different ‘grot spots’ around Leicester. Campaigns such as this were very effective in inspiring action amongst the general public. Health matters were covered, starting with an event at Environ’s EcoHouse promoting fruit and health eating. This has also contributed to the establishment of a local food links project to provide a brand for local quality food. Transport was covered encouraging people to cycle in Leicester, since this was popular with the Local Media as it assists in reducing traffic pollution and congestion and also because of its health links. In Newcastle, a Benchmark Evaluation Study was undertaken in spring 2001 shortly after the data collection task began. This was carried out using both face to face (in the street) and telephone (Envirocall customer service line) interviews. The results demonstrated a very low awareness of the project. In the fields of Diversity of Products in the shopping street ‚Vienna’s Reinprechtsdorfer Street’ and Green Space surveys showed a positive tendency for the development of the area Reinprechtsdorfer Street in Margareten. Dissemination Several different dissemination methods were utilised. These focussed primarily on using the media and Environ was able to gain regular and substantial media coverage of issues relating to the indicators in the newspaper, the Leicester Mercury. A website was developed in the first few months of the project, onto which all material produced by the project was placed. The website went on-line in September 2000 as www.makingnews.org. A new website was set up as www.makingnews.org.uk with links to the individual websites of the partners in the project. A leaflet for the project was produced and copies of this were sent to the Commission. Each of the project partners undertook their own local dissemination programme utilising a variety of media. Other material proposed for production during the project included: - CD ROM Guide to Communicating Indicators - Guide to Community Data Collection - Guide to CSDIs for Special Groups - Desk Review of CSDIs in Europe - Public Project Report These products were distributed widely. Other planned actions were not finalised due to difficulties in project implementation.
