A
Report on
the
Individuals and Bat Groups Survey Results
and
Recommendations
for
BCT
Prepared by:
Dawn Wood & Caroline Stewart
Senior Management Consultant Research Executive
September 2008
1
actionplanning
Waymark House, 19 Cedar Road Sutton, Surrey SM2 5DA
Tel: 020 8642 4122 Fax: 020 8770 2090
Email: Web: www.actionplanning.co.uk
Contents
1. Methodology 3
2. Summary of Key Findings 4
3. Comments on Survey Findings and Recommendations 8
Appendix 1 – Individuals Survey Results 15
Appendix 2 – Bat Groups Survey Results 35
44
1. Methodology
Action Planning was commissioned to assist the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) with a second stage consultation. The aim of the consultation is to gather feedback on the proposed direction of the structure governing BCT’s relationship with Bat Groups and on the regional meeting as the future model of communication and representation.
This process involved conducting an online survey for individuals and a postal survey for Bat Groups. Two questionnaires and an accompanying consultation paper were developed by Action Planning in conjunction with BCT. The questionnaire covered the following topics:
· Views on the proposed regional meeting model.
· Views on the proposed model of how Bat Groups might relate to BCT in the future, including Partner Groups, Network Groups and Groups with no formal relationship (where there is a mutual understanding that these Groups do not want a formal relationship with BCT at the moment).
The online survey went live on 18th July 2008. BCT successfully contacted around 2,500 individuals inviting them to take part in the survey (e-mails were sent to 2,803 individuals, but over 300 bounce backs were received). The survey closed on 20th August 2008. The postal survey was sent out on 7th and 8th of July 2008 to 97 Bat Groups. This survey closed on 30th August 2008.
For the individuals survey, there was a response rate of around 7%, with 171 individuals completing the survey. For the Bat Groups survey, there was a response rate of around 24%, with 23 Bat Groups completing the survey. Two Bat Groups declined to take part in the survey and a third said that they were unable to take part as their next meeting was not due to take place until well after the Bat Groups survey deadline. Members of 65 Bat Groups in total were involved across these two surveys.
In this report, due to the small number of respondents for the Bat Groups survey, results are given as number counts rather than as percentages. The results of the survey are shown in the appendices. Some respondents for both the individuals survey and Bat Groups survey did not answer all of the questions. Therefore, some of the results tables do not show counts that equal the total number of respondents that were asked that particular question.
2. Summary of Key Findings
2.1 Open Regional Meetings
The reaction from the individual respondents to the ideas for the open general meeting was very positive overall. The vast majority of individuals (146) are in favour. No individuals were completely against the approach and only 7 were generally not in favour, but can see some benefits.
The table below shows that this trend in opinions is relatively uniform amongst both Bat Group members and non-members and BCT members and non-members.
Table 1: Which of the following best reflects your views on the new ideas for the regional meetings?
All Individuals / Bat Group Members / Bat Group Non-Members / BCT Members / BCT Non-MembersCompletely in favour of the approach / 88 / 54 / 33 / 54 / 32
Generally in favour but with some reservation / 58 / 43 / 12 / 41 / 14
Generally not in favour, but can see some benefits / 7 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3
Completely against the approach / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
I have no opinion / 16 / 4 / 12 / 6 / 10
There was a similarly positive reaction to the new ideas for the regional meetings amongst Bat Groups, with 16 saying that they are in favour. A small minority were against the ideas, with 1 Bat Group completely against the ideas and 3 Bat Groups indicating that they are generally not in favour, but can see some benefits.
Views on the main benefit of this approach for bat conservation were varied amongst both individuals and Bat Groups. Having the opportunity to network with others working actively for bat conservation in the region and have discussions, share knowledge, best practice and resources with them was the most popular suggestion amongst individual respondents. Similar benefits were also popular amongst the largest proportion of Bat Groups (9). They cited opportunities to exchange ideas and improve communications, mutual support and collaboration amongst groups at a regional level.
Other popular benefits suggested by individuals include the promotion of better local co-ordination of bat conservation and monitoring, the creation of a better channel of communication and integration and greater local/regional exchange of information, bat habits, research findings, etc. The other popular benefit suggested by Bat Groups was better opportunities to engage with professionals and other individuals involved in bat conservation who are not members of a local group or BCT.
The results suggest that the majority of individuals and Bat Groups are happy with the ideas put forward as they stand because a relatively small proportion of respondents expressed an opinion on whether they felt any changes were needed to the suggested approach to regional meetings. Also the most frequent comment by individual respondents (7) was that nothing needs to be changed about the ideas for the regional meeting. 4 Bat Groups felt that no changes were needed and 2 Bat Groups said that changes to the approach were not applicable.
Those not in favour of the approach had concerns about the loudest voices taking over the meetings and it being less democratic than the current elected system.
Overall, there was an encouraging amount of interest in attending the open regional meetings amongst both individuals and Bat Groups. There was a relatively even split between the number of individuals (77) who are definitely interested in attending and the number (70) that might be interested in attending. 19 individuals said they were unlikely to attend and only 2 said they were not at all interested in attending. The highest proportion of Bat Groups (12) said that a few people from their Group would be interested in attending. However, 6 said that the majority of their Group would be interested in attending. No Bat Groups said that their Group had no interest in attending.
The most popular items chosen by individual respondents from the list of suggested activities that could be included at the open regional meetings were as follows:
1) Training and workshops on specific aspects of bat conservation.
2) Presentations by Bat Groups from the region.
3) Presentations by BCT staff and Trustees, including updates on what BCT is doing.
4) Presentations by representatives of other groups involved in bat conservation, such as statutory bodies, other conservation organisations and bat professionals.
Popular suggestions given by Bat Groups for activities that could be incorporated include:
1) Talks on recent developments in bat research, surveys and work being done by bat groups from the region and other regions, etc.
2) Topical debates and discussions.
3) Opportunities for neighbouring Bat Groups to discuss issues of common interest/concern.
2.2 Relationships Between Bat Groups and BCT
Overall, there was a very positive reaction amongst the individual respondents to the approach suggested for the future relationship between Bat Groups and BCT. No individuals were completely against the approach and only 3 said that they are generally not in favour, but can see some benefits.
The table displayed below shows that this trend in opinions is relatively uniform amongst both Bat Group members and non-members and BCT members and non-members. Overall there is a roughly even split between those completely in favour and those generally in favour, with a marginal emphasis on the latter group. This is mirrored by the results for Bat Group members and non-members of BCT. Interestingly, however, individuals who are not members of Bat Groups were more strongly in favour of the approach.
Table 2: Which of the following best reflects your views on this approach to the relationships between BCT and Bat Groups?
All Individuals / Bat Group Members / Bat Group Non-Members / BCT Members / BCT Non-MembersCompletely in favour of the approach / 68 / 37 / 30 / 46 / 21
Generally in favour but with some reservation / 73 / 57 / 15 / 46 / 25
Generally not in favour, but can see some benefits / 3 / 3 / 0 / 2 / 1
Completely against the approach / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
I have no opinion / 22 / 6 / 15 / 9 / 12
The overall reaction of Bat Groups was similarly positive, with 16 Bat Groups indicating that they are in favour of the approach. Only 2 said that they are completely against the approach and 3 said that they are generally not in favour, but can see some benefits.
The most frequently suggested benefit of this approach for bat conservation made by individuals (27) was that it would foster better sharing of information, knowledge and best practice, better communication, better co-ordination of support and closer co-operative working towards mutual targets and on projects. The most frequently suggested benefits made by Bat Groups (5 in each case) were a focused, co-ordinated approach to conservation efforts across the range of activities pursued by Bat Groups and BCT and improved exchange of information/ideas, guidance, mutual support and communication amongst groups/individuals involved in bat conservation.
Other popular benefits suggested by individuals include:
· A more coherent approach toward conservation (e.g. on a national/international level), with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
· It would give those involved in bat conservation a choice e.g. Bat Groups would be able to decide on the degree of closeness of their relationship with BCT.
· A unified voice for bat conservation and a boost for lobbying power.
Three Bat Groups said that there would no benefit above that created by the existing arrangements.
The most frequently mentioned changes that should be made to the approach suggested by individuals include:
· Encouraging closer co-operation, co-ordination of information sharing, activities (such as those that educate the public and all businesses as to how to live with bats and how good they are for us/the environment) and best practice.
· Fostering a consensus of understanding of the meaning and aims of bat conservation and a more unified approach to and voice for bat conservation.
Four individuals suggested these changes in each case and another 4 said they were not sure what should be changed about the approach.
The most popular change to the approach suggested by Bat Groups was further clarification of expectations of Partner Groups by BCT and the cost of partnership to Bat Groups. Three Bat Groups suggested this change.
Comments made by those not in favour of the approach suggested that the real need was for better communication and respect from BCT, that areas working well should not be changed for the sake of it and that all bat workers ought to receive information from BCT. There was a comment that Partner Groups should have full voting rights and that there should only be one bat group in each geographical area.
Bat Groups were also asked some additional questions about the suggested approach to the future relationship between Bat Groups and BCT. There was a relatively even split amongst Bat Groups who said they preferred the Partner Group option (9) and those who said they preferred the Network Group option (7). Three Bat Groups said that they did not want any relationship with BCT at the moment.
The results would indicate that Bat Groups are generally happy with the proposed nature of the Partner and Network Group relationships. When asked if there are any items that should not be included, the most frequent comment (7) was that they could not think of any. Similarly, the most frequent comment of Bat Groups (6) was that there were no additional things that should be included in the suggested relationship.
3. Comments on Survey Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Initial Comments
A 7% response rate from individuals is respectable compared with average survey response rates, especially as people have already been recently consulted.
The response gives such a clear majority view, that it can be extrapolated as broadly representative of the views of the whole sample.
30 responses from Bat Groups (23 survey responses plus 4 groups promising replies in the future and 3 stating that they will not reply) out of 97 Groups may feel low, but it represents nearly a third of all groups, at an extremely busy time of year.
Whilst these results cannot be extrapolated to all groups and need to be viewed as individual responses, they do represent the view of the interested groups, and this is a good base to work from.
3.2 Interpreting the Response Levels