Recomendaciones para la Entidad

A stakeholder engagement process was conducted using a mixed methods approach that included workshops and interviews. Workshops were attended by the public (N=35), while interviews were used to gather data from operators (N=7), regulators (N=8), and experts (N=6), who were unable to attend the workshops. All engagement activities were conducted between July 2014 and December 2014. A questionnaire was used to drive both the workshops and the interviews (Table 3-3). The questionnaire was divided into two sections: the first

section aimed to investigate social values, and the second section explored the knowledge and perceived effectiveness of current contaminated land regulation in Nigeria (See Appendix A for detail semi-structured interview questions). Probing questions were used to explore the depth of participant knowledge about different subjects (e.g., we asked operators why they lacked knowledge of contaminated land management in other regimes despite working in an international organisation).

Table 3-3: Questionnaire used to drive the engagement process

Question Assessment

scale

Rationale 1 Have you personal

experience dealing or living contaminated land?

1=not at all; 5=considerable

To determine whether participants has contaminated land experience in order to be able to answer the questions.

2 Any other comments you wish to add on your experience?

Open ended To explore stakeholder experiences

3 Confirm that images contained on postcards reflected stakeholder values.

Open ended To validate stakeholder values and reach a consensus

4 Prioritise a set of postcards, choosing the first as most important and the last as least important

Line postcards up from worst to first

To determine stakeholders’ priorities of values that are impacted by the presence of contaminated land 5 How might you assist other

stakeholders to help with the clean-up of contaminated land if you had the chance” and “How can the

Government help the people in the affected region?

Open ended To reveal subjective beliefs held by the participants and to explore other social values that were not

represented by the postcards that could be affected by contaminated land

6 How would you rate your knowledge about

contaminated land management?

1=not at all; 5=considerable

To determine participants’ knowledge of the contaminated land

management regime in Nigeria 7 Are you satisfied with the

Nigerian approach to land contamination management?

1=not at all; 5=considerable

To measure participants satisfaction with Nigeria’s current approach to contaminated land

8 Please explain why you are satisfied or no

Open ended To explore the reasons for participant’s response, 9 How familiar are you with

foreign contaminated land regulation?”

1=not at all; 5=considerable

To assess if stakeholders had heard of other regimes so they could learn from them

10 Do you believe policy transfer from a foreign country or institution will work in Nigeria?

1=not at all; 5=considerable

To assess participants’ willingness to accept policy transfer

11 Do you foresee any barriers preventing policy transfer?

Opened ended To understand fears to policy transfer assuming a better policy was

identified abroad

A pilot study was carried out using a small group of students from the Ogoniland community of Luere-Beeri to assess the clarity of the questions and to identify any potential for misunderstanding during the interview. Following the pilot study

changes were made to the questionnaire for community members, in particular, questions about knowledge on contaminated land regulation in Nigeria.

Thirty-five individuals (twenty people in the morning session and fifteen in the afternoon session) across the four local councils of Ogoniland attended the workshops that took place in August 2014 at the community town hall in Ogale. Participants were divided into seven groups of five people each. English was the main language of communication, but if participants were not comfortable with English then the language of the region was used. The facilitator was fluent in English and several other regional languages. The workshop comprised of morning and afternoon sessions, and each averaged two hours in length. The process of engagement is described in Figure 3-4.

The study collected data on social values using postcards. The postcards contained images that represented the different social values (Table 3-2) and were used to overcome potential communication barriers, such as language and comprehension (Zhao et al., 2016). Participants identified images represented on the postcards and this helped them to select the social values that were of concern to them.

Stakeholder engagement

Interviews Workshops

Introduction

Social values and impacts Validation Discussion Prioritisation of social values Introduction

Social values and impacts

Validation

Prioritisation of social values

We introduced the research and significance of the study to the participants

We asked participants to validate the elements by identifying relevant ones from a collection of postcards presented to them. This was done

to achieve consensus on elements to be prioritised.

We grouped participants and asked them to discuss in groups and agree on a single most

important element impacted by spills.

Participants prioritised elements that are most impacted by the presence of contaminated land in order of importance, with the first indicating

the most important and the last the least important.

We described the socio-economic and environmental elements and how they are

impact livelihood to participants. Activities

Figure 3-4: Procedure for engaging with stakeholders (workshops and interviews) to

obtain information about the value and prioritisation of different social values.

The prioritisation process was divided into two stages. First, participants were allotted thirty minutes to discuss each social value (postcard), and to then identify the three most important values – as determined by the group. Second, participants ranked these three values according to their importance. These outputs were fed back to the entire workshop by a single group representative. During the prioritisation exercise the facilitator used open-ended questions (e.g. “How might you assist other stakeholders to help with the clean-up of contaminated land if you had the chance?” and “How can the Government help the people in the affected region?”) to reveal subjective beliefs held by the participants. Answers were captured using an electronic voice recorded and transcribed for later analysis. The engagement process was concluded with a

question and answer session to allow for all participants to feedback about the process and outcomes.