This stage of the research employed the CoSS as an appraisal system in assessing the level of progress CPs in Nigeria have made towards achieving the goals of ICZM and sustainable development. The system requires its full operation in order to enable evaluation. In doing this, suitable approaches were employed which involved a series of personal meetings and interviews to elicit the relevant information.
Pilot Study
This research embarked on a pilot study to identify the organisations involved in managing the coastal zone. In addition, the questions that made up the semi-structured interview were tested out before the main investigation with the intention to assess the adequacy of the instruments for data collection. This was carried out with Mr Patrick Adekoya, the Community Relations Coordinator at Shell Petroleum Development Company, Nigeria Limited.
Participant Selection
Detailed meetings were arranged with the officers of the CPs in order to access the relevant data and evidence relating to each criterion of the CoSS. This research is aware that the criteria used to determine the participant group would have an impact upon the quality of responses. Criteria that could be decided upon as stated by (Gallagher, 2006) include:
Peer recognition – demonstrable reputation;
Contributions to literature – referred publication list;
Extensive background in trans-disciplinary coastal sustainability problem solving;
Clearly related or cross transferable knowledge on specific issues; and
Identifiable roles and responsibilities in coastal management
105
Since this research is applying the coastal sustainability standard as a system of appraisal, coupled with the fact that the standard main attribute is systems based i.e.
normative in its approach, the identifiable roles and responsibilities in coastal management criteria was considered most suitable in selecting participants in the systems appraisal. This approach clearly linked the results of the survey to practical coastal management on the ground. The number of participants corresponds to the number of CPs selected.
Instruments
―The flexibility of personal interviews through the use of ‗open‘ questions allows the interviewer to gain a greater depth of understanding through prompting further questions and allows answers to be substantiated or supplemented through recourse to documentation or other evidence‖ (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996) has made it more suitable for this work as opposed to other sampling methods. A semi-structured questionnaire (interview) was produced which was carried out with the chosen CPs. The semi-structured questionnaire encapsulates the principles and criteria of the CoSS. The semi-structured questionnaires were open ended in order to elicit and encourage the maximum level of detail in the responses. The research proceeded with transcribing responses from an audio format. The responses were processed with the aid of a content analysis technique to determine the level of progress towards ICZM and sustainable development attained by each coastal partnership. A tape recorder was used to record the responses as this ensures that issues discussed can be referred to at any time, which aids the rationality of the assessment as to the appropriateness of the scores ascribed to it. For ethical reasons, letters were sent ahead across to these officers to let them know that the interview will be recorded as well as to seek their consent to do so.
106 Assessment of Responses
This research lends itself to the adoption of the details of the coastal sustainability standard. Apart from the scoring guidepost, a performance guidance note developed by Gallagher (2006) proved to be indispensable. The guidance note served to maximise the level of objectivity in the sustainability assessment. There are sets of criteria for each principle and for each criterion, a set of scoring guidelines are provided which informs the scores with respect to the guideposts. In terms of interpretation and assessment, many of the criteria and associated performance indicators are straightforward. For example, the third criterion in the principle of planning states that the management system is clearly defined with individuals and organisations having clear lines of responsibility. The question asked in this case is is there a clear management structure identifying organisations, individuals and responsibilities? The question asks for evidence of proof as regards clearly defined responsibilities in the form of management structures. If individuals and organisations with management responsibilities are known, has their responsibilities and interactions been determined. If determined, then to what extent? According to the performance guidance note, for a management structure to be clearly stated,
―There should be a definition of the approach, the role and responsibility of the different structural bodies and their terms of reference. Ideally, this would be expressed using a diagrammatic representation of the structure. In addition, there should be a list of the representative organisations and individuals contributing to each structural body. In addition, this information should be available through all forms of exogenous partnership communications such as annual reports and websites (Gallagher, 2006).
The performance guidance note improves clarity and transparency and supports the assessment with definitions, interpretation and the identification of possible performance indicators.
107 Data analysis and criteria scoring
Based on the responses, this research presents the results of the analysis. A content analysis was conducted by transcribing the details of the interview into an Excel spread sheet. The content analysis states the principles, their associated criteria, the scoring guideposts, the CPs, comments and evidence from the officers interviewed, sources of information and rationality of awarding the scores based on the performance guidance note. These were carried out in a case study approach to give a holistic assessment of the CPs. In addition, the research embarked on a comparative assessment to give more insights into the similarities and differences between the CPs. The CoSS, which was developed around a framework of principles and criteria, forms the framework on which the semi-structured questionnaire was based. The principles: planning; participation;
communication; integration; responsibility; and balance were deconstructed from 23 theoretical constructs inherent in sustainability (Gallagher et al., 2004). Gallagher (2006), was able to develop criteria to assess these principles. These principles and criteria were employed to the full to assess sustainability in the Nigerian coastal zones with the case studies selected. A performance guidance note which contains the principles and criteria developed by Gallagher (2006) which forms the guidepost for the scoring of each criteria was employed on assessing progress made towards sustainability in the Nigerian coast.
The performance guidance note forms a scoring system for the standard. It is ordinal in nature and uses a scale of 0 – 10. The standard has four defined points of reference, which are 0, 3, 7, and 10. A score of 0 means total failure, scores less than 3 also means failure and need for a corrective action. A score of 3 represents the threshold of constructive management. Scores above 3 shows there is some evidence of proactive coastal management. Scores between 3 and 6 might just indicate that there are one or two elements that are performing poorly or that all the criteria are performing sub-optimally. Management systems whose scores are between 3 and 6, are likely to find it
108
easier to effect corrective actions than those that are less than 3. A score of 7 denotes a mark of achievement either on the part of a specific criterion or for the aggregated mark of the principle as a whole. This score means the required standard has been met and that the management system is operating in a manner by which it can foster sustainable development. A score greater than 7 simply indicates the degree of excellence employed in that specific management area. The scoring criterion is highlighted in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Scoring System scale and meanings (Performance Indicator)
Score Meaning
10 9 8
Evidence of Exceptional and well developed management technique
7 Standard achievement mark