Grangemouth - draft Just Transition Plan: consultation analysis

Research approach

Respondent characteristics

The consultation was open to the public and received 31 responses. Most responses (16) were submitted through an online platform hosted by Citizen Space, with 14 responses received directly via email. The research team identified responses from 2 organisations that were submitted both on the Citizen Space platform and via email; which were then considered as 1 response for the purpose of the analysis.

As part of the consultation, respondents could select whether they were answering as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Overall, 5 individuals and 26 organisations responded to the consultation. For ease of analysis, organisations have been classified into sub-groups. The approach to subgrouping has been agreed with the Scottish Government, and includes the following groups: non-profit or charity, port operator, training provider, industrial operator, trade body or professional association, trade union, local council, and wider industry.

Graphic text below:

Respondent Profile

• Government (13%)
• Individual (16%)
• Industrial operator (3%)
• Local council (13%)
• Non-profit (10%)
• Port operator (3%)
• Trade body (20%)
• Trade union (3%)
• Training provider (3%)
• Wider industry (16%)

Methodology

Data analysis

A team of researchers manually reviewed and thematically coded all the citizen space responses. All email responses were also read by the research team in full before being manually coded. The responses were thematically coded in an excel codebook, where themes were organised according to the following heads: ‘general views’, ‘strengths/positives’, ‘challenges/barriers’ and ‘suggestions’. Regular project team meetings were conducted to ensure themes were defined and coded consistently across researchers.

Following the manual coding of responses, thematic patterns (recurring themes) were analysed. Themes were analysed based on synthesis across all questions. The core themes were then ordered by prevalence. Separately, singular cases, diverging opinions, and minority views were identified and reported to ensure robustness of reporting.

Approach to reporting

The report summarises findings from the thematic analysis. Reporting of the analysis is structured according to the specific question asked by the Scottish Government. Individual quotes have been used, where appropriate, to illustrate the narrative around specific themes.

Quotes were only selected from respondents who provided permission for their views to be published and with any potential identifiers (such as the name of a specific organisation) removed.

The report should be read with the following notes:

• When reporting themes (including views and suggestions) by prevalence, the relative magnitude of responses for each theme has been reported by descriptors such as “few”, “some” and “many”. There is no precise quantification of these terms, however, indicatively, “a few” (and phrases such as “one suggestion”, “for example”, etc.) is likely to mean less than 5% of respondents answering the specific question mentioned the theme, “some” likely means 5% to 30-40%, and “many” may mean more than 30-40% of respondents mentioned the theme. These thresholds are high-level and vary by question.
• The percentages reported in relation to closed questions have been rounded to the nearest whole number, which may result in totals not equating precisely to 100%. These figures are based solely on the combined online and offline consultation responses.
• The findings and recommendations from CVS Falkirk & District’s analysis of responses from their consultation with the Grangemouth community have been incorporated into this report. These findings were integrated as is, and were not re-analysed. These findings were incorporated by indicating where views of community consultation respondents coincided with those of respondents of this consultation. Where views of community consultation respondents diverged with views of respondents of this consultation, or where those findings related to matters that were not raised by respondents of this consultation, they have reported them distinctly within call out boxes.^[3]
• The use of the following definitions applies to the use of the specific terms across the reporting:

Grangemouth - The use of the term ‘Grangemouth’ across consultation questions, and throughout the analysis, is intended to refer to the entirety of the Grangemouth area and relevant stakeholder (including community members, physical space, industrial operations) and does not specifically refer to the refinery.

Grangemouth community - Where the ‘Grangemouth community’ has specifically been identified as a respondent type, this primarily refers to respondents of CVS Falkirk & District’s community engagement.

Limitations

Finally, there are some limitations to note:

• The responses submitted to a public consultation are not representative of the overall population or any specific group, and responses from some areas or groups may be under- or over-represented. It is also worth noting that respondents with stronger views on the subject are typically most likely to respond to a public consultation.
• Information was not fact-checked; all views should be treated as subjective experiences. It was sometimes unclear whether those identifying as organisations were responding in an official capacity. In particular, the research team aimed to summarise, rather than interpret or make any claims as to the factual accuracy of views presented by respondents.
• The overall number of responses received was lower than anticipated, which limits the analytical robustness of the findings. Further, many responses did not answer parts, or sometimes all, of the questions set out (with this tapering off further towards the end of the consultation), which meant reporting on these points was limited.