Scottish seabird conservation action plan: consultation analysis

2 Description of the responses and respondents

2.1 This chapter provides information about the respondents to the consultation and the responses submitted.

Number of responses received and number included in the analysis

2.2 The consultation received a total of 5,374 responses. These comprised:

• 58 online responses submitted through Citizen Space^[4]
• 8 offline responses submitted by email
• 5,308 responses submitted as part of a campaign organised by the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds).

2.3 Responses received via Citizen Space were downloaded as an Excel database. Responses received by email were added to this database.

Data cleaning process

2.4 A review of the response database identified two identical online responses submitted by the same respondent. One of these responses was removed from the database, and one was retained for the analysis. In addition, one blank response was also removed.

2.5 A review of the 5,308 RSPB campaign responses identified 44 as having been personalised by the respondent in a substantive way. The remaining 5,264 RSPB campaign responses were categorised as ‘standard campaign responses’ – that is, they were either identical to the campaign text or judged to have not been edited in a substantive way. (See paragraph 2.16 below for further information.)

2.6 Among the 44 campaign responses that were substantively edited, two were found to be non-identical responses submitted by the same individual. These two responses were combined into a single amalgamated response, resulting in the removal of one response. Thus, 43 personalised campaign responses were added to the main analysis database.

2.7 The standard campaign responses were not added to the database and so are not included in the tables shown in this report. However, the text from the standard campaign response is included in the qualitative analysis of the comments made at each consultation question.

2.8 See Table 2.1 for an overview of the data cleaning process.

2.9 Thus, the analysis presented in this report is based on 5,371 responses. This comprises 107 substantive responses and 5,264 standard campaign responses. See Table 2.2.

About the respondents – substantive responses only

2.10 Substantive responses were received from 20 organisations and 87 individuals. (See Table 2.3).

Organisational respondents

2.11 Organisational respondents included nine environment and nature organisations, four organisations associated with the fishing sector, and four organisations associated with the renewable energy sector. The remaining three organisations (classified as ‘other organisation types’) comprised an academic organisation, a non-UK government department, and a recreational organisation. See Table 2.4 below.

2.12 Some organisational respondents indicated that their response had been informed by input from their membership.

2.13 A list of organisational respondents is provided at Annex 1 of this report.

Individual respondents

2.14 Among individual respondents, some identified themselves as working in the nature conservation field (on a professional or voluntary basis), or as members of other stakeholder organisations.

Campaign responses

2.15 A ‘campaign response’ is a response to a consultation that is based on a template provided by a campaign organiser. The campaign organiser assists their members and supporters either by providing suggested responses to individual consultation questions or to the consultation overall, or by providing a commentary on the consultation and the consultation questions which people may draw on in drafting their own responses.

2.16 ‘Standard’ campaign responses are based on a ‘standard’ template, to which the respondent simply adds their name and submits the response (usually through a website) without amendment. ‘Non-standard’ campaign responses are based on the template but have been personalised in some substantive way. Throughout the remainder of this report, ‘standard’ campaign responses will be referred to, simply, as ‘campaign responses’. ‘Non-standard campaign responses’ that have been personalised in a substantive way will be referred to – and reported – as substantive responses.

2.17 As noted above, this consultation received responses from a campaign organised by the RSPB. This was a web-based email campaign. This campaign addressed all four of the consultation questions, as follows:

• It expressed support for the implementation of the Scottish Seabird Conservation Action Plan.
• It called for the inclusion of common gull and black-headed gull in the scope of the action plan.
• It agreed that the action plan identified the key pressures to seabirds in Scotland.
• It agreed that the action plan included many of the key actions required to conserve seabird populations, while also identifying some additional actions for inclusion – relating to the use of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) on fishing vessels, effective management and monitoring of protected seabird sites, and the importance of taking a nature-positive approach to the development of offshore windfarms.
• It said the measures for monitoring progress and success should include publication of the annual review of the action plan and targets for delivering the various actions identified.

2.18 The full campaign text is provided at Annex 2. This also shows how the campaign text has been allocated to individual consultation questions in the analysis.

2.19 In the context of this current consultation, if a respondent submitting an RSPB campaign response identified specific additional pressures on Scotland’s seabird populations (which were not named in the standard campaign text) or made additional suggestions about key actions that could be taken under the action plan, their response was categorised as a non-standard campaign response. In a few cases, respondents submitting their views through the RSPB campaign deleted the campaign text entirely and composed their own response. These, similarly, have been treated as substantive responses.^[5]

Response rates

2.20 As noted in Chapter 1, not all respondents answered all the consultation questions. Response rates for closed questions ranged from 59% to 98%, and from 33% to 81% for open questions.

2.21 The closed part of Question 1 received the highest response (98%). This question asked if respondents supported the implementation of the action plan.

2.22 The open part of Question 2 received the lowest response (33%). This question invited comments from individuals who had indicated (at the closed part of Question 2) that they thought the action plan had not identified the key pressures to seabirds. Thus, respondents were less likely to comment if they answered ‘yes’ at Question 2.

2.23 See Annex 3 for details.