2.4 Comparison of the Two Approaches
We proceed with the comparison of the objectives of participation of the two
different projects looking in particular at whether the projects have succeeded in
this endeavour. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the approaches.
TROPOS project engaged a range of stakeholders in the research strategy. This
allowed the scientists to understand the different perspectives of those who had a
particular interest in the area, as well as those who chose to visit, and those who lived
nearby, using a multi-method strategy which aimed to understand in depth the views
of stakeholders and a breadth of opinion from residents and tourists.
As with all research projects of this nature, finding the right respondents is a key
challenge. There is always a risk of ‘selection bias’ that those who participate are
those who are willing to do so and that those who refuse may hold views which are
different and which are therefore excluded from the analysis. TROPOS tried to
minimise this bias where at all possible, by stressing the very limited involvement
(a short amount of time to participate, convenient to the interviewee), and making the
research and the project seem as interesting and engaging as possible, to encourage
residents and tourists to participate.
Researching a hypothetical development is always challenging also; it is much
more straightforward for researchers and participants to discuss something that
already exists. Therefore, the respondents were asked about their expectations, and
his became part of the analysis. It was also important to give as much information as
possible regarding the platforms, without seeming to try and push them in one
direction or another in their views. Future research could benefit from projects
which were more widely known about or further along in their stage of development,
which would make discussing them and their impacts more straightforward.
In MERMAID and its four case studies, the involvement of stakeholders has
made a valuable contribution to the design of the platforms in the four study sites. In
all cases, there has been an exchange of knowledge, interest and at least a start in
bringing different sectors together. Dominant concerns – such as the weather and
wave condition in the Atlantic site – were brought to the table and could be
addressed in the designs.
A weak point of the approach taken is that the current status quo – whether that
concerns market organisation and technologies available or fits with policy
objectives – proved to very influential in the design process; e.g. the Mediterranean
stakeholders were reluctant to include aquaculture in the design because aquaculture
is nowadays dominated by coastal aquaculture entrepreneurs. It proved to be difficult
to apply ‘blue sky thinking’ to these cases.
The most valuable lesson is that the role of stakeholders will differ per case and
that consequently the selected approach should be tailored to the situation. In the
Baltic site, a predefined group of MERMAID participants sought to discuss the
feasibility of realising a multi-use platform at a specific location. This is different
from the Atlantic and Mediterranean sites, where the idea was unknown beforehand,
and the process was aimed at bringing together stakeholders to explore the potential
34
M. Stuiver et al.
We proceed with the comparison of the objectives of participation of the two
different projects looking in particular at whether the projects have succeeded in
this endeavour. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the approaches.
TROPOS project engaged a range of stakeholders in the research strategy. This
allowed the scientists to understand the different perspectives of those who had a
particular interest in the area, as well as those who chose to visit, and those who lived
nearby, using a multi-method strategy which aimed to understand in depth the views
of stakeholders and a breadth of opinion from residents and tourists.
As with all research projects of this nature, finding the right respondents is a key
challenge. There is always a risk of ‘selection bias’ that those who participate are
those who are willing to do so and that those who refuse may hold views which are
different and which are therefore excluded from the analysis. TROPOS tried to
minimise this bias where at all possible, by stressing the very limited involvement
(a short amount of time to participate, convenient to the interviewee), and making the
research and the project seem as interesting and engaging as possible, to encourage
residents and tourists to participate.
Researching a hypothetical development is always challenging also; it is much
more straightforward for researchers and participants to discuss something that
already exists. Therefore, the respondents were asked about their expectations, and
his became part of the analysis. It was also important to give as much information as
possible regarding the platforms, without seeming to try and push them in one
direction or another in their views. Future research could benefit from projects
which were more widely known about or further along in their stage of development,
which would make discussing them and their impacts more straightforward.
In MERMAID and its four case studies, the involvement of stakeholders has
made a valuable contribution to the design of the platforms in the four study sites. In
all cases, there has been an exchange of knowledge, interest and at least a start in
bringing different sectors together. Dominant concerns – such as the weather and
wave condition in the Atlantic site – were brought to the table and could be
addressed in the designs.
A weak point of the approach taken is that the current status quo – whether that
concerns market organisation and technologies available or fits with policy
objectives – proved to very influential in the design process; e.g. the Mediterranean
stakeholders were reluctant to include aquaculture in the design because aquaculture
is nowadays dominated by coastal aquaculture entrepreneurs. It proved to be difficult
to apply ‘blue sky thinking’ to these cases.
The most valuable lesson is that the role of stakeholders will differ per case and
that consequently the selected approach should be tailored to the situation. In the
Baltic site, a predefined group of MERMAID participants sought to discuss the
feasibility of realising a multi-use platform at a specific location. This is different
from the Atlantic and Mediterranean sites, where the idea was unknown beforehand,
and the process was aimed at bringing together stakeholders to explore the potential
34
M. Stuiver et al.