|
|
|
Evaluation of 2005 NSW workshops and courses
Workshop on the management and rehabilitation of disturbed native vegetation - approaches & techniques · Armidale: 19-20 July 2005, University of New England · Wagga: 14-15 September 2005, Wagga Wagga Council Chambers · Dubbo: 25-26 October 2005, Western Plains Zoo
Grass identification techniques course · Dubbo: 27 October 2005, Western Plains Zoo
Workshops: evaluation
Evaluation of the 2005 rehabilitation workshops and the grass identification course was undertaken twice. Participants were asked to complete evaluation forms immediately after each workshop (example form). Those attending the three rehabilitation workshops were also sent a comprehensive post-workshop evaluation form in early December 2005. Participants were, therefore, responding to this second questionnaire well after the workshop they attended; the time elapsed varied from 7 weeks for those at the Dubbo workshop to 21 weeks for the Armidale workshop participants. This lapse in time allowed for participants to assess the longer-term effectiveness of the workshop they attended (but also meant some email addresses had changed, reducing the number of potential returns).
First evaluation (immediately after workshop)
Participants were asked to rate different aspects of the workshop on the form. Questions 1-6 were scored 1-10, where 1 is the least value and 10 is the highest value. The remaining questions were open, and all questions provided space for comment and suggestions. 42% of the 240 participants across the four workshops returned their forms.
The responses from scorable questions are summarised in Table 1. The grass course is summarised separately as its evaluation form had slightly different questions.
Table 1: Evaluation summary - 2005 rehabilitation workshops & grass ID course
These results show very positive feedback from these workshops. The additional comments and the responses to the open-ended questions were also overwhelmingly positive, while offering constructive suggestions. Several of these were incorporated into the subsequent workshops. For example, feedback from the Armidale workshop (July 2005) resulted in more focused field excursions and more hands-on demonstrations with opportunities to trial some techniques.
A few comments from the workshop evaluation forms follow: · The course was full of stimulating content; I had a great time, thanks. (Armidale); · Principles of ecological rehabilitation good. (Armidale); · Haven’t been to any workshop before which has covered so many relevant topics. It has been really worthwhile and well organised. Well done! (Wagga Wagga); · Good mix of subjects and presenters. (Wagga Wagga); · I came away from the workshop buzzing and fired up! (Dubbo); · As a newcomer, I was totally consumed beyond expectations. (Dubbo); · Thank you for an enjoyable learning day; … learning can still be fun. (Dubbo, grass ID); · Grass ID following on from rehab course excellent – good symbiosis and opportunity for participants to relax with each other. (Dubbo, grass ID).
Second evaluation (post-workshop evaluation)
A comprehensive post-workshop evaluation form was emailed on 12 December to the 2005 rehabilitation workshop participants. Responses were returned by email, fax or post. The participants in the grass identification course were not included, as that was a specific course and differed in structure and content from the rehabilitation workshops.
47 forms (26.7%) of the post-workshop evaluation forms were returned by the due date of 22 December. One respondent offered some evaluation of the evaluation form itself: - I have answered many evaluation forms and felt the questions in this one are specific and worthwhile!
The returned forms were analysed for each of the workshops separately and also for the workshops combined. The five response categories were analysed separately and then condensed to three categories (strongly agree & agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree & strongly disagree) to more clearly reveal positive and negative responses. Figures 1, 2 and 3 illustrate the condensed analyses.
The forms were divided into:
The responses in the following figures relate to the Evaluation Form.
1. Workshop structure
Figure 1 summarises the condensed responses (the three rehabilitation workshops combined, the five response categories condensed to three).
Fig 1: Workshop structure, 2005 rehabilitation workshops
These results strongly show that the workshop structure suited most people across all the questions: - mix of presentations, group activity and field visits - its two-day length - being held on week days - networking opportunities - mix of people with varying experiences & knowledge - mix of participants from professional to voluntary.
2. Workshop content
Figure 2 summarises the condensed responses (the three rehabilitation workshops combined, the five categories condensed to three).
Fig 2: Workshop content, 2005 rehabilitation workshops
These results show that the workshop sessions were very useful and relevant and suited most people across all the questions: - overall, topics - ecological principles sessions - research-based presentations - legislation presentations - CMA presentations - case studies - field visits.
All sessions scored highly. The most favoured sessions were: ecological principles (89.4%), research-based presentations (91.5%), case studies (89.4%) and the field visits (83%). The least favoured (but only marginally) were the CMA presentations (66.0%).
3. After the workshop
Figure 3 summarises the condensed responses (the three rehabilitation workshops combined, the five categories condensed to three).
Fig 3: Outcomes after the workshop, 2005 rehabilitation workshops
These results show that the workshop was considered beneficial to participants’ work: - increased understanding of ecological principles - increased understanding of rehabilitation issues - techniques learned assist work - have used information/ techniques in work - anticipate using information/ techniques in work - discussed information/ techniques with colleagues - contacts and networks useful to work.
The only statement which did not receive a high positive response was Q.23 ‘my rehabilitation practice has altered as a result of the workshop’. 17% reported a positive response, while 57% of responses were neutral (‘neither agree nor disagree’). 25% reported that their rehabilitation practice had not altered. This could reflect several things, such as: the person is not currently engaged in active rehabilitation work, they may not have had time or opportunity to incorporate change, they are already operating at a high level, they did not learn any new techniques at the workshop.
4. Future workshops
94% of the respondents noted that they would attend another ANPC workshop if it was on a topic relevant to them. 11 topics were suggested on the form and respondents could select as many as they wanted. Space was provided for them to suggest other topics. Table 2 and Figure 4 summarise the respondents’ preferences across the three workshops.
Table 2: Future workshop topics – summary of preferences
Fig 4: Future workshop topics – summary of preferences
The most favoured topics were: assessing vegetation condition (68% of respondents), identification of ecological communities (61%) and monitoring populations of threatened plants (59%), though all were popular, with the least popular being training in media skills (20%).
Respondents suggested a range of other workshops and technical courses also:
Workshops - Riparian management & conservation - Threatened species conservation - Symbiotic relationships between native plants - Relationships with soil biota - Fire and biodiversity - Fauna and species diversification as an indicator of health of ecological communities, using simple tests (possibly including aquatic fauna indicator tests). Simple ecological indicators and annual monitoring protocol that would be accepted by various authorities as part of rehabilitation or revegetation of corridors and landscapes - New restoration techniques - New or developing monitoring tools - New research that may assist management decisions - Case studies from landholders who have undertaken scientifically based rehab or conservation work.
Techniques and skills courses - Tree identification (juvenile & adult) - Weed identification - Weed management - Effective propagation methods for threatened plant species - Practical guidelines and techniques for landholders wishing to (or required under legislation to) remediate damaged native plant communities (currently little collated and coordinated technical information available on how to do so).
5. Group or organisation
Respondents were asked to identify what group or organisation they were from. The responses were analysed but are not reported here, as this information for ALL workshop registrants is provided instead. Table 3 and Figures 5 & 6 summarise the organisations and affiliations of the registered participants for the three rehabilitation workshops and the grass identification course.
Table 3: Participant affiliations (based on workshop registration information)
* Several respondents noted that they were interested individuals and members of a community group. In such cases, the ‘community group’ option was selected in the analysis as this interest possibly involved them in more rehabilitation work. Fig 5: Participant affiliations: 2005 workshops (all combined)
Figure 6 illustrates the affiliations of the participants at each of the 2005 workshops separately (rehabilitation and grass identification techniques).
Fig 6: Participant affiliations, by workshop (2005)
Community groups and NGOs formed nearly 23% of the participants at the 2005 workshops, with the Armidale workshop and the grass identification course having the highest proportion. Community groups and their volunteers were very enthusiastic participants, with 7 members of one group coming from Toowoomba in Queensland. The opportunities to mix with researchers and other practitioners was also greatly welcomed by them (as recorded in their evaluation forms).
State Government agencies were also highly represented (20.8%), coming from several NSW Departments with land management responsibilities, such as the Departments of Environment and Conservation; Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (and the new Dept of Natural Resources) and Primary Industries.
CMAs are identified separately from Government Departments as they are statutory authorities, each with a board that reports directly to the NSW Minister for Natural Resources. During 2005 they acquired responsibility for managing native vegetation legislation, and increasingly became the key contact group. Many were extremely busy with urgent planning priorities, but still provided presenters for the workshops. The Namoi CMA considered the Armidale workshop essential staff training, with 13 staff attending. The Murrumbidgee CMA, while providing two presenters, did not consider their staff had time to attend (reflected in the lower CMA participation rate at the Wagga Wagga workshop).
Environmental consultants were well represented at the workshops (15% of participants). This is encouraging as consultants can be highly influential in a range of activities affecting native vegetation conservation and rehabilitation. Consultants undertake Environmental Impact Statements, provide advice and recommendations to developers and Local Government and may come under pressure to skimp on biodiversity outcomes. Those at the workshops showed a high level of expertise and their experience in dealing within real constraints was valuable to other participants.
10.4% of participants were from Local Government. Many local Councils support staff participation at such training opportunities, but many still have little concept of their role in native vegetation management. Roadside maintenance is a key local government responsibility but is often only viewed as an engineering and safety issue. Roadsides carry significant remnant vegetation, provide corridors and links and can be the last stands for endangered species. Local councils have the ability to unwittingly destroy these values. The ANPC liaised with the Roadside Environment Committee (REC) during the planning of these workshops, and provided some sessions on roadside vegetation management. Local councils are often under-resourced to be able to deliver well on biodiversity, however eager they may be. This is a key target group for future ANPC workshops.
6. Other comments or suggestions
Overall, there was a high level of satisfaction with the workshops, with many very positive comments. Some examples follow. - Quality of ANPC workshops is very high; I like going to them; discussing cutting edge ideas; researchers give a new perspective; - I enjoyed the workshop. Found the presentations and field trip informative and relevant. A great range of topics covered; - I got a lot out of workshop and hope to apply to remedial situations at work (already doing it at home); - Workshop well organised, good mix of participants & presenters. Provided good insight into NSW regional veg issues, veg management requirements, role of CMAs, current research etc. The information is useful in examining ecological reports and rehabilitation plans; very successful workshop [respondent from Commonwealth Government agency].
There were also some suggestions of changes which are worth considering, though there is no over-riding area of criticism or consensus on any particular suggestion. Some criticisms and suggestions were contradicted by others (e.g. presentations on legislation ‘were not useful’ compared to presentations on legislation ‘were very useful’).
Clearly not all requests can be met, especially where there is no consensus. ANPC rehabilitation workshops are developed in consultation with regional and local stakeholders. Presentations, field trips and case studies are tailored to meet local needs where possible. This often depends on the availability of specialist presenters and suitable field sites.
One constant ANPC goal is to continue to improve the consultation process to ensure the best and most relevant workshops possible.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
