Evaluation of Drought and Excessive Moisture Preparedness ...

5
II. Interviews
A. Introduction and methods
Interviews were conducted with key personnel in Saskatchewan who have been actively engaged
in agri-environmental program development and delivery. The goal of the interviews was to
understand the effectiveness of the programs in responding to extreme weather events including
droughts and floods. The second goal was to identify factors that facilitate or hinder the
reduction of stakeholder vulnerability.
The questions for the interviews were developed and lead by a committee formed by Jeremy
Pittman of the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. The interviewers, Darren Steinley and Joel
Mowchenko, collaborated with the committee to enhance the questions enabling them to be
presented in a user friendly manner.
The interviews were conducted in a one-on-one style of interview. Wherever possible the
interviews were done in person. When a face to face meeting was not possible, phone interviews
were conducted. Both styles of interview proved to be effective, providing good discussion in all
cases. The interviews were one segment of the larger project with the goal of examining and
evaluating drought and excessive moisture preparedness programming.
In general, the interviews revealed two significant items. The first was that the programs being
evaluated have beneficial implications for both drought and flood preparedness. With the
exception of FRWIP, most preparedness benefits are what would be considered co-benefits, that
is drought or flood preparedness was not the primary objective of the program. The second
major noteworthy item was that the interviewee’s occupation and role within the program
significantly influenced their response to questions concerning climate variability and adaptation
within the program. Interviewees within government and research organizations tended to focus
on the big picture of climate variability. Administrators of the programs tended to be focused
primarily on their projects and their immediate benefits to their clientele. Grassroots interviewees
(ie. producers) tended to focus on the benefits to the producers over the short and long term and
not necessarily preparing for climatic events.
For convenience and ease of reading, interviewees are often be referred to using their first
names. For the full names of interviewees and their relationship to the programs evaluated, see
below.