Methodology

This chapter sets out how we handled the responses received to the engagement exercise.

Summary of Feedback Responses

The formal engagement period ran from 21 August 2024 until 6 October 2024 inclusive, with feedback invited throughout this time. The feedback form, which can be found in Appendix C for reference, asked four separate questions which were purposefully open in nature. The questions sought respondents’ views on general design development and community objectives, as well as more specific elements of the scheme such as the proposals for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse-riders, and the Dunkeld and Birnam Railway Station car park and access proposals. During this time, a total of 72 responses were received, via the online and physical feedback forms (22 and 28 responses respectively), with responses also received via email (22 responses). Table 1 below outlines the number of responses which were received to each of the questions within the feedback form.

Responses were received from a wide range of communities and stakeholders including individual members of the public, a number of organisations, landowners, statutory consultees, businesses and recreational groups. Where multiple questionnaires were received from one respondent, these were merged and treated as one response for the purpose of this report.

Table 1: Number of responses received to each question

Question

No. of comments

Total number of respondents

72

1. We would appreciate your feedback on the General Design Development.

69

2. We would appreciate your feedback on the proposals for walkers, wheelers, cyclists and horse-riders.

30

3. We would appreciate your feedback on the Dunkeld and Birnam Railway Station car park and access proposals.

33

4. We would appreciate your feedback and any suggestions on our incorporation of the Community Objectives within our ongoing design and assessment work.

25

How Feedback was Analysed

All feedback received as part of the engagement process has been shared with the project team for their consideration as well as to inform ongoing design and assessment work.

The feedback received was considered in detail through a process of qualitative analysis called ‘coding’. This involved reading each submission individually before identifying, categorising, and logging the points raised to enable further analysis (see heat map below).

Map showing the length of the A9 with shading that shows a small number of responses from the Central Belt, Aviemore, Grantown on Spey and Buckie areas. The shading shows most responses were from the Dunkeld, Perth, Pitlochry area and surrounding villages.
Figure 5: View of the whole A9 showing where feedback was received from
Map showing the scheme design. Shading shows most responses were received from Birnam, specifically the area around Dunkeld and Birnam Railway Station, with some responses from Birnam Glen, Little Dunkeld and Dunkeld.
Figure 6: View showing the scheme layout and where feedback was received from

Coding is the first stage in a thematic analysis of open-text feedback. Each ‘code’ represents a particular concern, suggestion or other issue raised. Codes are grouped by themes into a structured list called the ‘code frame’, designed to be as intuitive as possible to ensure that codes are applied consistently.

Coding is an iterative and collaborative process, with new codes being created and others renamed as the team of analysts come across new issues in responses. Analysts work together to ensure codes are applied consistently and accurately including through quality checking of coding. The process involves a level of subjectivity and judgement by the analysts.

Responding to specific questions raised in responses

The project team has reviewed the feedback and provided responses to each of the individual pieces of feedback received during the engagement period, these can be seen in Appendix E.

Where detailed questions were asked, or requests were made, technical leads were able to provide responses through a mix of digital correspondence and in-person meetings.