250214Paper1Annex1ConsultationResponseSummary

Cairngorms Annex 1, Paper 1 Form­al Board Nation­al Park Author­ity 14 Feb­ru­ary 2025 Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 1 of 2

Annex 1 Con­sulta­tion response sum­mary Level of response

1. The online sur­vey received a total of 109 responses with a break­down of the main respond­ent types as shown in the table below. Note that due to round­ing and as people could select mul­tiple options eg Loc­al res­id­ent and Land man­ager or work­er, responses do not total 100%. Writ­ten responses were received from a fur­ther 10 indi­vidu­als or organ­isa­tions and dir­ect dis­cus­sions were held with Police Scot­land, the Scot­tish Fire and Res­cue Ser­vice and the Scot­tish Wild­fire Forum.

What is your con­nec­tion with the Cairngorms Nation­al Park? | Respond­ent type | No. | % | | — -| — -| — -| | Loc­al Res­id­ent | 51 | 47 | | Vis­it­or | 47 | 43 | | Land Man­ager or work­er | 16 | 15 | | Volun­teer | 10 | 9 | | Part­ner Organ­isa­tion | 6 | 6 | | Com­munity Group | 6 | 6 | | Oth­ers / prefer not to say | 18 | 17 |

Respond­ent Type

1. Although not all respond­ents chose to answer those ques­tions, demo­graph­ic inform­a­tion was gathered to provide an indic­a­tion as to wheth­er or not a reas­on­able cross sec­tion of soci­ety took part in the con­sulta­tion. The table below includes a num­ber of char­ac­ter­ist­ics that sug­gest that while there were more responses from those with cer­tain char­ac­ter­ist­ics there was also a spread of respond­ent types.

Respond­ent type	%
Age 16 — 24	3
Age 25 — 34	2
Age 35 — 44	16
Age 45 – 54	29
Age 55 – 64	18

Cairngorms Annex 1, Paper 1 Form­al Board Nation­al Park Author­ity 14 Feb­ru­ary 2025 Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 2 of 2

| Age 65 — 74 | 26 | | Age 75+ | 6 | | Work­ing — employed full time / employed part time / self employed | 62 | | Retired | 32 | | Stu­dent | 6 | | Identi­fy sex as Male | 58 | | Identi­fy sex as Female | 42 | | Identi­fy gender as Male | 60 | | Identi­fy gender as Female | 38 | | Identi­fy gender in anoth­er way | 2 |

Level of sup­port for the pro­posed wording

1. A major­ity of respond­ents indic­ated that they agreed with the draft word­ing although some respond­ents also dis­agreed with ele­ments or did not indic­ate a view. Levels of sup­port are indic­ated in the table below.

Do you agree with the word­ing of the byelaw as set out in the fire byelaw con­sulta­tion doc­u­ment?	No.	%
Yes	63	58
No	19	17
Don’t know	8	7
No response giv­en to this question	19	17

Level of response to ques­tions relat­ing to the wording

1. 47 respond­ents answered the ques­tion ​“Do you pro­pose any changes to the word­ing as set out in the fire byelaw con­sulta­tion doc­u­ment?”. How­ever, many of those gave responses such as ​“No” while 24 respond­ents (22%) sug­ges­ted spe­cif­ic changes to the draft word­ing. 37 respond­ents (34%) made a com­ment in response to the ques­tion ​“Do you have any oth­er com­ments on the pro­posed byelaw?”. Some respond­ents took this oppor­tun­ity to indic­ate sup­port for, or oppos­i­tion to the prin­ciple of a byelaw or indic­ated they had no fur­ther com­ments” but some also made points that were rel­ev­ant to the draft word­ing and as such these were also included in the analysis.