Table 1.
Description of case study communities and key informants
| Community | Description | Individuals invited to participate |
|---|---|---|
| Rural town | Service centre for well-established agricultural and horticultural industries and growing wine and tourism industries | Two politicians (one accepted, one unavailable: on leave) |
| Two bureaucrats (one accepted, one unavailable: on leave) | ||
| Police officer (accepted) | ||
| Community Board member (declined: too busy) | ||
| Provincial city | Community with a high proportion of tertiary students in the population; education is the mainstay of the economy | Three politicians (all accepted) |
| One bureaucrat (accepted) | ||
| Police officer (accepted) | ||
| Accommodation provider representative (accepted) | ||
| Former publican (accepted) | ||
| Tertiary education provider representative (accepted) | ||
| Metropolitan city | Community with a large student population and financial and business services sectors | Three politicians (two accepted, one declined: no reason given) |
| Four bureaucrats (three accepted, one declined: manager of another participant) | ||
| Police officer (accepted) | ||
| Social worker (accepted) | ||
| Inner-city residents and retailers representative (could not be contacted) | ||
| Public health representative (declined: too busy) |