UBC Graduate Research

Public Engagement in UBC’s Climate Action Plan 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
SCARP_2009_gradproject_Glor-Bell.pdf [ 5.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0102647.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102647+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102647.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102647+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102647+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102647+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0102647.ris

Full Text

iPublic EngagEmEnt in ubc’s climatE action Plan by Jessica (Jeca) Glor-Bell ProFessional ProJect For thE school of communitY and rEgional Planning and thE ubc sustainabilitY officE aPril 2009 iExecutive Summary     ............................................................................. ii Acronyms     ........................................................................................... v Figures & Tables    .................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements     ............................................................................. vii Foreword     ............................................................................................ viii Chapter 1: Introduction    ........................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Methodology    ....................................................................... 4 Chapter 3: Integrated Climate Action Framework - Overview     .............. 7 Chapter 4: Public Engagement - Defining and Mapping     ....................... 16 Chapter 5: Sustainability Planning at UBC     ........................................... 24 Chapter 6: UBC Climate Stakeholders     .................................................. 31 Chapter 7: Assessing Effectiveness     ....................................................... 40 Chapter 8: Recommendations & Conclusions     ....................................... 46 References     ............................................................................................ 50 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Key Informant Interview Subjects     ..................................... 54 Appendix 2: Interview Questions     .......................................................... 55 Appendix 3: Sample Consent Form     ....................................................... 56 Appendix 4: Timeline of ICAF Engagement to Date  ................................. 58 Appendix 5: Partial List of Sustainability Office Climate Advisors     ........ 59 Appendix 6: Members of the President’s Advisory Council on     Sustainability     ................................................................... 60 Appendix 7: Members of the Operations and Administration Working           Group of the PAC-S     ............................................................ 61 Appendix 8: Description of the World Café Model     ................................ 62 Appendix 9: Strategic Transportation Plan Advisory Committee     Members  ............................................................................. 63 Table of ConTenTs Public EngagEmEnt in ubc’s climatE action Plan by Jessica (Jeca) Glor-Bell B.A., Trent University, 2003 a ProJect suBmitted in Partial FulFilment oF the requirements For the deGree oF masters oF PlanninG in institute For interdisciPlinarY studies  School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this project as conforming to the required standard ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ the uniVersitY oF British columBia April 2009 © Jessica Glor-Bell, 2009 ii iii six aCTive avenues for PubliC engagemenT in The iCaf 1. information •	 In-person	presentations	by	the	Sustainability	Office	(SO)	staff	(summer	2007	-present) •	 Discussion Paper: Leadership and the Climate Agenda (February 26, 2008) •	 Climate Action website (September 2008 - present) •	 Introduces the ICAF planning framework and the working committees •	 Climate Action Symposium (October 2, 2008) •	 185 attendees were informed about climate action at UBC, the history of action on sustainability, and current UBC research and practice on climate 2. rEsEarch •	 Student research on the ICAF through Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies (SEEDS)	Projects	(summer	2007	-	present) •	 In-house	consultants	(fall	2007	&	summer	2008) •	 2006	GHG	inventory	(fall	2007) •	 Draft vision statement and ICAF structure (summer 2008) 3. consultation EvEnts •	 Round table discussions (spring 2008) •	 Invited the campus community to share their input on transportation, infrastructure, education and food 4. Working committEEs •	 Multi-stakeholder committees •	 President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability (PAC-S) (spring 2008 – present) •	 Operations and Administration Working Group of the PAC-S (spring 2008 – present) •	 Climate	Action	Partnership	Steering	Committee	(summer	2007	–	spring	2008) •	 Expert committees •	 Technical Advisory Committee, Risk Assessment Task Force, Utilities Management Committee, Alternative Energy Committee and Energy Management Committee 5. advisors •	 Formal •	 Off-campus advisors on the PAC-S Advisory Panel (forthcoming) •	 Informal •	 On-campus	advisors	are	a	source	of	information	for	the	SO	staff	(summer	2007	–	present) 6. PartnErshiPs •	 Formal •	 BC Campus Climate Network and the AMS (spring 2008 - present) •	 Informal •	 UBC Business Units are going to develop emissions reduction plans which will be aggregated into UBC’s Climate Action Strategy (forthcoming) exeCuTive summary Three Tools To analyze and evaluaTe PubliC engagemenT in The iCaf I evaluated public engagement in the ICAF using three approaches: the Checklist for Successful Sustainability Project Development at UBC (Chapter 5), the Checklist of UBC Climate Stakeholders (Chapter	6)	and	three	questions	on	effective	community	engagement	(Chapter	7). tool 1: chEcklist for succEssful sustainabilitY ProJEct dEvEloPmEnt at ubc Description: Using key informant interviews plus reports on the Energy Management Plan and the Sustainable	 Transportation	 Plan,	 I	 identified	 nine	 lessons	 for	 successful	 community	 engagement	 in sustainability planning at UBC.  I then compiled these lessons into a checklist.  This checklist is designed for the SO and other groups engaged in sustainability planning on campus to easily assess whether their engagement process is applying the lessons learned from past sustainability planning processes. Findings: The ICAF engagement process is applying six of nine the lessons gleaned from the success identified	in	the	checklist: 1. piggy-backing on existing UBC priorities, 2. engaging on- and off-campus stakeholders, 3. conducting pilot projects, 4. building support among top decision-makers, 5. sharing credit for successes, and 6. leveraging	successes	to	benefit	other	universities	and	colleges. This professional project report characterizes and analyzes community engagement in UBC’s Integrated Climate	Action	Framework	(ICAF).		The	UBC	Sustainability	Office	requested	that	this	study: 1. Document and classify the past and current processes of consultation in the ICAF. 2. Provide recommendations for future engagement activities based on an accurate and rigorous analysis. 3. Present these recommendations in an accessible and user-friendly way. In this report I introduce the ICAF structure and the 12 community engagement mechanisms employed by	the	UBS	Sustainability	Office	(SO)	from	June	2007	to	December	2008	(Chapter	3).		I	then	map	the engagement mechanisms onto the Spectrum of Public Engagement.  Based on this mapping, I further synthesize the 12 ICAF engagement mechanisms into six avenues for campus community engagement in the ICAF (Chapter 4). tool 2: chEcklist of ubc climatE stakEholdErs Description: Using key informant interviews and the list of stakeholders engaged in the Sustainable Transportation	Plan,	I	identified	high	and	low	priority	stakeholders	in	climate	and	sustainability	planning at UBC.  I compiled these stakeholders into a checklist.  This checklist is designed for the SO and other groups engaged in sustainability planning at UBC to easily assess if their planning process is engaging the key sustainability stakeholders on campus. Findings: Using the checklist I found that the ICAF is engaging seven of nine high priority stakeholders and six of 15 low priority stakeholders.  High priority stakeholders engaged in the ICAF: 1. Alma Mater Society (AMS) 2. UBC Properties Trust 3. Faculty	members	with	issue	specific	expertise	(climate	change,	planning,	etc.) 4. Campus and Community Planning 5. UBC Supply Management 6. TREK Program 7.	 Treasurer tool 3: assEssing EffEctivE communitY EngagEmEnt Description:  Rowe and Frewer (2005) identify two key criteria by which members of the public judge effective community engagement: fairness and competence.  Based on these criteria, I created three questions to consider whether the ICAF is effectively engaging the community: •	 What steps were taken to ensure competence in the engagement process? •	 How do the sponsors demonstrate a real intent to listen to the public? •	 How was the engagement process designed to be fair? Findings:  I found the process to be fair in the UBC context.  Better tracking of participation would help to ensure more diverse stakeholders are represented. The SO has made considerable efforts to integrate public input into the climate action planning process, but there is stillroom for improvement.  Closing the consultation loop by reporting back to the campus community on how their input has been used to shape the ICAF needs to be a priority.  This will increase the transparency of the process and enhance the perceived	competence	of	the	Sustainability	Office	(SO). exeCuTive summary iv v AAPS  Association of Administrative and Professional Staff AMS  Alma Mater Society (Undergraduate Student Union) AVP   Associate Vice-President BC   British Columbia BoG   Board of Governors CCP   Campus and Community Planning CMS   Climate Monitoring System CUPE   Canadian Union of Public Employees eCO2   Carbon Dioxide equivalent EMP   Energy Management Plan FTE   Full Time Equivalent GHG   Greenhouse Gas GSS   Graduate Student Society IAP2   International Association for Public Participation ICAF   Integrated Climate Action Framework IPCC   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUOE   International Union of Operating Engineers MOU   Memorandum of Understanding OAWG  Operations and Administration Working Group OCP		 	 Official	Community	Plan PAC-S   President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability SCARP  School of Community and Regional Planning SEEDS  Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies SO		 	 Sustainability	Office SOV   Single Occupant Vehicles STP   Strategic Transportation Plan SUCH   Schools, Universities, Colleges and Hospitals TAC   Technical Advisory Committee UBC   University of British Columbia UBC-O  University of British Columbia Okanagan UBC-V  University of British Columbia Vancouver UNA   University Neighbourhood Association UVic   University of Victoria VP   Vice President WRI   World Resource Institute aCronyms summary of reCommendaTions for PubliC engagemenT in The iCaf in order of PrioriTy 1. Close the consultation loop.  Ensure community input is integrated into the ICAF and report back to participants on how their input is used. 2. Communicate more broadly and regularly about the ICAF. 3. Explore	and	develop	creative	financing	models	for	implementing	the	ICAF. 4. Bundle	ecologically	significant	projects	with	money-making	projects. 5. Prioritize	engaging	the	VP	administration	&	finance,	neighbouring	community	associations, the Graduate Student Society and the campus unions. 6. Leverage partnerships with the AMS, UBC Common Energy and UBC Utilities to create climate pilot projects. 7.	 Create an email list of campus community members interested in or working on climate change. 8. Continue building the climate action website as a key source of information on how the campus community can get involved in the ICAF. 9. Give	specific	attention	to	ensuring	consultation	events	and	engagement	activities	are accessible and engage representatives from non-traditional stakeholders and groups affected by climate change         10.    Break down silos within the ICAF itself by holding regular (bi-annual) joint meetings of all      committee members and participants. exeCuTive summary vi vii tablEs Table 1: Total UBC Emissions for 2006     ........................................................................................      9 figurEs Figure 1:  Total UBC GHG Emissions for 2006 (tonnes eCO2)     ....................................................      9 Figure 2:  Information Flow in Three Types of Public Engagement     ............................................      16 Figure	3:		Spectrum	of	Public	Participation					..................................................................................	 					17 Figure 4:  Spectrum of Public Engagement     ...................................................................................      18 Figure 5:  ICAF Engagement Mechanisms Applied to  the Spectrum of Public Engagement  ........      19 Figure	6:		Checklist	for	Successful	Sustainabilty	Project	Development	at	UBC					..........................	 					27 Figure	7:		Checklist	for	Successful	Sustainability	Project	Development		at	UBC	Applied	to	the	ICAF.....	 					28 Figure 8:  Checklist of Climate Stakeholders at UBC     ...................................................................       35 Figure 9:  Checklist of UBC Campus Stakeholders Applied to the ICAF     ......................................      36 figures & Tables aCknowledgemenTs I could not have completed this project without the advice and guidance of my supervisors Dr. William Rees and Dr. Maged Senbel, as well as my second reader Liz Ferris. I am also very grateful for the advice of Alex Boston and all of my interview subjects.  My undying gratitude to Ron Bell, Laura Farina, Jason Blackman and Andrea Melnyk for all of their support and assistance. I have included a short forward which is dedicated to my brother Christopher.  I hope he will enjoy it. viii 1 Once upon a time there was a kingdom called UBC in the beautiful land of British Columbia.  For many years the people of this kingdom lived peacefully.  Then there came a mounting danger, the evil Climate Change monster entered the land.  This evil monster turned the once lush forests to match sticks, it chased away and ate up the wildlife.  It even sucked the water from the British Columbians’ fi elds and pastures, destroyed their homes.  UBC’s king Toope and the emperor of the land, Lord Campbell, both knew in their wisdom that if they did not defend themselves and their people, the evil climate change monster would destroy their lands eat them all up! Now, the kingdom had many lords within it, each with their own people, lands and laws.  Although the king could decree they must prepare to face this climate change monster, he knew that they hated taking orders and would often resist orders given from on high. So, the king drew to him his best advisors to develop a plan.  One advisor was very wise and old.  He told of other monsters that had attacked the kingdom, the reinforcements they made and the way they inspired the lords to act.  One advisor was very worldly.  He had travelled far and wide and had seen how other kingdoms had protected themselves and rallied their lords to fi ght the climate change monster. A third advisor worked closely with the lords and the people and beseeched the king to invite them all to a round table to make the plan together.  The Court scientist, who knew the most about the climate change monster, having studied it for many years, piped up: “This is not enough.  The old ways and reinforcements cannot stop this monster!  It is bigger and badder than anything we’ve ever faced before.  Yes, we must do all the things my brethren say, but we must do more, or we will surely perish.”  Finally, the Man at Arms spoke up, “Your Highness, we have made some preparations.  They are not enough, but some Lords are involved and we have a small infantry of good men and women ready to stand up against this monster now and fi ght.” So the king thanked his advisors and he sent them away.  Then he sat in his tower and he thought and he thought and he thought for seven days and seven nights.  Finally, emerged from his tower, returned to his advisors and said this: “We must do more to protect ourselves from this monster.  Gather the lords, that I may call on them to join me at a round table.  I will hear their stories and ideas.  Together we will shape my plan.  We must all prepare – each his fi efdom and his home.  I too will prepare, by gathering an army and providing reinforcements, tools, materials, provisions and plans.  We must not only reinforce our kingdom to keep the monster out, we must also prepare to fi ght the monster in case of attack. “Finally when this is done, we must send out our storytellers to share the news with all the other kingdoms in the land.  This will please the emperor and, god willing, help to save other kingdoms as well.  But fi rst the storytellers must start in our own land.  They must travel throughout the land and tell the people what I have decreed.  The storytellers will begin to prepare them for the changes that are to come.” And so it was that the people of UBC began preparing themselves to tackle the threat of climate change. foreword ChaPTer 1:inTroduCTion inTroduCTion Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS ClimaTe PlanningaCTion ProvinCial mandaTe for Carbon neuTraliTy Across British Columbia (BC), the early signs of climate change are already apparent. Some of the most serious local climate change impacts include the destruction of 46% of	BC’s	total	merchantable	pine	between	1998	and	2007	due	to	the	northern	expansion of the mountain pine beetles’ habitable range (Walton et al, 2008).  The Western Spruce Budworm	has	 also	 seen	 a	 sharp	 increase	 in	 infestation	 levels	 since	 2000.	 	 In	 2007, the	budworm	had	infested	847,344	hectares	of	BC	forests	(Natural	Resources	Canada, 2008).		Spruce	budworms	fl	ourish	in	warmer	conditions,	and	the	decade	from	1998	to 2007	was	the	hottest	on	record,	with	eight	of	the	ten	(8/10)	hottest	years	ever	recorded (World	Meteorological	Organization,	2007).		Droughts	across	the	Okanagan	region	are reducing the agricultural productivity of the region.  Three extreme storms in the winter of	2006/7	also	destroyed	10,000	trees	in	Vancouver’s	Stanley	Park	(Vancouver	Parks Board,	2007),	two	of	these	were	hundred	year	storm	events. In	November	2007	the	BC	provincial	government	passed	the	Greenhouse	Gas	Reduction Target Act which mandated that all public ministries, schools, universities, colleges, hospitals (SUCH sector), and Crown corporations be carbon neutral by 2010, and all	municipalities	be	carbon	neutral	by	2012	(Ministry	of	Environment	&	Offi	ce	of	the Premier,	2007).	 	This	Act	is	part	of	a	suite	of	policy	and	regulatory	tools	designed	to reduce	BC’s	public	 sector	 emissions	 to	33	percent	below	2007	 levels	by	2020.	 	BC’s targets are the most ambitious provincial or state-level climate change regulation in North America.  The provincial government is sending clear signals to public sector bodies and institutions that reducing emissions must become part of business as usual. If they achieve this provincial mandate, public sector institutions will achieve an eight percent (8%) reduction below 1990 levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2010.  This will make BC’s public sector compliant with Canada’s emissions reduction commitments	 in	 the	 fi	rst	 commitment	 period	 of	 the	 Kyoto	 Protocol	 (2008-2012). More importantly, these initiatives put BC on track towards the levels of worldwide emission	reductions	that	are	scientifi	cally	relevant	to	stop	dangerous	climate	change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for a 50% to 85% reduction in GHG	emissions	by	2050	to	avoid	dangerous	climate	change	(IPCC,	2007).  2 3 inTroduCTion Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS hisTory of susTainabiliTy leadershiP Universities, and particularly the University of British Columbia (UBC), can play a unique leadership role in achieving carbon neutrality.  As a leading research university, UBC houses a variety of academics who are part of the global community of thinkers and research leaders on climate change.  UBC’s campus community includes the ‘experts’ on the science, risks and impacts of climate change.  Sustainability is part of UBC’s	mission	statement	and	identified	as	a	one	of	the	university’s	greatest	strengths by the campus community members (UBC Strategic Plan, 2008).  UBC is a recognized leader	 in	 campus	 sustainability	 and	 climate	 action.	 	 Since	 1997,	 when	 UBC	 passed its Sustainability Policy (Policy #5), several large-scale and pioneering energy saving initiatives	were	implemented	to	improve	the	efficiency	of	operations.		Some	examples of these initiatives include: •	 hiring	the	province’s	first	Energy	Manager	-now	a	model	for	universities	and other public institutions (Wark, 2008) •	 EcoTREK-	a	$38.8	million	dollar,	self-financing	lighting	and	energy	retrofit programme	(Sustainability	Office,	2007b) •	 the UPASS student bus pass programme whereby all students on campus pay $22 per month for unlimited public transit (UPASS, 2008) •	 over 400 courses with sustainability content in a variety of disciplines and levels	(UBC	Sustainability	Office,	2007a) Internal and external proponents of campus sustainability have celebrated these initiatives.  Looking only at the year 2008, UBC’s sustainability efforts were recognized through a variety of awards and honourable mentions including: •	 Ranked in the top three of the most sustainable schools in North America (top Canadian school) by the Sustainable Endowments Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts •	 Just	Desserts	Award	for	SEEDS	program	from	the	AMS/GSS •	 Helen McCrea Award for SEEDS program from the Campus Advisory Board on Student Development •	 National	first	prize	for	quality	and	productivity	of	the	ECOTrek	program	from the	Canadian	Association	of	University	Business	Officers •	 Five Green Globes from the Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada for the Fipke Centre’s design •	 WorkLife BC Award of Merit from the Ministry of Children and Family Development for UBC Okanagan •	 Finalist	for	BC	Hydro’s	PowerSmart	Award	for	builder/developer	of	the	year for	UBC	Properties	Trust	(UBC	Sustainability	Office,	2008c) These awards and honourable mentions are just one indication of how UBC’s focus on campus sustainability throughout the last decade has positioned the university as a North American leader.  The ubC inTegraTed ClimaTe aCTion framework (iCaf) In response to the variety of regulatory and moral imperatives introduced above, the UBC	 Sustainability	 Office	 (SO)	 launched	 the	 Integrated	 Climate	 Action	 Framework (ICAF)	in	July	2007.	 	The	ICAF	includes	a	vision	statement,	an	emissions	inventory, a climate action strategy, a risk assessment, and a climate management system. The campus community has been engaged at a variety of levels in all of these elements except the climate management system, which does not yet exist.  Taken together, the ICAF is seeking	to	hold	emissions	at	2007	levels	until	2010	and	further	reduce	those	emissions to	33	percent	below	2007	levels	by	2020. PubliC engagemenT in The iCaf This	study	was	requested	by	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office	in	order	to: 1. Document and classify the past and current processes of consultation in the ICAF 2. Provide recommendations for future engagement activities based on an accurate and rigorous analysis 3. Present these recommendations in a palatable way (for recommendations are useless if they cannot be implemented) This report characterizes and assesses public engagement in the Integrated Climate Action Framework (ICAF). Based on this analysis, I recommend next-steps for campus	community	engagement	in	the	framework.		This	project	focuses	specifically	on community engagement in the planning and inventorying processes.  It is intended to complement work already underway to measure and reduce UBC’s GHG emissions in the ICAF, but does not focus directly on this technical aspect of the ICAF.  Community engagement in the planning process helps to generate public support, develop realistic management processes, and establish systems that support successful implementation of	these	plans	(Rosener,	1982;	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2000;	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2005;	Smith, Nell	 &	 Prystupa,	 1997;	 Stewart,	 Dennis	 &	 Ely,	 1984;	Wiedemann	 &	 Femers,	 1993). Engagement helps to build a consensus among community members on what they want to achieve through plans and policy (Boothroyd, 1991).  Public engagement can also help to reduce resistance to change, by building awareness of the key trade-offs, considerations,	priorities	and	timelines	(Evans	et	al,	2005;	Linstead,	1997). In Chapter 2, I explain my research methodology, methods and analytical approach, which draw on past sustainability planning processes at UBC, literature and tools on public participation and interviews with key informants within the UBC campus community.  In Chapter 3, I introduce the ICAF and the public engagement mechanisms that are underway or have already taken place.  In Chapter 4, I map these community engagement mechanisms onto the Spectrum of Public Engagement and cluster mechanisms by their level of public impact to synthesize the engagement mechanisms into six distinct avenues for community engagement.  In chapters 5, 6 and	7,	I	analyze	the	ICAF	community	engagement	process	in	terms	of	consistency	with past sustainability planning processes, effective engagement of relevant stakeholders, and	effectiveness	of	the	engagement	process.		I	first	examine	successes	and	lessons	in public	engagement	identified	by	leaders	in	two	successful	sustainability	plans	at	UBC: the Energy Management Plan and the Sustainable Transportation Plan.  These lessons for the ICAF engagement process are summarized in the Checklist for Successful Sustainability Project Development at UBC.  Next, I identify key stakeholders that should be engaged in climate action planning on campus, which are summarized in the Checklist of UBC Climate Stakeholders.   Thirdly, I test the engagement mechanisms for fairness and competence.   Based on this analysis I present 10 recommendations for building on successes and improving future community engagement in the ICAF moving forward. inTroduCTion Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 4 5ClimaTe aCTion Planning ChaPTer 2: meThodology meThodology My project was developed using a Mixed-Methods methodology, which combines a literature review of academic and grey literature with key informant interviews, of current and past members of the UBC campus community.  Given that stopping climate change is both an operational and behavioural challenge, and that no single body of research on climate action planning exists, this method was considered appropriate. daTa ColleCTion & analysis There were three focus areas in the data collection for this project.  I began with a literature review focused on best practices in conducting and evaluating climate action planning and community engagement processes.   Secondly I conducted interviews with key informants within the UBC community, seeking to identify best practices, lessons and insight on how to effectively engage the campus community in sustainability planning and action.  Finally, I researched two case studies on successful sustainability plans at UBC to supplement	and	fill	out	information	gathered	through	the	key	informant	interviews. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are drawn from theoretical sources on community engagement and case studies of successful sustainability plans at UBC.  This approach is intended to at once maintain best practice in public consultation at UBC and also to improve those activities by applying academic theory on the subject. Given that UBC is an academic institution, focused on research and teaching, an academic model was considered relevant and appropriate for evaluating public engagement. My literature review focused primarily on academic articles, published books available through the UBC library, and publically available articles published through credible sources on the Internet.  Although I found a wide variety of information, most of it was not	directly	relevant	to	my	research	topics	or	was	not	of	sufficient	detail	to	be	used	to	set criteria	to	evaluate	community	engagement	in	the	ICAF.	 	No	resources	were	identified that offered matrices or tools to evaluate public engagement.  Neither were any examples or	models	for	engagement	in	public	participation	identified.		For	this	reason,	I	built	my own analytical models for characterizing community engagement in this project, applying and achieving best practices, and evaluating the effectiveness of the engagement process so	 far.	 	 	The	 literature	 review	provided	 theory	on	defining	and	evaluating	 community engagement.  This theory was applied in this project to categorize and evaluate community engagement in UBC’s Integrated Climate Action Framework (ICAF). Information on the two case studies of successful sustainability initiatives at UBC was gathered from a literature review of publically available records and reports plus the information gathered in key informant interviews.  The two case studies are of the Energy Management Plan (1998) and the Sustainable Transportation Plan (1999).  These two examples were selected because they recurred the most frequently as examples in the key informant interviews’ accounts of successful sustainability projects.  Key informant interview	 subjects	 identified	what	 approaches,	 opportunities	 or	 characteristics	made these	 plans	 successful	 in	 both	 terms	 of	 successful	 implementation	 and	 significant environmental impact.   These insights are compiled into two checklists, one of campus stakeholders in sustainability and one on successful strategies for effective community engagement in a sustainability management plan.  Other insights, more broadly relevant to creating effective sustainability management plans also came up during the unstructured interviews.  I have attempted to include these, as possible, in the text, but they are beyond the scope of this study.  However, there are opportunities for further	study	of	the	financing	approaches	and	ongoing	management	systems	that	led	to successful implementation of the plans. In the initial project design I intended to examine case studies from municipal and business contexts of a similar site or scale.  Cross-sectoral case studies were included in the	original	scope	in	the	hopes	of	cross-pollinating	ideas.		Unfortunately,	no	sufficient information on suitable case studies was found in an initial academic literature search and online document search.  I made the choice to limit the case studies to successes at UBC, since the interview subjects and literature were more easily accessible through the	Sustainability	Office	(SO)	and	other	UBC	offices	and	given	that	the	unit	of	study	for this project is UBC. Key informant interviews were conducted with current and past staff, faculty and students at UBC.  The interview subjects were selected based on a list of informants provided by the UBC SO, and then supplemented using a popcorn style method, where interview subjects were asked to recommend other people to be interviewed.  A full list of key informant interview subjects is included in Appendix 1.  Sample interview questions are included in Appendix 2.  These sample interview questions were used to spark and guide the unstructured interviews.  Probing questions were also asked further delving into 1. information	 specifically	 relating	 to	 the	 case	 studies	 and	 the	 keys	 to	 their successful development and engagement of the community. 2. understanding the Integrated Climate Action Framewor including understanding the reporting and accountability structure of the plan, its content and scope, as well as the process for engaging campus community members in its development. Data was gathered using notes taken during the interview and supplemented by re- listening	 to	 interview	 recordings.	 	The	notes	were	 focused	 specifically	on	 identifying stakeholders and keys to success, which were synthesized into the checklists. To	ensure	confidentiality,	key	informants	are	grouped	into	a	single	category	(respondents) to identify stakeholders in Chapter 6. limiTaTions & risks Although several articles bemoan the lack of consistent evaluation criteria for public engagement,	 and	 although	 in	my	 research	 I	 did	 not	 find	 any	 evaluation	 criteria	 or models to apply to the ICAF, this may still be a gap and failing in the research. There	may	be	flaws	in	the	application	of	the	theoretical	model	for	characterizing	and evaluating community engagement to the practical case of the UBC ICAF.  Although attention is given to clearly walking through the development and application of both the Spectrum of Public Engagement and the criteria for effective engagement, these models may not capture all relevant elements in understanding and assessing community engagement. There is a risk that the key informants did not provide accurate or complete information. Each interview subject will present events from their perspective and may not know all relevant information. The majority of interview subjects were suggested by the Sustainability	Office	(SO)	staff,	and	have	some	connection	or	affiliation	with	that	office. IntroduCtIon meThodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon meThodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 6 7PubliCubC engagemenTThere may be others who were not interviewed who have a very different perspective on how sustainability advances at UBC or what stakeholders should be engaged in reducing emissions on campus.  However, this is considered to be a low risk as the SO is a reliable source and has been the primary body working on sustainability within UBC’s administrative and operational structure since 1998. To	 protect	 confi	dentiality	 in	 the	 stakeholder	 section	 of	 the	 report	 (Chapter	 6),	 key informant were grouped into a single category–respondents.  As a result, the reader cannot develop an understanding of how experienced or knowledgeable each respondent is on this subject.  However, this was considered an acceptable limitation when balanced with	meeting	the	commitment	to	protect	confi	dentiality,	which	was	explicitly	given	to the key informants (both verbally and in the consent form). eThiCal ConsideraTions This project was subject to ethical review by the University’s Research and Ethics Board, as is required under the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct of research involving human subjects.  Through review this research project was found to be minimal risk.  Interview subjects were asked to sign a consent form before being interviewed.  A sample consent form is included in Appendix 3. ProjeCT ParTners The	UBC	Sustainability	Offi	ce	(SO)	is	the	client	for	this	professional	project.		This	project is also part of the SO’s SEEDS Program (Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies), which supports student research on campus sustainability by facilitating partnerships between staff, students and faculty.  This project will be included in the SEEDS library. The SO is taking the lead in developing the UBC Integrated Climate Action Framework. Liz Ferris, the Coordinator of Climate Action at UBC, is the second reader and a key advisor for this project. IntroduCtIon meThodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS inTroduCTion The	 Integrated	 Climate	 Action	 Framework	 (ICAF)	 grew	 out	 of	 the	 confl	uence	 of internal calls for action on climate change combined with an external mandate from the provincial	government	for	universities	to	freeze	emissions	at	2007	levels. The	internal	momentum	came	fi	rst	in	July	2007,	when	the	UBC	Sustainability	Offi	ce (SO) hired a coordinator of student engagement, which later became the coordinator of climate action. This position was created  in response to interest from within the campus community, especially the student group UBC Common Energy, who wanted to	work	with	the	Sustainability	Offi	ce	(SO)	to	achieve	the	goals	of	having	UBC	do	more to	solve	 the	climate	crisis	 than	we	do	 to	cause	 it.	 	Common	Energy	defi	nes	 this	goal as ‘beyond climate-neutral’ (Common Energy, 2008). When UBC President Stephen Toope signed the University and College Presidents’ Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada, this demonstrated support and commitment to action on reducing GHG emissions from the top of the decision-making hierarchy.  UBC was among the fi	rst	 cosigners	of	 this	Statement	of	Action,	along	with	presidents	 from	Simon	Fraser University, University of Victoria, Royal Roads University, University of Northern British Columbia and Thompson Rivers University.  As signatories to this statement of action they each commit to: •	 Initiate the development of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases by creating a planning body. •	 By creating a planning body that includes students, staff, faculty, researchers, administrators and other partners to set emissions reduction targets in accordance with each institution’s jurisdiction. •	 Within one year of signing this document, complete a comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions on each campus. •	 Within two years of signing this document, set targets and develop an institutional climate action plan that engages each institution’s research, education and operations in a comprehensive strategy that catalyzes solutions for climate change. •	 While the comprehensive plan is being created, immediately implement selected tangible actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. •	 Make action plans, inventories and periodic progress reports publicly available for review and comment. •	 Work cooperatively with governments, civil society, the business community and other institutions of higher learning to contribute to global climate change actions in recognition of our responsibility for equitable solutions.  (UBC, 2008, p.1). Externally, the British Columbia provincial government passed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act	 in	 November	 2007.	 	 This	 Act	 sets	 the	 goal	 of	 reducing	 BC’s greenhouse	gas	(GHG)	emissions	to	33	percent	below	2007	levels	by	2020.		To	meet this goal, the Act mandates all public sector organizations to be carbon neutral by 2010 and	all	municipalities	to	be	carbon	neutral	by	2012	(Ministry	of	Environment	&	Offi	ce of	the	Premier,	2007).		After	2010,	ministries,	Crown	corporations,	as	well	as	schools, universities, colleges and health authorities (SUCH sector) will need to offset any GHG	emissions	that	exceed	2007	levels	through	the	Pacifi	c	Carbon	Trust.		The	Pacifi	c Carbon	Trust	charges	$25/tonne	for	carbon	offsets	and	invests	the	money	in	emissions reduction	activities	in	BC	(Pacifi	c	Carbon	Trust,	2008). IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS ChaPTer 3: inTegraTed ClimaTe aCTion framework overview 8 9 sTruCTure During	 the	 summer	 2008,	 the	 ICAF	 design	 was	 finalized	 during	 and	 includes	 five components: •	 vision statement •	 emission inventory •	 climate action strategies •	 climate adaptation and resiliency risk assessment •	 climate management system 1. vision A vision statement was drafted during the summer of 2008, and will be available for public comment in March 2009.  The draft vision statement has four key pillars: 1. achieve	and	move	from	the	current	definition	of	‘carbon	neutral’	as	defined  by the Province of British Columbia to a state that is ‘beyond climate neutral’ in the long term; 2. become	the	world’s	first	net	positive	energy	and	water	campus; 3. embody a resilient and sustainable mode of development; 4. serve as a proactive and global leader on issues of climate change  and sustainability as they relate to the function of major research and learning institutions	(UBC	Sustainability	Office,	2008d,	p.1). 2. Emissions invEntorY During	fall	2007	the	SO	convened	the	Technical	Advisory	Committee	(TAC)	made	up of operational, academic and student experts.  The TAC  set the parameters for a GHG emissions inventory of the UBC-Vancouver (UBC-V) and Okanagan (UBC-O) campuses. After much deliberation, the TAC advised that the 2006 GHG Emissions Inventory use the World Resource Institute’s (WRI) GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, which is an industry	standard	and	defines	three	scopes	of	emissions:  Scope 1  is from sources the university owns or controls.  Scope 2 is emissions generated to produce energy or electricity the university     consumes.  Scope 3  is all emissions not directly controlled by the university, which includes    commuting, business travel, waste disposal, embodied energy of     products among others (World Resource Institute, 2008). The	UBC	Sustainability	Office	(SO)	started	developing	the	scope	of	the	campus	GHG emissions inventory several months before the provincial government mandated or defined	 the	parameters	 for	 carbon	neutrality.	 	 In	 the	 end,	 the	UBC	 inventory	 to	 the WRI	standard	is	a	broader	scope	than	the	provincial	government	definition	of	carbon neutrality, which includes only scopes 1 and 2. summarY of findings: 2006 grEEnhousE gas Emissions invEntorY The 2006 GHG inventory included scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions from both UBC-V and UBC-O and the total emissions for both campuses are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1. tablE 1: total ubc Emissions for 2006 UBC Emissions Source (Vancouver + Okanagan) Emissions (tonnes eCO2) Scope 1    Natural gas 66,417    Oil 454    Animals 1,510 			Fleet	&	Fuel 2,171 Scope 2    Electricity 23,348 Scope 3    Paper 1,091    Flights 13,635    Commuting 23,658    Waste -1,065    Fertilizer 149 Total UBC Emissions 144,443 	 										(UBC	Sustainability	Office,	2008c) figurE 1: total ubc ghg Emissions for 2006 (tonnEs Eco2)  (Adapted	from	UBC	Sustainability	Office,	2008c) IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 10 11 3. climatE action stratEgiEs The Climate Action Strategies will be developed at the business unit and departmental levels,	with	support	from	the	Sustainability	Office	(SO).		Taken	together,	these	will	make up UBC’s Climate Action Strategy for both the UBC-V and UBC-O campuses and their implementation will be supported by the Climate Monitoring System (CMS).  The TAC will evaluate the technical feasibility of the plans (Ferris, 2008a). At the time of writing, no examples were yet available of business unit level strategies nor were examples available of how the SO and TAC will work with these units to support the design and implementation. 4. climatE adaPtation and rEsiliEncY risk assEssmEnt The Risk Assessment Task Force was convened in the fall 2008.  The Task Force’s mandate is to develop a report to identify the anticipated impacts of climate change on the UBC Point Grey Campus between 2010 and 2100.  They will identify strategies to improve UBC’s resilience and mitigate risks associated with climate change, focused on adaptation (Ferris, 2008a).  Their results are expected in 2009. 5. climatE managEmEnt sYstEm (cms) The Climate Management System (CMS) has not yet been developed.  It is intended to establish the processes and procedures to monitor, target and periodically report on UBC’s GHG emissions levels and progress towards the climate vision.  This system will draw on the work of the Alternative Energy, Energy Management and Utility Management Committees, but is not yet in place (Henderson, 2008). CharaCTerizing CamPus CommuniTy engagemenT To date there have been a variety of opportunities for community stakeholders to shape the	 ICAF	 planning	 process.	 	However,	 these	mechanisms	 do	 not	 yet	 fit	 into	 a	 clear structure or framework of engagement.  This lack of structure is at once a strength and a	weakness	of	 the	 ICAF.	 	The	benefit	of	what	 the	SO	staff	call	an	 ‘emergent	process’ is that it allowed the vision and structure of the framework to grow and evolve as administrative buy-in increased.  It also means that the scope and approach of the framework has responded to the input gathered from key stakeholders and community members involved in the process.  On the other hand, the draw back of this process is that it has not been transparent. There has not been clear or regular communication about ICAF progress, nor a clear articulation of mechanisms and forums for community input.  Neither has their been clear or regular communication about how community input is translated into the plan. The purpose of this section is to introduce the 12 community	engagement	mechanisms	that	occurred	in	the	first	18	months	of	the	ICAF. These engagement mechanisms are presented in chronological order.  For a timeline of community engagement initiatives in the ICAF to date see Appendix 4. 1. sEEds ProJEcts (social, Ecological, Economic dEvEloPmEnt studiEs) (aPril 2007 – PrEsEnt) Through SEEDS projects, student researchers work with a staff and a faculty member to conduct academic research on campus sustainability issues for course credit. The first	SEEDS	project	that	fed	into	the	development	of	the	ICAF	was	completed	in	April 2007	by	Jordan	Best	and	Liz	Ferris.		This	project	sparked	the	initial	hiring	of	a	student engagement	 coordinator.	To	date,	 five	 reports	 by	UBC	undergraduate	 students	have been posted in the SEEDS Project library that contribute directly to the ICAF in the areas of energy, transportation, food, and GHG inventory.  Project titles include: •	 Carbon	Neutrality	&	UBC:	A	First	Glance	(Best	&	Ferris,	2007) •	 climate management system UBC Food Systems Project: Moving UBC Food Outlets Beyond Climate Neutral (Allyn et al, 2008) •	 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of Future UBC Transportation Options (Louie,	Wan	&	Ying,	2008) •	 UBC Food Systems Project: Climate Action Partnership - Moving UBC Beyond Climate Neutral (Miles et al, 2008) •	 Energy and Climate Change at the University of British Columbia (Zirnhelt, 2008) 2. climatE action PartnErshiP stEEring committEE (JulY 2007 – sPring 2008) The Climate Action Partnership Steering Committee was the oversight body the development of the ICAF and reported to the Sustainability Advisory Committee. Committee membership included the AMS, GSS, UBC Common Energy, interested faculty champions and interested individuals.  Committee responsibilities included: •	 overseeing the implementation of a participatory planning process and creating a work plan to implement the ICAF •	 overseeing the development of an integrated climate management strategy for UBC (now the ICAF) •	 supporting the implementation of the Climate Action Framework across university operations and practices •	 advising on strategic priorities to advance leadership on climate through campus research, teaching and learning and operations •	 evaluating and recalibrating the Climate Action Framework as needed (UBC Sustainability	Office,	2008b) When sustainability reporting and administration was restructured in March 2008, this group was replaced by the Operations and Administration Working Group (OAWG) of the President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability (PAC-S) as the oversight body for the ICAF. 3. informal advisors (summEr 2007 – PrEsEnt) A variety of faculty members, staff and students are engaged as informal advisors to SO staff working on the ICAF.  These advisors are go-to people for SO staff, with expertise in areas such as climate change science, community engagement, media and communications.	 	 Informal	 advisors	have	not	made	an	official	 commitment	 to	work on the ICAF or contribute to regular meetings but act as ad hoc resource people.  For a partial list of SO climate advisors see Appendix 5. 4.  in-PErson PrEsEntations (summEr 2007 – PrEsEnt) In	the	first	year	of	the	project	the	majority	of	communication	about	the	process	and	progress of the ICAF was done through in-person presentations.  For over a year, both Liz Ferris (coordinator of student engagement, then coordinator of climate action) and Charlene Easton (director of sustainability) did presentations to stakeholders across the university including to a variety of committees, departments, units, groups and issue leaders.  These presentations focused on explaining the vision and process of the ICAF and then inviting these bodies or individuals to contribute through committees, student research, round table discussions, working committees, as advisors or through partnerships. IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 12 13 IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 5. ExPErt committEEs (fall 2007 – PrEsEnt) The	first	expert	committee	to	be	formed	was	the	Technical	Advisory	Committee	(TAC), which created the initial scope and parameters for the GHG inventory.  There are now five	active	expert	committees: •	 Technical Advisory (TAC) •	 Energy Management •	 Alternative Energy •	 Utilities Management •	 Risk Assessment Task Force These committees pull together faculty, staff, students and other community members with	 specific	 expertise	 in	one	of	 the	five	 committee’s	 areas.	 	The	Technical	Advisory Committee and Risk Assessment Task Force are contributing directly to the creation of the UBC GHG inventory and campus risk assessment.  The Utilities, Alternative Energy and	 Energy	 Management	 Committees	 are	 working	 on	 specific	 emissions	 reduction projects	for	the	campus	(steam	plant	retrofit,	real-time	building	metering,	developing alternative supply-side energy and managing energy demand).  There is limited student involvement on these committees, with one PhD student on the Technical Advisory Committee, and 2 students on the Risk Assessment Task Force.  As of fall 2008, the expert committees have become sub-committees of the OAWG.  A full list of expert committee membership was not available to include in this report. Although there was no formal selection process for the working committees, I observed some clear regularities in the selection process.  The SO has invited community members to join the ICAF working committees if they met one of three key criteria: •	 They are big polluters •	 They hold positions or are part of an academic department or business unit	responsible	for	a	significant	quantity	of	UBC’s	GHG	emissions. •	 They have relevant expertise •	 Their	expertise	may	be	scientific,	operational,	managerial,	related	to risk assessment, process development or implementation in the UBC context. •	 They are interested champions •	 They are individuals who want to champion climate action within their department, unit or jurisdiction. When community members do not meet one of these criteria, they are invited to participate through one of the other engagement mechanisms. 6. on-camPus consultants (fall 2007 – summEr 2008) In-house research informed the ICAF through contracts with on-campus researchers. One post-doctoral fellow conducted the 2006 GHG Inventory of UBC-Vancouver and UBC-Okanagan’s emissions.  Another PhD student created the scope document for the ICAF, including the table of contents and the draft vision statement.  In-house research is	significantly	cheaper	than	hiring	external	consultants	and	by	drawing	from	within	the campus community there is more familiarity with the campus stakeholders, decision- making structure, culture, governance, etc. 7. discussion PaPEr (fEbruarY 2008) An	official	report	on	the	ICAF	was	prepared	and	released	by	the	Sustainability	Office: Discussion Paper, Leadership and the Climate Agenda	(Sustainability	Office,	2008a). This report: •	 presents a general overview of the rationale for climate action at UBC •	 reviews of the history of emissions reduction initiative at UBC •	 summarizes the preliminary results of the 2006 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory for UBC •	 presents the plan for emissions management •	 identifies	some	proposed	projects	to	advance	climate	action	on	campus This document was circulated to top decision-makers at the university and is publicly available on the SO website, though no forums for community feedback or discussion are	identified. 8. PrEsidEnt’s advisorY council on sustainabilitY (Pac-s) and its Working grouPs (sPring 2008 – PrEsEnt) The President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability (PAC-S) is a multi- stakeholder committee that reports directly to the UBC president.  This new advisory committee was created out of the restructuring of sustainability reporting and management at UBC in early 2008. The PAC-S may offer a more direct link with the president and result in an increased commitment to sustainability on campus, but it met	for	the	first	time	in	summer	2008,	so	it	is	too	early	at	the	time	of	writing	this	report to assess the effectiveness of the PAC-S. The PAC-S members are top-level decision- makers from across UBC’s many units and departments.  For a full list of PAC-S members see Appendix 6. Sustainability related decisions now go through the President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability and its working groups: •	 Academic Planning •	 Advisory Panel •	 Communications •	 Research	&	Community	Partnerships •	 Operations and Administration •	 UBC-Okanagan (UBC-O) •	 Development (OAWG, 2008) The Operations and Administration Working Group (OAWG) is mandated to:  assess, evaluate and set strategic priorities and to guide, support and advise the  UBC community on the realization of a comprehensive sustainable campus. The  ‘Campus as a Living Laboratory’ provides the focus for the application of 	 sustainability	initiatives	to	the	real	conditions	in	an	adaptive	and	reflective	manner  and engages the campus community and the relevant stakeholders in the process  OAWG, 2008, p.1). The OAWG is now the decision-making body for the ICAF, which is one of its top four priorities	for	2008/9.		Its	membership	was	selected	based	on  professional competence and functional responsibility in the areas of 1) sustainability  and the academic enterprise; 2) sustainability and campus operations and community;  3) sustainability and the workplace; and 4) sustainability and global leadership;  5) sustainability and the student experience,” (OAWG, 2008). The OAWG is chaired by UBC’s director of sustainability, Charlene Easton.  For a full list	of	working	group	members	see	Appendix	7. 14 15 The Advisory Panel is chaired by Dr. James Tansey from the Sauder School of Business.  The Advisory Panel will include 15 to 20 people, but the membership is not	yet	finalized.	 	 Invitations	were	 sent	out	 to	 sustainability	 experts	 external	 to	UBC in November 2008.  The intention is to include both local sustainability leaders and international representatives.  The role of this group is to provide annual direction and feedback on UBC’s Sustainability Strategy, including the Integrated Climate Action Framework (Tansey, 2008). 9.  round tablEs (march – maY 2008) Four round table discussions (or policy discussions) on climate change were held in the spring 2008.  These focused on transportation, infrastructure (policy discussion), education and food.  These round tables used a World Café model (see Appendix 8 for description of World Café model).  The UBC SO partnered with the UBC TREK Program, Campus and Community Planning, UBC Common Energy and Agricultural Sciences 450: Land, Food and Community (taught by Dr. Alejandro Rojas in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems) to deliver each of the round tables.  The partners took on promoting, advertising and inviting participants to attend the events.  As a result, the level of advertising and promotion	varied	significantly	between	events,	as	did	the	number	of	participants. 10. PartnErshiPs (sPring 2008 and uPcoming) The SO is involved in two formal partnerships with student groups.  The SO is partially funding the implementation of the Alma Mater Society’s (AMS) Lighter Footprint Strategy, which	sets	specific	sustainability	targets	and	creates	a	framework	for	implementing	the AMS	Sustainability	Policy.		The	SO	also	co-fundraised	for	the	goBEYOND	Project	as	part of	the	BC	Campus	Climate	Network.		goBEYOND	engages	students	to •	 take challenges to reduce their emissions •	 build climate change education into curriculum •	 create a space for youth engage in carbon neutral planning •	 increase youth capacity through training, tools, and mentorship The	first	phase	of	goBEYOND	(June	–	December	2008)	is	focused	on	three	campuses: UBC, the University of Victoria (UVic), and Thompson Rivers University (BC Campus Climate Network, 2008). By 2009 the SO hopes to have informal partnerships with all of UBC’s top emitting business units and departments to create individualized, unit-level emissions reduction plans.  Decision-makers have already been informally engaged from: •	 Campus and Community Planning •	 UBC Utilities •	 Plant	Operations	(fleets) •	 UBC TREK Program •	 Supply Management •	 UBC Food Services •	 Housing	&	Conferences •	 Athletics and Recreation •	 Continuing Education (Ferris, 2008b) Unlike formal partnerships described above, the SO has not yet signed partnership agreements or created Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the business units. Instead the SO is seeking to support business units to create and implement their own emissions reduction plans with support and assistance from the SO or their consultants. 11.  climatE action WEbsitE (WWW.sustain.ubc.ca/climatE.html) (sEPtEmbEr 2008) The climate website initially provided a concise explanation of the ICAF structure. This was an important step in increasing the accessibility and transparency of the planning process.   A more complete website, including consultation events, background information and interactive functions was launched in March 2009. 12. climatE action sYmPosium (octobEr 2, 2008) The	SO	co-hosted	the	UBC	Climate	Action	Symposium	with	the	Office	of	the	Provost/ VP	Academic.	 	This	one-day	event	profiled	a	selection	of	UBC	academic	research	and operational initiatives relevant to climate change and provided some opportunities for informal networking and community-building.  Over 185 people attended the symposium,	(69	student,	22	alumni	&	community	members,	22	faculty,	46	staff,	and	26 presenters).  There were four panel discussions: •	 Scientific	and	Knowledge	Foundations	on	Climate	Change, •	 Accelerating Solutions to Climate Change, •	 Using the UBC Campus as a Living Lab for Climate Solutions and •	 Moving from Climate Science to Policy. As a result of the symposium a list of over 300 campus community members interested in climate action was collected. summary This Chapter introduces the Integrated Climate Action Framework (ICAF), which is the subject	of	this	study.		First	the	five	components	of	the	ICAF	were	introduced: •	 vision •	 emissions inventory •	 climate action strategies •	 climate adaptation and resiliency risk assessment •	 the climate management system Next, the 12 engagement mechanisms utilized in the ICAF were introduced and described in chronological order: 1. SEEDS projects 2. Climate Action Partnership Steering Committee 3. informal advisors 4. in-person presentations 5. expert committees 6. on-campus consultants 7. Discussion Paper 8. President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability and its Working Groups 9. round table discussions 10. formal partnerships 11. website 12. symposium IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology iCaf overview PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 16 17ClimaTe PlanningaCTion inTroduCTion This	 chapter	 clarifi	es	 and	 defi	nes	 terminology	 of	 public	 engagement	 used	 in	 this report.  It introduces the Spectrum of Public Engagement, which maps communication, consultation	and	participation	in	terms	of	information	fl	ow	and	level	of	public	impact on decision-making.  The 12 engagement mechanisms from Chapter 3 are then mapped onto the spectrum to clarify what types of engagement (communication, consultation or participation)	have	been	available	to	the	campus	community	during	the	fi	rst	18	months of the UBC Integrated Climate Action Framework.   Based on this mapping, six clusters of	engagement	activities	are	identifi	ed. Terminology: defining PubliC engagemenT A common complaint among academics studying community engagement is the lack of clear terminology and confused use of key terms, such as ‘engagement’, ‘involvement’, ‘participation’	 and	 ‘consultation’	 (Beierle	 &	 Clayford,	 2002;	 Dorcey	 &	 McDaniels, 2001;	Rosener,	1982;	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2005).		The	defi	nitions	adopted	here	are	drawn directly	 from	 the	work	 of	Rowe	&	Frewer	 (2005),	who	 are	 seeking,	 through	 a	 series of	publications,	to	defi	ne	common	terminology	within	the	fi	eld	of	public	engagement. Rowe and Frewer propose the use of public engagement as their preferred overarching term for involvement of the public in planning and decision-making.  Public engagement includes three categories: public communication, public consultation, and public participation.	 These	 categories	 are	 distinguished	 based	 on	 the	 fl	ow	 of	 information between participants and sponsors (those commissioning the engagement exercise). The	information	fl	ow	model	is	summarized	in	fi	gure	2.		Rowe	and	Frewer	(2005)	explain	that “[i]n public communication, information is conveyed from the sponsors of the initiative to	the	public”	(emphasis	the	authors’,	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2005,	p.	254)	whereas  [i]n public consultation, information is conveyed from members of the public to  the sponsors of the initiative, following a process initiated by the sponsor. 	 Signifi	cantly,	no	formal dialogue exists between individual members of the public 	 and	the	sponsors”	(emphasis	the	authors’,	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2005,	p.255). Finally, they distinguish that  [i]n public participation, information is exchanged between members of the  public and the sponsors. That is, there is some degree of dialogue in the process  that takes place (usually in a group setting).  (...) Rather than simple, raw opinions  being conveyed to the sponsors, the act of dialogue and negotiation serves to  transform opinions in the members of both parties (sponsors and public 	 participants)	(emphasis	the	authors’,	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2005,	p.255-6). figurE 2: information floW in thrEE tYPEs of Public EngagEmEnt CommuniCaTions           Sponsor Information Public Representative ConsulTaTion             Sponsor Information Public Representative ParTiCiPaTion               Sponsor Information Public Representative (Rowe and Frewer, 2005, p.255) IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS ChaPTer 4: PubliC engagemenT – defining & maPPing figurE 3: sPEctrum of Public ParticiPation E m p ow er T o pl ac e fi	n al de ci si on - m ak in g in th e ha nd s of  th e pu bl ic . W e w ill  im pl em en t w ha t y ou  de ci de . • 	C it iz en     j ur ie s • 	B al lo ts • 	D el eg at ed     d ec is io n C ol la bo ra te To  p ar tn er  w it h th e pu bl ic  in  e ac h as pe ct  o f t he  de ci si on  in cl ud in g th e de ve lo pm en t o f a lt er na ti ve s an d th e id en ti fi	c at io n 	o f	t he  pr ef er re d so lu ti on . W e w ill  lo ok  to  y ou  fo r di re ct  a dv ic e an d in no va ti on  in  fo rm ul at in g so lu ti on s an d in co rp or at e yo ur ad vi ce  a nd  re co m m en da ti on s in to  th e de ci si on s to  th e m ax im um ex te nt  p os si bl e. • 	C it iz en  a dv is or y    c om m it te es • 	P ar ti ci pa to ry  d ec is io n-    m ak in g • 	C on se ns us -b ui ld in g • 	P ar ti ci pa to ry  d ec is io n-    m ak in g In vo lv e To  w or k di re ct ly  w it h th e pu bl ic  th ro ug ho ut  th e pr oc es s to  e ns ur e th at  th e pu bl ic  c on ce rn s an d as pi ra ti on s ar e co ns is te nt ly  u nd er st oo d an d co ns id er ed . W e w ill  w or k w it h yo u to  en su re  th at  y ou r co nc er ns  an d as pi ra ti on s ar e di re ct ly  re fl ec te d in 	th e al te rn at iv es de ve lo pe d an d pr ov id e fe ed ba ck  o n ho w  p ub lic in pu t	i n fl ue n ce d th e de ci si on . • 	W or ks ho ps • 	D el ib er at iv e Po lli ng C on su lt To  o bt ai n pu bl ic  fe ed ba ck  o n an al ys is , al te rn at iv es 	a n d/ or  de ci si on s. W e w ill  k ee p yo u in fo rm ed , l is te n to  an d ac kn ow le dg e co nc er ns  a nd  as pi ra ti on s,  a nd  pr ov id e fe ed ba ck  on  h ow  p ub lic  in pu t in fl ue n ce d th e de ci si on . • 	P ub lic  c om m en t • 	F oc us  g ro up s • 	S ur ve ys • 	P ub lic  m ee ti ng s In fo rm To  p ro vi de  th e pu bl ic  w it h ba la nc ed  a nd  ob je ct iv e in fo rm at io n to  a ss is t t he m  in  un de rs ta nd in g th e pr ob le m , a lt er na ti ve s an d op po rt un it ie s an d/ or  so lu ti on s. W e w ill  k ee p yo u in fo rm ed . • 	F ac t s he et s • 	W eb  s it es • 	O pe n ho us es P u bl ic  P ar ti ci p at io n  G oa l P ro m is e to  th e P u bl ic E xa m p le  T ec h n iq u es In cr ea si n g le ve l o f p u bl ic  im p ac t In te rn at io na l A ss oc ia ti on  fo r Pu bl ic  P ar ti ci pa ti on 	( 20 0 7) sPeCTrum of PubliC engagemenT The Spectrum of Public Participation (Figure 3) focuses on the degree of public impact, rather than the direction	of	information	fl	ow	(International	Association	for	Public	Participation	[IAP2],	2007).	 	The IAP2’s spectrum uses a similar characterization of engagement to that of Rowe and Frewer, but offers fi	ner	grain	of	analysis	of	the	‘participation’	type	of	engagement. 18 19   figurE 4: sPEctrum of Public EngagEmEnt E m p ow er P ar ti ci p at io n Pu bl ic C ol la bo ra te Sp on so r In vo lv e In cr ea si n g C on su lt at io n Sp on so r     Pu bl ic C on su lt C om m u n ic at io n In fo rm T yp es  o f E n ga ge m en t In fo rm at io n  F lo w P ar ti ci p at io n  G oa l L ev el  o f P u bl ic  Im p ac t IC A F  E n ga ge m en t M ec h an is m s Sp on so r      P ub lic A da pt ed 	fr om 	I A P 2, 	2 0 0 7 an d R ow e & 	F re w er 	( 20 0 5) IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS It	is	interesting	to	note	that	as	information	flow	moves	from	one-directional	to	two-directional,	there is greater degree of public impact.  The IAP2’s further disaggregation of participation is useful in categorizing	engagement	since	it	illustrates	that	even	within	a	two-directional	information	flow	the	final decision-making power can either stay with the sponsor or be delegated to community representatives. To map the ICAF engagement mechanisms in this report, I combined the IAP2 spectrum with Rowe and	Frewer’s	 terminology	and	 information	flow	model	 to	create	 the	Spectrum	of	Public	Engagement (Figure 4).  I use this hybrid spectrum later in this chapter to map stakeholder involvement in the 12 ICAF engagement mechanisms from Chapter 3.  The Public Engagement Spectrum was selected to categorize	ICAF	engagement	to	date	because	of	its	compatibility	with	the	Rowe	&	Frewer	terminology, its practicality in categorizing engagement mechanisms and its accessibility.  E m p ow er • 	P ar tn er sh ip s • 	E xp er t C om m it te es • 	P A C -S 	& 	O A W G  • 	C lim at e A ct io n Pa rt ne rs hi p St ee ri ng  C om m it te e P ar ti ci p at io n  Pu bl ic C ol la bo ra te • 	P A C -S  A dv is or y C om m it te e • 	I nf or m al  a dv is or s • 	O n ca m pu s co ns ul ta nt s Sp on so r In vo lv e C on su lt at io n Sp on so r    Pu bl ic C on su lt In cr ea si ng • 	R ou nd  T ab le s • 	S E E D S C om m u n ic at io n In fo rm • 	P re se nt at io ns • 	R ep or t • 	S ym po si um  • 	W eb si te T yp es  o f E n ga ge m en t In fo rm at io n  F lo w P ar ti ci p at io n  G oa l L ev el  o f P u bl ic  I m p ac t C li m at e P la n  E n ga ge m en t M ec h an is m s Sp on so r     Pu bl ic iCaf and The sPeCTrum of PubliC engagemenT To	understand	where	the	Sustainability	Office’s	12	engagement	mechanisms	fit	into	the	Spectrum	of Public Engagement, they have been mapped onto the spectrum (see Figure 5). figurE 5: icaf EngagEmEnt mEchanisms aPPliEd to sPEctrum of Public EngagEmEnt A da pt ed 	fr om 	I A P 2 (2 0 0 7) 	a n d R ow e & 	F re w er 	( 20 0 5) IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 20 21 IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS CaTegorizing communication From	June	2007	to	August	2008,	there	were	two	main	modes	for	communicating	the	ICAF: in-person presentations and the Discussion Paper.  For in-person presentations, the	direction	of	information	flow	is	clearly	from	the	sponsor	to	the	community	members, stakeholders and decision-makers.  Although some opportunities did exist for comments or	questions,	there	were	limited	opportunities	for	public	influence	on	the	ICAF	through this mechanism. The Discussion Paper is a general overview of the rationale for climate action at	 UBC	 and	 is	 available	 for	 download	 on	 the	 UBC	 Sustainability	 Office	 website (www.sustain.ubc.ca).	 	No	channels	were	 specified	 for	 responding	 to	 the	plan	as	 laid out and no formal opportunities were provided to discuss the content.  For this reason, the	direction	of	information	flow	on	the	Discussion Paper was unidirectional and the opportunities for public impact were limited. Since September 2008, there has been a dramatic increase in the volume of communications about the ICAF.  The climate website was launched in September 2008, which now provides a concise explanation of the ICAF structure (www.sustain.ubc.ca/climate.html).  This is an important step in increasing the accessibility and transparency of the planning process. The UBC Climate Action Symposium provided a current overview of the ICAF process, UBC’s history of climate and sustainability action, and an introduction to some of the climate-related academic research currently underway on campus through four panel presentations.  Some opportunities for networking and dialogue among participants arose during meals and breaks, but as the agenda was very full these were limited.		As	such,	the	symposium	was	a	communications	event,	with	information	flow from the SO and the presenters to participants.  No formal dialogue or feedback sessions were held in plenary, though some discussion did occur in the panel discussions.  At the symposium, keynote presentations were video recorded, PowerPoint presentations from the panels were collected and a climate blog was created.  All of this material is now publicly available on the climate action website. Upcoming In the summer 2008 the SO hired Junxion Strategies to develop a communications strategy for climate action at UBC.  The results of this contract are still pending, but this strategy is intended to help target communication to reach diverse campus stakeholders and clarify key messages on climate action at UBC.  The results of this contract can be expected to further clarify and increase the regularity of communications on climate action. Though the draft 2006 GHG Inventory was completed in early 2008, it has not yet been publicly released.  This delay in release was caused by a lag in response from the volunteer	members	of	the	Technical	Advisory	Committee	to	sign	off	on	the	final	report.  consultation The four round tables gathered information from the campus community on transportation, infrastructure (policy workshop), education and food.  Each round table was co-hosted with a partner group on campus: TREK Program, Campus and Community Planning, UBC Common Energy and the Agricultural Sciences 450 in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems.  Though the participant lists were not available for this project, I attended three of the round tables and noted that participants included students, staff, faculty, decision-makers and community members.  The round tables both informed and consulted participants.  Each began with a short (20-30 minute) presentation on progress	on	 the	 ICAF	so	 far,	where	 information	was	flowing	 from	the	sponsor	 to	 the IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS participants.		Participants	then	discussed	specific	questions	in	a	World	Café	format	(see Appendix 8 for more information on the World Café model).  Comments were recorded by note takers and reported back to the whole group at the end of the session.  Notes were submitted to the sponsors.  Since the round tables took place the SO has not closed the consultation loop and informed participants about how their input fed into the ICAF. Five student projects conducted research for the ICAF and are posted in the SEEDS library (Best	&	Ferris,	2007;	Zirnhelt,	2008;	Louie,	Wan	&	Ying,	2008;	Miles	et	al,	2008;	Allyn	et al,	2008).		This	is	clearly	consultation,	since	the	direction	of	information	flow	is	from	the students to the SO.  However, given that each SEEDS project has a staff supervisor, there may be some aspect of participatory engagement through dialogue on the project content and process.  These projects do not document how, or if, staff input shaped the projects, so for this reason they are characterized as consultation.  Neither is there any tracking of how or if the results of these projects are used in the development of ICAF. ParticiPation ICAF has been most actively engaging the UBC community at the participatory end of the engagement spectrum (collaborating and empowering).  Mechanisms for participating in the project include •	 advisors •	 partnerships •	 expert committees •	 on-campus consultants •	 PAC-S and its working groups •	 Climate Action Partnership steering committee Each of these mechanisms creates an opportunity for dialogue (two-way information flows)	and	avenues	for	stakeholders	to	shape	all	levels	of	the	ICAF. There has not yet been any activity in the ‘involve’ portion of the engagement spectrum. Opportunities for involvement are forthcoming with public sessions to gather community input on the draft ICAF vision and plan structure in spring 2009. summarY Based on the clusters of activities within the Spectrum of Public Engagement, I suggest the UBC SO is offering six ways for the campus community to engage on the ICAF: •	 Information: presentations, discussion paper, climate action website, Climate Action Symposium •	 Research:	SEEDS	&	on-campus	consultants •	 Consultation Events: round table discussions •	 Working Committees: expert committees, PAC-S and its working groups, Climate Action Partnership steering committee •	 Advisors:	formal	&	informal •	 Partnerships:	UBC	business	units,	goBEYOND,	AMS 22 23 disCussion ICAF engagement activity was concentrated at the participatory end of the engagement spectrum (collaborating and empowering).  For this reason I characterize the community engagement in the ICAF as participatory.  Students, faculty and staff are involved in working committees, as advisors, in partnerships and in the multi-stakeholder PAC-S and OAWG.  Through the expert committees faculty and staff with expertise on climate are shaping the scope and approach of the ICAF.  The working committees offer productive, focused and action-oriented forums for campus experts to funnel their energies into the ICAF, receive regular updates and network and build community with other concerned champions on campus. In	the	first	18	months	of	community	engagement	in	the	ICAF	there	was	activity	in	each of the communication, consultation and participation sections of the spectrum.  To date there have been no activities in the ‘involve’ sub-section of participation, however forthcoming opportunities include consultation on the draft vision statement and feedback on draft 1 of the plan in early 2009. Communications about the ICAF have dramatically increased in quantity and accessibility since September 2008, with the launch of the climate action website.  Much more information is now publicly available to interested community members on the planning process than when this study began in the spring 2008.  The climate action website has the potential to be a key communications tool for promoting upcoming engagement activities and reporting on how community input is being integrated into the ICAF. The	 Climate	 Action	 Symposium	 in	 October	 2008	 was	 a	 significant	 communications event and the posted materials help to increase the transparency of the planning process. The round tables created four consultation opportunities open to the campus community in the spring of 2008.  Students had a chance to contribute through SEEDS projects. Accountability to participants could be improved by closing the loop of consultation and reporting back on how feedback gathered through the round tables and SEEDS projects was integrated into the ICAF outline or vision. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS reCommendaTions •	 Continue building the climate action website as a key source of information on the ICAF.  Some elements that would increase transparency of the ICAF process include •	 information on how to get involved through the six existing engagement clusters and upcoming consultation events •	 hyperlink to SEEDS projects on the ICAF •	 Create a climate email list compiled from emails collected at: •	 round tables •	 Climate Action Symposium •	 working committees •	 Close the consultation loop, by reporting on how community input is affecting the ICAF.  Focus on reaching participants in: •	 upcoming vision statement consultation •	 upcoming draft 1 consultation •	 past round tables •	 past members of the disbanded Steering Committee •	 Communicate more broadly and regularly about the ICAF by increasing communications capacity in the SO by: •	 hiring new communications staff •	 hiring consultants or contractors on communications •	 recruiting and managing volunteers to do communications IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PubliC engagemenT ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 24 25 inTroduCTion This chapter introduces two case studies of sustainability plans at UBC - the Energy Management	 Plan	 and	 the	 Sustainable	 Transportation	 Plan	 –	 and	 identifi	es	 what approaches	to	community	engagement	buoyed	their	success.		It	then	identifi	es	lessons that can be applied to the ICAF process. These lessons are synthesized in a Checklist for Successful Sustainability Project Development at UBC (Figure 6).  This checklist is used to test which lessons have been applied in the ICAF planning process and to identify opportunities for improvement moving forward. learning from PasT ubC susTainabiliTy Planning ProCesses UBC has a ten-year history of sustainability planning and project implementation on campus.  Pioneering UBC initiatives, such as the Energy Management Plan and the Strategic Transportation Plan, blazed a trail for other Canadian universities.  Based on interviews with participants in the development of these plan, several lessons were identifi	ed	on	how	to	build	support	for	sustainability	initiatives	at	UBC	and	how	to	help create viable, implementable sustainability projects. These examples were selected because they played a key role in advancing sustainability, reducing emissions on campus and were the most often referenced by interview subjects. EnErgY managEmEnt Plan summarY The Energy Management Plan was launched in 1998 and had two main components: Electrek (focused on lighting) and Ecotrek (focused on heating, ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC]).  These two projects upgraded the lighting and HVAC systems for core buildings on the Vancouver campus (funded and operated by UBC), but excluded ancillary	buildings	(housing,	parking	&	security,	athletics	&	recreation)	and	tenants	(UBC Hospital, Forintek, BC Research, NRC, TRIUMF, and the Hampton Place residential development).		The	EMP	involved	a	$38.8	million	up-front	investment	to	do	the	retrofi	t. The	cost	savings	from	the	lighting	and	HVAC	retrofi	ts	were	funneled	back	into	deferred maintenance,	funding	the	UBC	Sustainability	Offi	ce	(SO),	and	paying	back	the	cost	of the	project	(UBC	Sustainability	Offi	ce,	2007b). succEssEs and lEssons lEarnEd Securing this funding required extensive lobbying of and relationship building with decision-makers, since the pay-back period for the investment was 11 years and it was the fi	rst	project	of	its	kind	in	Canada.		To	gain	support,	the	EMP	was	designed	to	piggyback on an existing university priority: addressing deferred maintenance on core buildings. Project advocates built a wider and more diverse support base by aligning the EMP project goals with an existing administrative priority (Marques, 2008; Pagani, 2008). The EMP bundled ecologically relevant project elements that were revenue negative with money-making project elements, to improve the overall ecological impact (e.g., upgrading the boilers to achieve an 85% reduction in NOx combined with a lighting upgrade) (Marques, 2008; Pagani, 2008). IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC ConTexT StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS Project advocates actively addressed the concerns of decision makers and built relationships to secure the funding through regular communication, building and presenting a strong case, launching and evaluating pilot projects, and capitalizing on funding	opportunities.		The	fi	rst	step	was	to	convince	the	VP	administration	&	fi	nance to	support	the	project	and	to	address	his	concerns	about	taking	on	fi	nancial	risk.		Freda Pagani worked to build a relationship with the VP and presented him with the results of three pilot projects and a series of analyses to demonstrate how the project could pay	for	itself.		The	tipping	point	ultimately	came	in	1998/9	when	a	spike	in	natural	gas prices resulted in a doubling of campus energy costs.  This increased volatility showed the VP that there was risk associated with not acting (Pagani, 2008; UBC Sustainability Offi	ce,	2007b).		Once	the	VP	administration	&	fi	nance	was	convinced,	Dr.	Pagani	and other advocates still had to convince the president and the Board of Governors (BoG) to	approve	the	project.		A	fi	nancing	opportunity	serendipitously	presented	itself:	at	the time the BoG was looking to invest bonds in new projects.  However, since the EMP had a longer payback period, it still took a recommendation from a private sector committee to	have	the	fi	nancing	for	EcoTrek	approved	(Pagani,	2008).	 	By	listening	to	decision- makers’ concerns, building a strong case, and working multiple angles they were able to secure the fi nancing to go ahead with the project. One of the secondary outcomes of the EcoTrek Program was the Sustainability Coordinators Program, based on Doug Mackenzie-Moore’s theories on community- based social marketing.  Community-based social marketing involves  identifying barriers to a sustainable behavior, designing a strategy that utilizes  behavior change tools, piloting the strategy with a small segment of a community, 	 and	fi	nally,	evaluating	the	impact	of	the	program	once	it	has	been	implemented  across a community (Mackenzie-Moore, 2008). The sustainability coordinators are staff members working in departments and units across the university to identify challenges and barriers to sustainable behaviour in their own workplaces.  They are supported to address those barriers by the SO, which provides guides, materials, training and troubleshooting.  Solutions to new challenges can be piloted in a single department then applied elsewhere, as appropriate.  Though there	are	some	ecological	benefi	ts	to	this	program,	the	main	outcome	is	community building and enhancing social sustainability on campus (Pagani, 2008). One	fi	nal	element	that	contributed	to	the	success	of	EcoTrek	was	the	willingness	of	project leaders to share and give away the credit for the project successes.  This humility helped the project to advance and succeed in the university environment (Pagani, 2008). lEssons •	 piggy-back on existing university priorities •	 fi	nd	creative	fi	nancing	models •	 bundle	cost	saving	measures	with	ecologically	signifi	cant	projects •	 initiate and track pilot projects •	 build support among top decision-makers •	 build a community of support for behaviour change •	 share the credit for successes stratEgic transPortation Plan (stP) summarY The	Strategic	Transportation	Plan	was	created	 to	help	secure	approval	of	 the	Offi	cial Community Plan (OCP) from the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD.  To make	space	for	increased	traffi	c	from	the	new	neighbourhoods,	approval	of	the	OCP	was contingent on reducing and limiting single occupant vehicles (SOV) trips to campus by 20% and increasing transit ridership by 20% (Atkins, 2008). IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC ConTexT StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS PubliCubC engagemenT ChaPTer 5: susTainabiliTy Planning aT ubC 26 27 The UBC Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) outlined nine key planning and engagement elements to meet this goal: •	 Actively engage the 35 plus on- and off-campus stakeholder groups through the Transportation Advisory Committee and other forums. •	 Hire a director of transportation planning. •	 Conduct	annual	traffic	monitoring	starting	with	a	baseline	in	fall	1997. •	 Communicate with the campus community. •	 Create partnerships to deliver diverse pilot projects (e.g. bike racks on the 99 B-line, the Bike Co-op, the Bike Kitchen). •	 Analyze pilot projects. •	 Present an outline of the STP to the BoG. •	 Publicly release the draft plan and present the draft to individual stakeholder groups. •	 Seek	approval	of	the	final	draft	by	the	BoG	(UBC	TREK	Program,	1999). The cornerstone of the STP was the UPASS Program – an unlimited 3-zone bus pass that is collectively purchased by all full-time UBC students through student fees (equivalent to	$22/month). The UPASS was implemented in 2 phases:            1.				September	to	April,	academic	year	(2003/4)            2.    Summer (2005) The	STP	significantly	reduced	transportation	volumes	and	GHG	emissions.		Even	with a	32%	increase	in	the	daytime	population	at	UBC	from	1997	to	2007,	the	suite	of	STP programs (which include the UPASS, parking stall reductions, parking fee increases, an education campaign and program, bike lane infrastructure increases and transit service improvements) has resulted in a 14% reduction in SOV trips to campus and a 185% increase in transit ridership (UBC TREK Program, 2008).  This is the equivalent reduction of 16,000 tonnes of GHG per year (Jolly, 2008). succEssEs and lEssons lEarnEd The	first	step	 in	UPASS	development	was	to	bring	Translink	to	the	negotiating	table. UPASS advocates succeeded in doing so by including UPASS negotiation in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UBC and the GVRD as a condition for approving the OCP.  Piggy-backing on this existing university priority, the MOU created a leverage point for UBC (through the GVRD) to bring Translink to the table to discuss and negotiate a UPASS program (Atkins, 2008). On- and off-campus partners took the lead on developing and implementing pilot projects.		Significant	attention	was	also	given	to	engaging these stakeholders in the planning through the Transportation Advisory Committee (UBC TREK Program, 1999). Each phase involved negotiations among Translink, UBC administration and the Alma Mater Society (AMS).  Though the negotiation process is not publicly documented, Holly Foxcroft	 (the	 VP	 external	 for	 the	 AMS	 for	 2004/5)	 offered	 insight	 into	 the	 process. Foxcroft, who was the key AMS negotiator for the summer UPASS, saw the successful expansion of the program as having three key elements: •	 UBC and AMS solidarity in negotiating with Translink •	 AMS taking a position in the student referendum •	 strong student support She attributed student and AMS support to students growing accustomed to the UPASS, which had already become a regular part of student life in 2005.  Between 2002 (the last year	pre-UPASS)	to	2004/5	(the	second	year	of	the	UPASS)	there	was	an	88%	increase	in transit	ridership	(UBC	TREK	Program,	2003	&	2005).		This	shows	the	value	of	phasing in large project implementation, since early successes can build familiarity and support (Foxcroft,	2008).	Geoff	Atkins,	the	AVP	of	Land	and	Building	Services,		identified	Foxcroft as a key student champion in the success of the UPASS.  She saw the opportunity of expanding the UPASS to the summer session and then advocated and worked to see it happen.  He sees engaging student champions as a key to successful collaboration with students and building campus-wide buy-in to sustainability projects (Atkins, 2008). lEssons •	 piggy-back on existing university priorities •	 engage partners to share costs or initiate pilot projects •	 engage on- and off- campus stakeholders •	 phase-in project implementation to build support •	 engage and support student champions Based on the lessons learned from the EMT and the STP, I propose the following checklist for successful sustainability project development at UBC. figurE 6: chEcklist for succEssful sustainabilitY ProJEct dEvEloPmEnt at ubc Has the ICAF engagement process… 3:  Yes 2:  In progress 1:   No N/A:  Not Applicable Explain piggy-backed on existing university priorities? identified	creative financing	models? bundled cost saving measures with ecologically	significant (but more costly) projects? engaged partners to share costs or initiate pilot projects? built support among top decision-makers? shared the credit for successes? engaged on- and off- campus stakeholders? phased in large projects? engage and support student champions? IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC ConTexT StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC ConTexT StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 28 29 analysis I apply the Checklist for Successful Sustainability Project Development at UBCin Figure 7	to	identify	where	this	process	is	applying	the	lessons	learned	from	past	sustainability planning processes on effective community and where opportunities exist to increase the effectiveness of the engagement process. figurE 7: chEcklist for succEssful sustainabilitY ProJEct dEvEloPmEnt at        ubc aPPliEd to thE icaf Has the ICAF engagement process… 3:   Yes 2:   In progress 1:   No N/A: Not Applicable Explain piggy-backed on existing university priorities? 3 With the provincial mandate for universities to be carbon neutral by 2010, UBC risks incurring a $2.25 million per year liability for carbon emissions if no action is taken to reduce GHG emissions.  The gas tax is an additional liability. identified	creative financing	models? 1 •		None	have	yet	been	identified. •		Two interviewees suggested selling heat to neighbouring residential communities (Marques, 2008; Anteweiler, 2008). bundled cost saving measures with ecologically significant	(but	more costly) projects? N/A The plans have not yet been created. With each business unit creating their own strategy it will be important for the SO to work with them to create a plan that is horizontally integrated across departments and breaks down silos so that interdepartmental initiatives can achieve increased ecological significance. engaged partners to share costs or initiate pilot projects? 2 •	 	 The AMS and Common Energy are undertaking projects, but these could be better promoted and shaped to create concrete pilot projects that model climate action short term. •		The natural gas boiler replacement is a major project that will address UBC’s biggest source of GHG emissions. Has the ICAF engagement process… 3:   Yes 2:   In progress 1:   No N/A: Not Applicable Explain built support among top decision-makers? 2 •		The Climate Action Symposium engaged	the	provost/VP	academic	as the masters of ceremonies and the president as the opening speaker. •	 The Operations and Administration Working Group (OAWG) and the President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability (PAC-S) offer key forums for reaching relevant decision-makers on campus.  Through these groups the SO staff should seek to understand what (if any) concerns or resistance to the ICAF plan exist and to address these concerns through the plan shared the credit for successes? 2 There is room for improvement in this area.  Through the Climate Action Symposium and the working committee many academics and staff across the university are involved in the ICAF. The	 profile	 of	 these	 leaders	 could	 be increased to promote their work by creating opportunities for them to act as spokespeople for the project and actively crediting them in all communications. engaged on- and off-campus stakeholders? 3 seven of nine high priority and six of 15 low priority stakeholders are engaged (figure	8	below). phased in large projects? N/A Project implementation has not yet begun. engage and support student champions? 2 The UBC SO has partnered with the goBEYOND	 project	 and	 the	 AMS	 to support student leadership on climate. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC ConTexT StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC ConTexT StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 30 31 disCussion The ICAF has already applied many of the lessons from previous sustainability planning processes on campus, including: •	 piggy-backing on the current priority of reducing GHG emissions to limit the $2.5 million liability under the provincial mandate to be carbon neutral by 2010. •	 actively engaging on- and off-campus stakeholders (discussed in Tool 2 below). The SO has begun making progress in: •	 partnering with: •	 the AMS, UBC Common Energy - though these partnerships could be better	leveraged	to	increase	the	profile	of	the	ICAF	on	campus	through pilot projects •	 UBC	Utilities	-	to	plan	the	steam	plant	retrofit •	 business units and departments through Climate Action Strategies •	 building support among decision-makers, through the OAWG and the PAC-S •	 sharing the credit for ICAF initiatives •	 engaging student champions through the existing partnerships with the AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy and BC Campus Climate Network. Opportunities exist to further engage and empower student climate champions reCommendaTions The SO could still: •	 explore	and	develop	creative	financing	models	for	implementing	the	ICAF •	 bundle	ecologically	significant	projects	with	money-making	projects •	 phase in large projects furTher researCh Further research could seek to develop a practice for public engagement in planning processes at UBC. In addition to the plans introduced here, such research may also consider the community engagement in Inspirations and Aspirations: Sustainability Strategy, The People Plan, The UBC Campus Plan, The UBC Strategic Plan and The Official	Community	Plan. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC ConTexT StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS ClimaTe PlanningaCTion inTroduCTion Dorcey and McDaniels (2001) note that  in certain instances ‘stakeholder involvement’ is differentiated from ‘citizen 	 involvement’,	by	limiting	the	former	to	only	those		who	have	a	specific	interest  in the issue as opposed to being  generally interested as citizens, 	 (Dorcey	&	McDaniels,	2001,	p.250). In this chapter I examine stakeholder involvement in the Integrated Climate Action Framework (ICAF), as distinct from citizen engagement.  I saw this focus as consistent with the	approach	to	engagement	taken	by	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office	(SO).		In	this	chapter	I create a checklist of key stakeholders that should be engaged in the ICAF.  This list is based on	stakeholder	groups	identified	during	key	informant	interviews	and	the	list	of	stakeholder groups	 identified	 in	 the	UBC	 Strategic	 Transportation	 Plan	 Advisory	 Committee	 (UBC TREK Program, 1999).  I aggregate these stakeholders into a Checklist of UBC Climate Stakeholders (Figure 8), which is used to determine which stakeholders have already been engaged in the ICAF and identify gaps in the engagement process.  Stakeholders are considered	high	priority	in	the	checklist	if	they	were	identified	by	both	sources.		They	are considered	low	priority	in	the	checklist	if	they	were	only	identified	by	one	source. For the sake of simplicity, stakeholders are organized as sub-groups of students, employees and residents. kEY informant intErviEWs Not	 all	 key	 informants	 identified	 UBC	 climate	 stakeholders	 during	 the	 interview session.  Of the 15 key informants, nine did identify campus stakeholders.  In addition, one	of	the	four	informational	interview	subjects	identified	stakeholders.		In	total,	10	of the	 19	 interview	subjects	 that	 identified	climate	 stakeholders	on	campus.	 	To	protect confidentiality,	interview	subjects	are	clumped	into	a	single	group:	respondents. stratEgic transPortation Plan To	 compliment	 the	 stakeholder	 identification	 from	 interview	 subjects,	 this	 section draws from the list of over 35 on- and off-campus stakeholders involved in shaping the development	and	implementation	of	the	Strategic	Transportation	Plan	[1997-1999].		A full list of Transportation Advisory Committee members is included in Appendix 9. sTudenTs Students	are	by	far	the	largest	group	on	campus,	with	37,589	full	time	equivalent	(FTE) students	at	UBC-Vancouver	(UBC-V),	30,589	undergraduate	and	6,780	graduate	(UBC PAIR,	2008b).		They	are	also	the	most	transient;	most	spend	two	to	five	years	on	campus before graduating and moving on.  As a result, there is limited institutional memory of previous changes and planning processes within this group. In	March	and	April	2007	student	researchers	Best	and	Ferris	(2007)	surveyed	400	UBC students to assess their knowledge and concern about climate change and their support for climate neutrality as a goal at UBC.  Best and Ferris surveyed students in several locations on campus.  Participating students answered thirteen questions, nine of which used a 5-point hedonic scale.  Some weaknesses arise with the survey methodology, including uncertainty about the randomizing of the sample, lack of statistical analysis ChaPTer 6: ubC ClimaTe sTakeholders 32 33 of the margin of error within the survey, and some bias towards greater concern about climate change in the hedonic scales.  However, even with these weaknesses, Best and Ferris’ survey is the only current assessment of UBC students’ concern about climate change	and	 their	findings	are	 instructive	on	student	 support	 for	 climate	action,	even if	 they	 are	 not	 statistically	 conclusive.	 	 They	 found	 that	 71%	 of	 students	 surveyed considered climate change to be an important, very important or extremely important issue.  Of students surveyed, 64%  said responsibility for action on climate change should be shared among students, university administration and the government. When asked about UBC’s action on climate change 69% responded that UBC had done nothing, a small amount or a moderate amount of work on climate change, while 23% of respondents did not know.  This points to a need to inform students about what UBC has done in the past and is doing currently on climate change issues both academically and operationally.  For a full list of survey questions and a summary of results see Best and	Ferris,	2007,	pp.44-45. Both the Alma Mater Society (AMS), the undergraduate student union, and the Graduate Student Society (GSS) are elected by the student body and represent the students in most dealings with the university administration. idEntifYing stakEholdErs: kEY informant intErviEWs The	AMS	was	identified	as	a	key	stakeholder	in	advancing	sustainability	by	four	of	ten respondents. idEntifYing stakEholdErs: stratEgic transPortation Plan stakEholdEr list The student representatives on the UBC Transportation Advisory Committee included five	members	affiliated	with	the	AMS	(one	member	of	the	AMS	Executive,	three	members of the AMS External Commission on Transportation, and one member of the AMS Bike Co-op) and one representative from the GSS. emPloyees There	are	10,753	staff	working	on	UBC	campus	as: •	 892 decision-makers, including administrators, managers and supervisors. •	 7,006	 staff,	 including	 skilled	 crafts	 and	 trade	 workers,	 technicians,	 non- academic professionals, administrative and clerical staff, sales and service personnel and manual workers. •	 2,691 faculty, including tenured, tenure track and sessional staff conducting research	and/or	teaching	(UBC	PAIR,	2008a). idEntifYing stakEholdErs: kEY informant intErviEWs Top-level decision-makers were	 identified	as	 essential	 stakeholders	 to	 engage	by five	of	ten	respondents.		Respondents	felt	that	priority	should	be	given	to	engaging: •	 the president (two respondents) •	 the	vice-president	(VP)	administration	&	finance	(two	respondents) •	 Board	of	Governors	(BoG)	(five	respondents) •	 the treasurer (two respondents) •	 the Senate (one respondent) •	 the deans (two respondents) Energy & planning focused staff work with campus buildings and infrastructure. These staff have the most practical working knowledge of how buildings and infrastructure (steam, water, roads, electrical, etc.) operate and how improvements could	be	made	to	their	efficiency	to	save	power.		Although	these	staff	have	limited	time to invest in the planning process, their knowledge of how the university operates, ability to	identify	inefficiencies	and	opportunities	and	role	in	implementing	change	is	critical	to IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS the	success	of	any	climate	change	plan.		Specifically,	respondents	identified	important subgroups to be engaged in: •	 Land and Building Services (one respondent) •	 Campus and Community Planning (one respondent) •	 Purchasing (one respondent) •	 the TREK Program (two respondents) UBC Properties Trust is  a market oriented private company wholly owned by the University of British  Columbia. It was established in 1988 with a mission to acquire, develop and manage 	 real	estate	assets	for	the	benefit	of	the	University	(UBC	Properties	Trust,	2008b). The new development of the university neighbourhoods have generated substantial revenue for the endowment by awarding 99 year leases to residents.  The university neighbourhood	 developments	 have	 created	 significant	 changes	 to	 the	 character	 of UBC’s endowment lands, which impacts sustainability in a variety of ways, including the neighbourhoods’ carbon footprint.  The university neighbourhood is not part of UBC’s	emissions	profile,	but	 its	exclusion	was	considered	a	 fundamentally	 important omission that must be included in climate change planning by three of ten respondents. These respondents emphasized the participation of UBC Properties Trust as an essential stakeholder to be brought to the table. Faculty with relevant expertise both in the areas of climate change and institutional change, are a large stakeholder group at UBC.  Relevant knowledge includes climate change	 science,	 technology,	 policy,	 public	 engagement/participation,	 facilitation	 and a variety of other relevant skills to climate action planning.  Faculty members were recommended for further interviews for this project by one of ten respondents. idEntifYing stakEholdErs: stratEgic transPortation Plan stakEholdEr list Only one top-decision maker was part of the UBC Transportation Advisory Committee, the treasurer from UBC Finance.  However, the Strategic Transportation Plan was submitted	to	the	BoG	for	comments	on	the	outline	and	approval	of	the	final	draft. Staff representatives were included from •	 three unions: •	 Association of Administrative and Professional Staff (AAPS), •	 Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 2950, and •	 International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 882 •	 UBC Registrar •	 UBC Parking Services •	 UBC	Housing	&	Conferences •	 UBC Book Store •	 UBC Legal Council •	 UBC Purchasing •	 UBC Health, Safety and Environment •	 UBC Public Affairs •	 UBC Properties Inc (now UBC Properties Trust) •	 Campus and Community Planning Faculty members from the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), Geography and Engineering were members of the advisory committee. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 34 35 residenTs Under UBC’s Comprehensive Community Plan six new neighbourhoods are planned on UBC’s endowment lands as part of the University Town development.  These neighbourhoods	will	contribute	6,867	new	housing	units	and	an	estimated	12,460	new residents to the campus community by 2021 (UBC Campus and Community Planning, 2000).  The 2006 occupancy survey found that 65% of suites are occupied by at least one	UBC	staff,	faculty	or	student.		There	are	also	a	signifi	cant,	though	undocumented, number of UBC alumni who live in the University Town (Moore, 2008). Although located on UBC’s endowment lands, the University Town is not included in the 2006 GHG Emissions Inventory, because it is regulated by Metro Vancouver (Henderson, 2008; UBC Properties Trust, 2008a).  idEntifYing stakEholdErs: kEY informant intErviEWs Three	 of	 10	 respondents	 identifi	ed	 the	University Neighbourhood Association (UNA) as a key stakeholder.  The UNA represents all of the residents of the University Town and would be an ideal body through which to engage the community members. Further	research	could	identify	specifi	c	approaches	to	engaging	this	association. External agencies with	 relevant	 expertise	were	 identifi	ed	 as	 stakeholders	by	 three of 10 respondents: Translink (one respondent), Canada Green Building Council (one respondent), and on-campus vendors (one respondent). idEntifYing stakEholdErs: stratEgic transPortation Plan stakEholdEr list The Transportation Advisory Committee included representatives from: •	 Nine	Community/Neighbourhood	Associations: •	 West Point Grey Steering Group •	 South West Marine Drive Homeowners’ Association •	 BC Coalition of Motorcyclists •	 Wreck Beach Preservation Society •	 Fraser River Coalition •	 Dunbar Residents’ Association •	 University Endowment Lands Resident Association •	 NW Property Owners Association •	 Point Grey Residents’ Association •	 City of Vancouver •	 Truck engineering •	 Bicycle engineering •	 Transit engineering •	 Strategic Planning •	 Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) •	 Strategic Planning •	 GVRD Parks •	 Ministry of Transportation and Highways •	 Planning and Development •	 University Endowment Lands •	 Electoral Area “A” Director •	 UEL Manager •	 Public Works •	 BC	Transit/Translink •	 Planning •	 Strategic Planning •	 Bicycle Planning •	 Van Pool Program •	 Rideshare IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS Although not mentioned by any respondents or consulted as part of the STP, it is my opinion that the Friends of the UBC Farm should also be included as a stakeholder in the ICAF.  This UBC club is working to save the 16 acres of UBC Farm, which are currently slated for development as part of the next phase of residential development in South Campus.  Given the controversy over the use and development of this land, it is my opinion that, for the sake of fairness, all parties (the University Neighbourhood Association, UBC Properties Trust and the Friends of the UBC Farm) should be included in shaping the climate action plan.  This is a highly mobilized group with a large supporter base on campus and in the community. figurE 8: chEcklist of climatE stakEholdErs at ubc Stakeholders Yes No Explain High Priority AMS Treasurer VP	administration	&	fi	nance UBC Properties Trust Faculty	with	issue	specifi	c	expertise (climate change, planning, etc.) Campus and Community Planning Supply Management TREK Program Community associations Low Priority GSS President Land and Building Services Board of Governors (BoG) Unions Registrar Housing	&	Conferences Book Store Legal Council Health, Safety and Environment Public Affairs City	of	Vancouver	/Greater	Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Relevant Provincial Ministries University Endowment Lands External Agencies (BC	Transit/	Translink/Green	Building Council/	vendors) IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 36 37 Stakeholders Yes No Explain Unions Registrar Housing	&	Conferences OAWG (Executive Director) Book Store Legal Council Health, Safety and Environment Public Affairs Informal Advisor (Communications Coordinator) City	of	Vancouver	/Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Relevant Provincial Ministries Symposium (1 presenter, Climate Action Secretariat) University Endowment Lands External Agencies Symposium (1 presenter, BC Hydro) analySIS A key part of fair and inclusive engagement process is bringing all of the key stakeholders to the table. In this section I consider which stakeholder groups have been engaged in the ICAF so far using the Checklist of UBC Stakeholders. The purpose of this analysis is to identify whether any key stakeholders are still missing from the climate action community engagement process. figurE 9: chEcklist of ubc camPus stakEholdErs aPPliEd to thE icaf Stakeholders Yes No Explain High Priority AMS OAWG (VP Finance) Lighter Footprint (partner) Symposium (presenter) Treasurer OAWG VP	Administration	&	Finance UBC Properties Trust OAWG	(President	&	CEO) Unit-based Strategies (partner) Faculty	with	issue	specifi	c expertise (climate change or planning) Multiple representatives on Expert Committees (TAC, Utilities, Energy, Risk Assessment) Multi-Stakeholder (PAC-S, OAWG) Symposium (19 presenters) Advisors	(formal	&	informal) Campus and Community Planning OAWG (Associate VP) Infrastructure Round Table (partner) Unit-based Strategies (informal partner) Supply Management OAWG (Director) Unit-based Strategies (informal partner) TREK Program Advisor (Director) Transportation Round Table (partner) Community Associations Low Priority GSS OAWG (President proposed) Disbanded Steering Committee (President) President Symposium (opening speaker) PAC-S reports to him Land and Building Services Multiple representatives on Expert Committees (TAC, Utilities, Energy, Risk Assessment) OAWG (Director of Sustainability, Director of Utilities, Director of Plant Operations) Symposium (3 presenters) Advisors (informal) Board of Governors (BoG) IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS high PrioritY stakEholdErs Seven of nine high priority stakeholder groups are already engaged in the ICAF: •	 the AMS •	 the treasurer •	 UBC Properties Trust •	 faculty	with	issue-specifi	c	expertise	(climate	change	or	planning) •	 Campus and Community Planning •	 UBC Supply Management •	 TREK Program. The	VP	fi	nance	is	not	yet	engaged	in	the	ICAF.	He	(or	a	member	of	his	offi	ce)	could	be	a key	ally	in	identifying	innovative	fi	nancing	models	for	the	ICAF. Community/neighbourhood	 associations	were	 actively	 involved	 in	 the	 STP,	 but	may not	have	as	signifi	cant	a	role	to	play	in	the	ICAF,	since	the	framework	scope	excludes the university neighbourhoods. However, the emission resulting from new construction on	the	endowment	lands	were	identifi	ed	by	three	of	ten	respondents	as	an	important emissions source on the university lands and questioned the exclusion. An opportunity identifi	ed	 by	 three	 of	 ten	 interviewees	was	 to	 involve	 the	University	Neighbourhood Association (UNA) or other nearby neighbourhoods in discussions on purchasing heat from the university (three respondents). Given the draft ICAF vision of making UBC a net positive energy producing campus, this will need to be done by selling renewable energy. The neighbourhoods are a natural market for selling additional heat or power, but will need to be involved in the planning process. 38 39 loW PrioritY stakEholdErs Seven	of	the	15	stakeholders	identified	by	either	interview	subjects	or	the	STP	are	already engaged in the ICAF planning process: •	 the president •	 Land and Building Services •	 Housing and Conferences •	 the bookstore •	 Public Affairs •	 relevant provincial ministries •	 external agencies Although not currently engaged in the ICAF, the GSS is targeted for membership in the OAWG and the GSS president was part of the now disbanded Steering Committee. The	BoG	is	clearly	a	key	ally	for	the	ICAF	since	they	are	the	final	approving	body	for	the plan. Though the plan is not yet completed is not ready to go to the BoG for approval, it would be useful to start building support on the BoG soon as possible. Unions are not yet involved in the ICAF, but their involvement should be considered. As the Climate Management System will seek to increase the focus on energy management and emissions reduction across the university’s many departments and units, it may involve changes to job descriptions, or shifting of responsibilities. Any change of this type will need to involve the unions. Legal	Council,	Health,	Safety	&	Environment,	the	University	Endowment	Lands	and	the City of Vancouver may be relevant allies in the development of pilot projects, bringing project successes to other universities and colleges in Metro Vancouver and rolling out the Climate Action Strategies. However, for the time being they are a lower priority. In	my	 opinion,	 one	 of	 the	 nine	 unengaged	 stakeholders	 identified	 in	 the	 STP	 is	 not relevant	 to	 the	 ICAF	 planning	 process:	 the	 office	 of	 the	 registrar.	 I	 suggest	 it	 is	 not relevant	 because	 the	 office	 of	 the	 registrar	 is	 not	 generating	 significant	 quantities	 of emissions on campus nor is its participation critical to mobilizing a large constituency for behaviour change. Although not included in the checklist, it is my opinion that the Friends of the Farm should be engaged given that it is a stakeholder in the current controversy over the development	of	the	Farm,	which	is	designated	as	a	future	housing	reserve	in	the	Official Community Plan (OCP). The other key stakeholders in the debate are UBC Properties Trust and the University Neighbourhood Association (UNA), both of which are high priority stakeholders in the checklist. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS resulTs The	ICAF	is	very	successful	in	terms	of	stakeholder	engagement.	In	its	first	16	months seven of nine high priority stakeholders are already engaged: •	 AMS •	 UBC Properties Trust •	 faculty	with	issue	specific	expertise	(climate	change,	planning,	etc.) •	 Campus and Community Planning •	 UBC Supply Management •	 TREK Program •	 the treasurer The two high priority stakeholders not yet engaged are: •	 VP	administration	&	finance •	 community/neighbourhood	associations In addition, seven of 15 low priority stakeholders have been engaged. Of the secondary stakeholders not yet engaged, the GSS is the highest priority and the wheels are already in motion to engage them through the OAWG. Unions are also a high priority. reCommendaTions Prioritize	 engaging	 the	 VP	 administration	 &	 finance,	 neighbouring	 community associations, unions and the GSS. Two	 stakeholders	 identified	 that	 a	 key	 opportunity	 to	 achieve	 the	 ICAF	 vision	 of being a net positive energy producer is through joint infrastructure ventures with the neighbourhood (e.g., selling campus generated renewable heat through an extended district energy system). I also recommend that the Friends of the UBC Farm be included in the ICAF engagement process, as the other key stakeholders in the debate (UBC Properties Trust and the University Neighbourhood Association) are already engaged and	are	identified	as	high	priority	stakeholders	in	the	checklist. furTher researCh Further research could focus on creating a comprehensive climate change community profile	for	UBC.	Such	a	community	profile	could	identify	which	sub-groups	within	students, employees and residents are most knowledgeable about (or interested in) climate change, what groups on campus are most impacted by climate change, and which are most likely to	resist	climate	action.	This	profile	could	also	consider	drivers	and	barriers	to	action	and strategies for targeted outreach and communication to community sub-groups. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context sTakeholders ASSeSSMent ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 40 41PubliCubC engagemenT ChaPTer 7: assessing effeCTiveness inTroduCTion In this Chapter I assess the effectiveness of public engagement in the Integrated Climate Action Framework (ICAF) by applying Rowe and Frewer (2005)’s determinants of effective public engagement.  I apply their theory of effective engagement by answering three questions: •	 What steps were taken to ensure competence in the engagement process? •	 How do the sponsors demonstrate a real intent to listen to the public? •	 How was the engagement process designed to be fair? effeCTive engagemenT: fair and ComPeTenT One gap that persists in the community engagement literature is the lack of common and agreed upon criteria, methods and tools for assessing effectiveness of community engagement	processes	(Beierle	&	Clayford,	2002;	Dorcey	&	McDaniels,	2001;	Rosener, 1982;	Rowe	&	Frewer,	 2005).	 	 	 This	 is	 further	 complicated	by	 the	 fact	 that	 success	 is arguably in the eye of the beholder.   Participants’ perceptions of consultation may be different from the sponsors’ plans and criteria for strong public engagement.   Rowe and Frewer (2005) examined what determines participants’ perception of effective community engagement and found that two key determinants were fairness and competence. Fairness relates to  concepts of public acceptability, equity, democracy, representativeness, transparency, 	 and	infl	uence,	among	others.	This	concept	concerns	the	perceptions of those  involved in the engagement exercise (…) and whether they believe that the exercise  has been honestly conducted with serious intent to collect the views of an appropriate  sample of the affected population and to act on those views 	 (emphasis	added,	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2005,	p.262). To create a fair engagement process involves careful design and an honest intent to listen to the public.   An effective way to improve fairness is by focusing on accountability to the public. Dr. Nancy Knight, the AVP of campus and community planning (CCP) at UBC, emphasizes the importance of accountability in public engagement.   She suggests the use of accountability frameworks to close the loop of consultation.   This means regular communication about how community members can get involved and how information gathered through consultation is integrated	into	the	fi	nal	product	(Knight,	2008).		She	focuses	on	the	importance	of	communication and careful reporting, highlighting the need for a constant cycle of collecting, analyzing and reporting on engagement to the public (the consultation loop).   However, a fair process cannot be created through accountability mechanisms alone.   Fundamental to the public assessment of fairness is whether they perceive an honest intent on the part of the sponsor to listen to input given	and	integrate	that	input	into	the	fi	nal	plan	(Dorcey	&	McDaniels,	2001;	Rowe	&	Frewer, 2005).   For example, although CCP has put in place a clear plan for public engagement in the Campus Plan, with regular, careful reporting and clear accountability mechanisms, the campus planning process is still dogged by critiques that it is not fair.   Some participants do not believe that there is true intent to listen to the issues brought up in consultation processes and integrate those	comments	into	the	fi	nal	plan	(Makortoff,	2008).			Flexibility	in	the	process	to	allow	public priorities and concerns to shape the ICAF will help avoid the perception that public engagement is tokenistic.   Building trust by clearly communicating how public input has shaped the process can be a long, but worthwhile, process. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS assessmenT ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS The second key determinant of successful community engagement is competence, which	is	closely	linked	to	effi	ciency.			Rowe	and	Frewer	defi	ne	competence	as	“maximizing the relevant information (knowledge and/or opinions) from the maximum number of relevant sources and transferring this effi ciently to the appropriate receivers” (emphasis the authors’, Rowe and Frewer, 2005, p.263).   Returning to the Spectrum of Public Engagement (Figure 4), we see that for each of the communication, consultation and	participation	types	of	engagement,	the	direction	of	information	fl	ow	varies	(sponsor to participants, participants to sponsor, interchange of information between participants and sponsor), but the measure of competence - maximum relevant information fl	ow	 with	 minimal	 information	 loss	 -	 is	 the	 same.	 	 	 Finding	 an	 acceptable	 balance between responding to public input and accurately synthesizing and communicating that information in a timely way, can be challenging.   The challenge is greater when engagement is participatory and more time intensive, since there is a greater commitment to implement the direction set by the community.   Skilled facilitation, careful planning to	make	effi	cient	use	of	participants’	time	and	clear	communication	about	how	public input is integrated into the planning process all help to increase competence (Kaner, 2007;	Rowe	&	Frewer,	2005). Based	on	Rowe	and	Frewer’s	 (2005)	defi	nitions	of	 fairness	and	competence,	 I	 suggest three questions for assessing fairness and competence in the community engagement process for the UBC Integrated Climate Action Framework (ICAF), which I answer below: •	 What steps were taken to ensure competence in the engagement process? •	 How do the sponsors demonstrate a real intent to listen to the public? •	 How was the engagement process designed to be fair? analysis What stEPs WErE takEn to EnsurE comPEtEncE in thE EngagEmEnt ProcEss? Competent	 public	 engagement	must	 effi	ciently	 communicate	 the	maximum	 quantity and quality of relevant information from the maximum number of relevant sources to the relevant recipients.   The ICAF’s six avenues for engagement (Information, Research, Consultation Events, Working Committees, Advisors and Partnerships), presented in Chapter 4, have been relatively isolated from each other.   There has never been a general meeting of all committees, nor are there liaisons between committees.   The SO staff are involved in all of the expert committees and share information within their own staff team.   This information is communicated informally to committee members as deemed	appropriate.			The	ICAF	engagement	process	would	benefi	t	from	more	deliberate reporting and information sharing across the spectrum of public engagement.   This would be facilitated through more systematic processing and categorizing of information gathered through each of the 12 engagement mechanisms and would help to identify what information is relevant for each working committee.   However, increased staff capacity is necessary to synthesize and present that information to the committees in a timely manner. According to Liz Ferris, the coordinator of climate action for the UBC Sustainability Offi	ce,	 input	 gathered	 from	 the	 round	 tables	 and	 through	 SEEDS	 research	 projects has been included in the draft ICAF vision (Ferris, 2008a).   However, again there is no tracking of how input was coded, synthesized or analyzed to this end, nor was any reporting or public communication on how or if input gathered from the public through rounds tables or SEEDS projects shaped the plan.   The loop of consultation has not yet been closed.   Competence could be improved in planning, delivery and reporting on the results of the 12 engagement mechanisms.  IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS assessmenT ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 42 43 hoW do thE sPonsors dEmonstratE a rEal intEnt to listEn to thE Public? SO staff are very receptive to stakeholder input and have stated that comments are integrated	 into	 the	 vision	 and	 reworking	 of	 the	 ICAF	 structure	 to	 fill	 gaps	 identified by	the	working	committees	(Ferris,	2008a).			In	the	first	year	of	the	project,	the	scope, emissions reduction targets, ICAF structure and community engagement plan were all developed based on input from across the six avenues for engagement.   Although the accountability and reporting on how public input shaped these changes could be improved by documenting and publicly reporting, the ICAF process and vision have changed	 substantially	 since	 the	 project	 began	 in	 July	 2007	 and	 these	 changes	 are attributed to public input by SO staff (Ferris, 2008a).   Although reporting can, and should, be improved moving forward, overall the SO has demonstrated considerable patience	and	flexibility	through	the	ICAF	planning	process,	especially	when	compared to other UBC planning processes. Access to information and opportunities to shape the ICAF planning process have not been equal for all members of the campus community.   Engagement mechanisms at the ‘communication’ end of the engagement spectrum have been open to the whole campus community, especially since the fall of 2008 when the website was launched and the climate action symposium was hosted.   Participants in ‘consultation’ events have self-selected, as the process required taking the initiative to attend and register (round tables) or participate (SEEDS).   Opportunities to ‘participate’ are open to stakeholders with	 control	 over	 significant	 emissions,	 relevant	 expertise	 and	 interest	 in	 doing	 unit level reduction plans.   This is most likely because the SO (like this report) is focused on	 stakeholder	 engagement,	 rather	 than	 citizen	 engagement	 (Dorcey	 &	 McDaniels, 2001).   So, although there is a real intent to listen, the focus on stakeholder engagement means that those with control over resources and emissions sources have more access to influence	the	decision-making	process	at	the	consultation	and	participation	ends	of	the engagement spectrum.  hoW Was thE EngagEmEnt ProcEss dEsignEd to bE fair? According	 to	Rowe	&	 Frewer	 (2005)	 fairness	 relates	 to	 “public	 acceptability,	 equity, democracy,	representativeness,	transparency,	and	influence”	(p.262). For this report my assessment of acceptability and representativeness is based on the engagement of stakeholders, as laid out in the stakeholder checklist (Figure 8).   The ICAF has engaged seven of nine the high priority stakeholder and six of 15 low priority stakeholders from the stakeholder checklist.   The ICAF development also applied most of the lessons drawn from the Energy Management Plan and the Strategic Transportation Plan, both of which enjoyed a high level of support within the campus community.   This high level of stakeholder engagement, along with the absence of resistance to the process so far, leads me to conclude that engagement in the ICAF has been representative in the UBC context. With the exception of the Symposium, I did not encounter any tracking of participant information	for	public	events	(affiliations,	demographics,	etc.).			This	creates	a	lack	of	data to assess whether participation in the ICAF’s engagement mechanisms was equitable or representative relative to the full campus community. The environmental movement is	recognized	as	being	predominantly	white	and	middle	class	(Gorrie,	2007).		 	Since	I participated in three round tables, the Climate Action Symposium, and the SEEDS project I anecdotally observed that most of the participants were white, and that the framing of the climate change problem and solutions were primarily technical and ecological.   I did not observe any discussions of the inequitable concentration of climate impacts in poor communities and countries, nor the concentration of emissions from high-income communities and countries.   Growing out of the environmental justice movement in the United States, climate justice focuses on the effects of air pollution and climate change on people, especially poor people and people of colour (CorpWatch US et al, 2002).   The IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS assessmenT ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS policy and management solutions of climate justice groups (such as the Durban group in the international Kyoto Protocol negotiations) are often at odds with the solutions proposed by mainstream environmental groups. Climate change disproportionately affects poor people and people of colour, at the international, Canadian and local scales. These same people are consistently not involved in climate planning or policy making at the international or national levels.   At UBC the ICAF appears to have engaged the usual suspects – environmental and operational experts.   There has been no active outreach to representatives affected communities, such as neighbouring First Nations or students from the Alliance of Small Island States.   UBC does not track ethnic or economic demographics, so identifying priority group for equitable and representative engagement within the campus community could be the focus of future research, along with	a	gap	analysis	of	the	stakeholder	groups	identified	in	this	report. There is a strong precedent for community involvement in campus and sustainability planning.   Most stakeholders are not elected and do not represent or report back to any specific	constituency	group.			An	important	exception	are	the	two	student	unions	(the Alma Mater Society [AMS] and the Graduate Student Society [GSS]), both of which are elected by the student body in open and contended elections.   The AMS and the GSS representatives do sit on working committees.   However, the majority of committee members are engaged for their technical expertise or jurisdiction over emissions sources.   The ICAF is focused on stakeholder engagement, rather than representative engagement of all constituencies in the UBC community.   Stakeholder engagement in planning cannot be equated with democracy. UBC is not a democratic institution and has no legal requirement to do consultation on campus development.   Given the scope and focus of this report, I did not identify any appropriate measures for democracy in UBC Climate Action Planning.   Future research could focus on how to ensure equitable representation and accountability to the community in a non-democratic institution (a university, business, corporation, etc.). The working committees have been the most transparent in terms of how their input shapes the ICAF process. There are clear lines of communication (and overlap) between the committee members and decision-makers in their focus areas (technical, energy, risk assessment, and utilities).   Although very effective, there has been no public reporting on how community input through the committees has shaped the ICAF.   Though the process is effective, this demonstrates a lack of accountability to the public.   Little attention has been given to communicating the process to the campus at large or to those participating in consultation activities.   Transparency in the ICAF engagement process could be improved through increased reporting and communication.  IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS assessmenT ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 44 45 resulTs Transparency and competence can be improved by creating accountability mechanisms in ICAF engagement and communication. This means clearly summarizing the engagement process to date, promoting upcoming opportunities for diverse stakeholders to get involved at a variety of levels and closing the consultation loop once input is gathered. Upon	considering	the	definition	of	fairness	I	conclude	the	ICAF	has	been	quite	fair,	but there is room for improvement.   It has been acceptable and representative participation from climate stakeholders in the planning process so far.   I conclude that the SO has real intent to seek input from stakeholders, as is demonstrated through the concentration of engagement activities at the participatory end of the engagement spectrum.   The campus	community	has	influenced	the	content,	structure	and	development	process	for the ICAF. Equitable and representative participation of the campus community has not been tracked.   Observation of event participants points to a need to focus outreach on community groups impacted by climate change.   Broader engagement is likely to shift the focus and framing of both the problem of climate change and its solutions.   Broader engagement increases the likelihood that the approaches and solutions to climate change adopted at UBC will be relevant to diverse socioeconomic and ethnic groups on and off campus.   This may also increase the relevance to municipalities and institutions in other parts of the world, where the consequences of climate change are more immediate than at UBC. Upcoming Moving forward with public consultation on the draft vision statement and draft 1 of the ICAF,	the	SO	needs	to	define	a	clear	methodology	for	how	input	will	be	integrated	into the framework and how the SO will report back to the community.   The SO has hired Junxion Strategy to develop a communications strategy for the ICAF, which has the potential to dramatically improve the transparency of the process. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS assessmenT ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS reCommendaTions •	 Prioritize clear, timely reporting for the upcoming community consultation for the draft vision and draft 1.   This should include reports to the working committees. •	 Give	specific	attention	to	ensure	equitable	and	representative	participation	in consultation events and engagement activities. ConClusions Public engagement in the ICAF was assessed in terms of fairness and competence, the two	criteria	for	effectiveness	identified	by	Rowe	and	Frewer	(2005).			The	assessment answered three questions: •	 What steps were taken to ensure competence in the engagement process? •	 How do the sponsors demonstrate a real intent to listen to the public? •	 How was the engagement process designed to be fair? Answering these questions I found that competence could be improved by focusing on establishing accountability mechanisms to ensure that input from consultation events is accurately captured and effectively communicated to the working committees and business units. In the UBC context, engagement in the ICAF has been quite fair, but there is room for improvement.   It has been acceptable and consistent with historical precedents of engagement, but access could still be more equitable. The	 SO	 has	 demonstrated	 patience	 and	 flexibility	 through	 this	 process,	 integrating comments	from	stakeholders	and	reworking	the	ICAF	structure	to	fill	gaps	identified	by the working committees.   The SO staff call this an ‘emergent process’. There is room for improvement in ensuring equitable and representative participation and increasing the transparency of the process by putting in place accountability mechanisms.   The SO could increase transparency and competence of the ICAF engagement process by: •	 closing the consultation loop and reporting back to participants on how their input in the upcoming consultations on the Vision Statement and Draft 1, and past participation in the round tables has shaped the ICAF •	 promoting upcoming opportunities for involvement to diverse stakeholders on campus, especially targeting impacted communities furTher researCh Further	research	opportunities	identified	in	this	chapter	include: •	 identifying priority groups for equitable and representative engagement within the campus community, along with a gap analysis of the stakeholder groups	identified	in	this	report. •	 considering how to ensure equitable representation and accountability to the community in a non-democratic institution (a university, business, corporation, etc.). IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS assessmenT ConCluSIonS & reCoMMendAtIonS 46 47PubliCubC engagemenT ChaPTer 8: reCommendaTions & ConClusions In this report I present, characterize and analyze community engagement in UBC’s Integrated Climate Action Framework (ICAF).   I begin by introducing the ICAF structure and 12 mechanisms for community engagement in the ICAF so far. I then map these engagement mechanisms onto the Spectrum of Public Engagement (Figure 5) and synthesizes them into six avenues for public engagement in the ICAF: 1.   information •	 in-person	presentations	by	the	Sustainability	Offi	ce	(SO)	staff	(summer	2007	-	present) •	 the Leadership and the Climate Agenda Discussion Paper (February 26, 2008) •	 the Climate Action website (September 2008 - present) •	 introduces the ICAF planning framework and the working committees •	 the Climate Action Symposium (October 2, 2008) •	 185 attendees informed about climate action at UBC, the history of action on sustainability, and current UBC research and practice on climate 2.  rEsEarch •	 student research through Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Projects (summer 2008 - present) •	 in-house consultants •	 2006	GHG	inventory	(fall	2007) •	 draft vision statement (summer 2008) 3.  consultation EvEnts •	 round table discussions •	 invited the campus community to share their input on transportation, infrastructure, education and food (spring 2008) 4. Working committEEs •	 multi-stakeholder committees •	 President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability (PAC-S) (spring 2008 – present) •	 the Operations and Administration Working Group (OAWG) of the PAC-S (summer 2008 – present) •	 Climate	Action	Partnership	Steering	Committee	(July	2007	–	spring	2008) •	 expert committees •	 Technical Advisory Committee, Risk Assessment Task Force, Utilities Management Committee, Alternative Energy Committee and Energy Management	Committee	(fall	2007	–	present) 5.  advisors •	 formal •	 PAC-S Advisory Panel: off-campus advisors (forthcoming) •	 informal •	 on-campus advisors offer an information resource for the SO staff (summer	2007	–	present) 6. PartnErshiPs •	 formal •	 BC Campus Climate Network and the AMS (spring 2008 – present) •	 Informal •	 UBC Business Units to develop emissions reduction plans which will be aggregated into UBC’s Climate Action Strategy (forthcoming) IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConClusions & reCommendaTions Based on the analysis using the Spectrum of Public Engagement Spectrum I found that the greatest number of engagement mechanisms were concentrated at the participatory end of the spectrum. However, more people were engaged at the information end of the spectrum.		There	has	been	a	high	degree	of	public	infl	uence	on	decision-making,	frequent opportunities	 for	 dialogue	 and	 two-way	 information	 fl	ow	 and	 signifi	cant	 fl	exibility	 in the process to respond to input gathered from stakeholders.  Given that the information sessions occurred relatively late in the process, while the participatory mechanisms have been in place all along, I conclude that the ICAF engagement process has been participatory. tool 1: chEcklist for succEssful sustainabilitY ProJEct dEvEloPmEnt at ubc In this report I compared the ICAF engagement process with two past sustainability planning processes using the Checklist for Successful Sustainability Project Development at UBC.  I created this checklist based on lessons and successes learned from the Energy Management Plan and the Sustainable Transportation Plan.  Based on this assessment I found that the ICAF planning process is applying six of the nine lessons learned from these previous processes planning for sustainability. The SO is already: •	 piggy-backing on the university priority of reducing its $2.5 million per annum offsetting cost that will come into effect in 2010 •	 engaging on- and off-campus stakeholders The SO has begun making progress in: •	 engaging	partners	in	pilot	projects,	through	the	AMS	and	goBEYOND •	 building support among top decision-makers by involving them in the symposium and the OAWG •	 sharing the credit for successes by empowering committee members and business units to lead the ICAF work and act as spokespeople •	 engaging	student	champions	through	the	AMS	partnership	and	the	goBEYOND partnership The SO can still •	 phase in large projects •	 identify	creative	fi	nancing	models •	 bundle	cost	saving	measures	with	ecologically	signifi	cant,	but	more	costly,	projects tool 2: chEcklist of ubc climatE stakEholdErs In this report I considered what key stakeholders have been engaged in the development of the Climate Action Plan.  I created a checklist of high and low priority stakeholder groups based on data from key informant interviews and the stakeholder list in the STP. Using this Checklist of UBC Climate Stakeholders I found that the ICAF is engaging seven of nine high priority stakeholders: •	 AMS •	 UBC Properties Trust •	 Faculty	with	issue	specifi	c	expertise	(climate	change,	planning,	etc.) •	 Campus and Community Planning •	 UBC Supply Management •	 TREK Program •	 Treasurer The SO is also engaging six of 15 low priority stakeholders. Based on the results of the checklist I recommend that they reach out to the VP administration	&	fi	nance,	 the	neighbouring	community	associations,	 the	unions,	and the GSS.   Although not included in the checklist, it is my opinion that the Friends of the UBC Farm should also be engaged, as the other key stakeholders in the debate over the use of south campus lands are included as high priority stakeholders (the University Neighbourhood Association and UBC Properties Trust). IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConClusions & reCommendaTions 48 49 tool 3: assEssing EffEctivE communitY EngagEmEnt The effectiveness of the community engagement process was analyzed for fairness, intent and competence.  The process was found to be fair in the UBC context, but tracking participation would help to ensure representativeness.  Closing the loop on consultation needs to be a priority to increase the transparency of the process and increase the perceived competence of the SO.  Opportunities to include climate change affected community members as stakeholders should also be considered. furTher researCh Several	opportunities	 for	 further	 research	were	 identified	 throughout	 this	 report	and synthesized at the end of each chapter.  However, one key area of research has not yet been	raised	but	is	essential	for	the	creation	of	a	successful	ICAF:	the	scientific	relevance of the plan.  Though the key focus of this report is analysis and recommendations on community engagement, the climate change plan must also be assessed for creating scientific	 relevant	 emissions	 reductions	 to	 fit	 the	 challenge	 of	 global	 climate	 change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios projects that global GHG emissions will increase by 25 to 90% CO2 equivalent (eCO2)	between	2000	and	2030	(SRES,	2000).		This	is	disturbing	because	the	2007	IPCC Fourth Assessment Report found the opposite trend, that a 50-80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.  Current emissions trends both in Canada and worldwide are increasing and the projected consequences are severe.  The success of the ICAF must also be assessed for whether they achieve scientifically	relevant	emissions	reductions.		As	a	leading	research	institution,	UBC	has an opportunity and a responsibility to evaluate the ICAF in terms of its ability to achieve scientifically	significant	reductions	in	GHG	emissions	in	the	short-	and	long-term. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConClusions & reCommendaTions summary of reCommendaTions for PubliC engagemenT in The iCaf in order of PrioriTy Given my analysis I propose ten recommendations for improving, deepening and expanding public engagement in the ICAF, presented in order of priority: 1. Close the consultation loop, by reporting on how community input is integrated into the ICAF.  Focus on: •	 upcoming vision statement consultation •	 upcoming draft 1 consultation •	 past Round Table participants 2. Increase capacity of the SO to communicate more broadly and regularly about the ICAF.  This may require: •	 hiring new communications staff •	 hiring consultants or contractors focused on communications •	 recruiting and managing volunteers to do communications 3. Explore	and	develop	creative	financing	models	for	implementing	the	ICAF. 4. Bundle	ecologically	significant	projects	with	money	making	projects. 5. Prioritize	engaging	the	VP	administration	&	finance,	neighbouring	Community Associations, the GSS and the campus unions in the ICAF. 6. Leverage partnerships with the AMS, UBC Common Energy and Utilities to create climate pilot projects on campus and increase the on-the-ground visibility of the ICAF 7.	 Create a climate email list compiled from emails collected at: •	 round tables •	 Climate Action Symposium •	 working groups 8. Continue building the climate action website as a key source of information, including: •	 information on how to get involved through the six existing avenues for engagement and upcoming consultation events •	 hyperlinks to SEEDS projects on the ICAF 9. Give	specific	attention	to	ensuring	equitable	and	representative	participation of groups affected by climate change or non-traditional stakeholders in consultation events and engagement activities 10. Break down silos within the ICAF itself by holding regular (bi-annual) joint meetings of all participants. IntroduCtIon Methodology ICAF overvIew PublIC engAgeMent ubC Context StAkeholderS ASSeSSMent ConClusions & reCommendaTions 50 51 Atkins, Geoff.  June 9, 2008.  Personal Interview.  Position: Associate Vice-President of Land and Building  Services. Allyn, Heather, Tegan Adams, Melanie Byland, Nadia Formigoni, Laura Gosset, Ellie Holmes, Olya 	 Timoshouk,	and	Jordan	Zach		2007-2008.		UBC Food Systems Project: Moving UBC Food Outlets  Beyond Climate Neutral.		Land	&	Food	Systems:	AGSC	450.		Supervisor:	Liska	Richer  www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary/files/Scenario01Group302008orgpaper_4.pdf Best,	Jordan	and	Liz	Ferris.		2006-2007.		Carbon Neutrality & UBC: A First Glance.		Land	&	Food  Systems.  Supervisor: Dr Peter Nemetz. www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary/files/Carbon%20 	 Neutrality%20	&%20UBC%20A%20First%20Glance.pdf Beierle, Thomas and Jerry Clayford.  2002. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington,  D.C. : Resources for the Future Inc. BC Campus Climate Network.  2008.  Programs.  www.go-beyond.ca/programs.php Boothroyd, Peter. 1991.  Developing Community Planning Skills: Applications of a Seven-Step Model.  CHS  Research Bulletin. pp.1-10. Carter, Eric.  2008.  Successful Change Requires More than Change Management, the Journal for Quality  Participation, Vol. 31, No.1, pp.20-23. Common Energy.  2008.  Beyond Climate-Neutral.  http://uvic.commonenergy.org/wiki/Beyond_Climate-Neutral CorpWatch US; Friends of the Earth International; Global Resistance;  Greenpeace International; groundwork, South Africa; Indigenous Environmental Network, North  America; Indigenous Information Network, Kenya; National Alliance of People’s Movements,  India; National Fishworkers Forum, India; OilWatch Africa; OilWatch International; Southwest  Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, US; Third World Network, Malaysia; and World  Rainforest Movement, Uruguay. August 29, 2002. Bali Principles of Climate Justice.  www.ejnet.org/ej/bali.pdf Dorcey, A.H.J. and McDaniels, T. Great Expectations, Mixed Results: Trends in Citizen Involvement  in Canadian Environmental Governance, in Parson, E. A. (ed.) Governing the Environment. 	 Toronto:	Toronto	University	Press.	2001.	pp.	247-302. Evans, Bob, Marko Joas, Susan Sundback, and Kate Theobald.  2005.  Governing Sustainable Cities.  Sterling VA: Earthscan. Ferrari Nunes, Rodrigo.  September 2008.  A Critical Take on Campus Tourism, The Graduate Magazine,  No. 1, p.24-25. Ferris, Liz.  July 29, 2008a.  Personal Interview. Position: Coordinator of Climate Action at the UBC 	 Sustainability	Office. Ferris,	Liz.		November	7,	2008b.		Personal Interview. Position: Coordinator of Climate Action at the UBC 	 Sustainability	Office. Foxcroft, Holly.  August 6, 2008.  Personal Interview.  Position: VP External for the Alma Mater Society, 	 2003/4. referenCes Gorrie,	Peter.		June	2,	2007.		Why	are	greens	so	white?	The	eco-movement	faces	an	uphill	battle	in  engaging newcomers, low-income Canadians.  The Toronto Star reproduced on the Environmental  Defense website.  www.environmentaldefence.ca/pressroom/viewnews.php?id=78 Henderson, Orion.  October 30, 2008.  Personal Interview.  Position: Manager of Climate Change and 	 Energy	for	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office. International Association for Public Participation (IAP2).   August 15, 2008.  Spectrum of Public  Participation.		www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf. Intergovernmental	Panel	on	Climate	Change.		2007.		Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary  for Policymakers, pp.1-22.  www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  2000.  IPCC Special Report: Emissions Scenarios,	pp.1-27.  www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf Jolly, Carole.  November 3, 2008.  Personal Interview.  Position: Director of Transportation Trek, Land  and Building Services. Kaner,	Sam,	Lenny	Lind,	Catherine	Toldi,	Sarah	Fisk,	and	Duane	Berger.		2007.		Facilitator’s Guide to  Participatory Decision-Making, Second Edition. San Francisco, CA: Community At Work. Knight, Nancy.  June 12, 2008.  Personal Interview.  Position: Assistant Vice President of Campus and  Community Planning. Leitzel, Joan, Candace Corvey, and David Hiley.  January-February 2004.  Rated Planning and Change  Management at a Research University, Change, Vol. 36, pp.36-43. Louie,	Torrio,	Curtis	Wan,	and	Joyce	Ying.		2007-2008.		Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of Future  UBC Transportation Options.  Chemical and Biological Engineering, Supervisor: Dr. Xiaotao Bi.  www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary/files/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20Analysis_2.pdf Mackenzie-Moore, Doug. Guide to Community-based Social Marketing.  www.cbsm.com/Chapters/introduction.lasso Makortoff, Kalyeena.  October 21, 2008.  Contentious Campus Plan consultations, The Ubyssey, Vol. xc, 	 No.15,		p.1	&	6. May, Peter and Raymond Burby.  1996.  Coercive versus Cooperative Policies: Comparing  Intergovernmental Mandate Performance, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15, 	 No.	2,	pp.	171-201. Miles, Claire, Ivy Poon, Michelle Shepherd, David St-Jules, Eva Tong, Ziming Wang, Sandy Wu. 	 2007-2008.		Scenario 1: Moving UBC Beyond Climate Neutral.  UBC Food Systems Project: 	 Climate	Action	Partnership,	Land	&	Food	Sciences.		Supervisor:	Liska	Richer.  www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary/files/Scenario01Group212008orgpaper_5.pdf Ministry	of	Environment	and	Office	of	the	Premier.		November	20,	2007.		News Release: B.C. Introduces  Climate Action Legislation.  www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007OTP0181-001489.htm Moore, Linda.  October 28, 2008.  Personal Interview.  Associate Director, External Affairs, Campus and  Community Planning. referenCes 52 53 referenCes Natural Resources Canada.  August 21, 2008.  Trend Analysis: Western spruce budworm.  www.foretscanada.rncan.gc.ca/articletrend/212 Operations and Administration Working Group (OAWG).  November 2, 2008.  Terms of Reference. 	 Provided	by	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office. Pacific	Carbon	Trust.		2008.		Public	Sector	Organizations.		http://www.pacificcarbontrust.ca/Home/ 	 ClientServicesPublicSectorOrganizations/tabid/99/Default.aspxß Pagani, Freda.  July 9, 2008. Personal Interview.  Position: Former Director of Sustainability at UBC. Rosener, J. B. 1982. Making bureaucrats responsive: A study of the impact of citizen participation and staff  recommendations on regulatory decision making. Public Administration Review, pp.339-45. Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.  Science,  Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 25, No 1, pp.3-29. Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer.  2005.  A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.  Science, Technology, &  Human Values, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.251-290. Smith,	L.	G.,	C.Y.	Nell,	and	M.V.	Prystupa.	1997.	The	converging	dynamics	of	interest	representation	in  resources management. Environmental Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.139-46. Stewart, T. R., R. L. Dennis, and D.W. Ely.  1984.  Citizen participation and judgment in policy analysis: A  case study of urban air quality policy. Policy Sciences, Vol 17,	pp.67-87. Tansey, James.  November 3, 2008.  Personal Interview.  Position: Associate Professor, Organizational 	 Behaviour/HR	Centre	(W.	Maurice	Young)	for	Applied	Ethics,	Sauder	School	of	Business. UBC.  Mar. 13, 2008.  Media Release: BC University Presidents Sign Climate Action Statement.  www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2008/mr-08-031.html UBC Campus and Community Planning.  October 26, 2000.  UBC Comprehensive Community Plan. UBC Planning and Institutional Research (PAIR).  May 31, 2008a.  Faculty and Staff at UBC Vancouver  by Occupational Group.  www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/facstaff/fac&staff_occupational_group_UBCV.xls UBC Planning and Institutional Research (PAIR).  March 1, 2008b.  Full Time Equivalent Enrolement,  2007/8.  www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/fte_enrolment.xls UBC Properties Trust.  2008a.  Governance. www.ubcproperties.com/neighbourhoods_governance.html UBC Properties Trust.  2008b.  Homepage.  www.ubcproperties.com UBC Strategic Plan.  2008.   Survey Results: Strengths.  http://www.strategicplan.ubc.ca/survey/results/strengths.html UBC	Sustainability	Office.		2007a.		Inspirations and Aspirations: The Sustainability Strategy.  www.sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/ia/UBC_Sustainability_Strategy_2007.pdf UBC	Sustainability	Office.		2007b.		Ecotrek Energy & Water Management Program.  Provided by the 	 Sustainability	Office. UBC	Sustainability	Office.		February	26,	2008a.		Leadership and the Climate Agenda.  www.sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/ubc_climate.discussion.pdf referenCes UBC	Sustainability	Office.		2008b.		Steering Committee Terms of Reference.  Provided by the UBC 	 Sustainability	Office. UBC	Sustainability	Office.	2008c.	Sustainability	in	Focus	at	the	University	of	British	Columbia:	Report	to 	 the	UBC	Board	of	Governors.		Provided	by	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office. UBC	Sustainability	Office.	2008d.	University of British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Draft  Report.	Provided	by	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office. UBC	Sustainability	Office.		2008e.		Vision for UBC Campus: Moving Beyond Climate Neutral.  Provided 	 by	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office. UBC TREK Program.  May 13, 2005.  2005 Strategic Transportation Plan.  www.trek.ubc.ca/research/status/STPsec2.pdf UBC TREK Program.  February 2008.  Fall 2007 Transportation Status Report.  www.trek.ubc.ca/research/pdf/Fall_2007_Transportation_Status_Report.pdf UBC TREK Program.  February 20, 2003.  Transportation Status Report, Fall 1997 to Fall 2002.  www.trek.ubc.ca/research/status/Fall%202002%20Transportation%20Status%20Report%20  --%2020%20Feb%2003.pdf UBC TREK Program.  November 18, 1999.  UBC Strategic Transportation Plan.  www.trek.ubc.ca/research/pdf/stp_full.pdf UPASS Website.  2008.  About the UPASS Program. www.upass.ubc.ca/upass/upassabout.html Vancouver	Parks	Board.		March	6,	2007.		Questions & Answers: Overview of Stanley Park.  www.vancouver.ca/parks/parks/stanley/restoration/faq.htm Walton, Adrian, Josie Hughes, Marvin Eng,  Andrew Fall,  Terry Shore,  Bill Riel,  and Peter Hall.  May 	 7,	2008.		Provincial-Level Projection of the Current Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak: Update of  the infestation projection based on the 2007 Provincial Aerial Overview of Forest Health and  revisions to the “Model” (BCMPB.v5).  BC Ministry of Forests and Range.  www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/bcmpb/BCMPB.v5.BeetleProjection.Update.pdf Wark, Robyn.  October 2, 2008.  Public Presentation, UBC Climate Action Symposium Accelerating  Solutions Panel.  Position: Senior Key Accounts Manager for Sustainable Communities with BC  Hydro. Wiedemann, P. M., and S. Femers. 1993. Public-participation in waste management decision making — 	 analysis	and	management	of	conflicts.	Journal	of	Hazardous	Materials	33	(3):	355-68. World Café.  2008.  What is a World Café?  www.theworldcafe.com/what.htm World	Meteorological	Organization	(December	13,	2007).		Top	11	Warmest	Years	On	Record	Have	All	Been 	 In	Last	13	Years.	ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm World Resource Institute.  2008.  The Bottom Line on Corporate GHG Inventories.  www.wri.org/publication/bottom-line-corporate-ghg-inventories Zirnhelt,	Hayes.		2007-2008.		Energy and Climate Change at the University of British Columbia.  Civil  Engineering.  Supervisor: Dr. Susan Nesbit  www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary/files/Energy%20and%20Climate%20Final%20_2__2.pdf 54 55 key informanT inTerview subjeCTs Key Informant Interviews Position Date Werner Anteweiler Associate Professor, Strategy and Business Economics Sauder School of Business July 24, 2008 Geoff Atkins Associate Vice President, Land and Building Services June 9, 2008 Alice Cassidy Associate Director, Teaching and Academic Growth July 3, 2008 Group Interview Lisa Colby David Grigg Joe Stott •	 Manager	Policy	Planning,	Campus	& Community Planning •	 Associate	Director,		Infrastructure	& Services	Planning,	Campus	&	Community Planning •	 Director	of	Planning,	Campus	& Community Planning July 2, 2008 Liz Ferris Coordinator of Climate Action, UBC Sustainability	Office July 29,2008 November	7,	2008 Holly Foxcroft VP	External	for	the	Alma	Mater	Society,	2003/4 August 6, 2008 Chad Hyson Associate Director, Student Development June 13, 2008 Nancy Knight Associate	Vice	President	Campus	&	Community Planning,	Campus	&	Community	Planning June 12, 2008 Peter Nemetz Professor, Strategy and Business Economics, Sauder School of Business July 22, 2008 Jorge Marques Former Energy Manager with the UBC Sustainability	Office July 8, 2008 Freda Pagani Former	Director,	UBC	Sustainability	Office July 9, 2008 Julie Stockton Director, Organizational Development and Learning Human Resources July 2, 2008 Victoria	Wakefield Manager, Logistics and Sustainability, Supply Management June 5, 2008 Informational Interviews Position Date Carol Jolly Director of Transportation Trek, Land and Building Services November 3, 2008 Orion Henderson Manager of Climate Change and Energy, UBC Sustainability	Office October 30, 2008 Informational Interviews Position Date Linda Moore Associate Director, External Affairs, Campus and Community Planning October 28, 2008 James Tansey Associate	Professor,	Organizational	Behaviour/ HR	Centre	(W.	Maurice	Young)	for	Applied Ethics, Sauder School of Business November 3, 2008 aPPendix 1 inTerview QuesTions 1. In your opinion, who are the key stakeholder groups and individuals that should be engaged in generating effective climate change solutions at UBC? 2. What	existing	committees,	offices,	programs	or	positions	should	be	involved	climate	action	at	UBC? 3. How was past progress on sustainability achieved at UBC? 4. What challenges or barriers did you face in bringing forward sustainability initiatives at UBC? 5. How do you think existing incentive structures or funding processes could be adjusted to encourage climate change action at UBC? 6. Who else do you suggest I interview for my research? aPPendix 2 56 57 samPle ConsenT form Participant Consent Form May 23, 2008  Planning for Implementation: Options for Participatory Climate Action Planning at UBC You	are	 invited	 to	participate	 in	 a	 study	 entitled	Planning	 for	 Implementation:	Options	 for	Participatory Climate Action Planning at UBC that is being conducted by Jeca Glor-Bell, Maged Senbel and William Rees. Jeca Glor-Bell is a Masters Student in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British	Columbia	and	you	may	contact	her		if	you	have	further	questions	by	phone	at	778-829-9797	or	via email at jeca.glorbell@gmail.com. As a graduate student, I must conduct research as part of the requirements for a degree in Community and Regional Planning. It is being conducted under the supervision  of Dr. Maged Senbel (senbel@interchange. ubc.ca	and	604-822-9158)	and	Dr.	William	Rees	(wrees@interchange.ubc.ca	and	604-822-2937) Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this research project is to create an options paper that lays out different approaches, tools and reasons for engaging the UBC campus community in developing the campus Climate Action Plan.  The Climate Action Plan will be completed by December 2008.  This options paper is meant to be a resource for	 the	UBC	Sustainability	Office	 in	determining	 and	 rolling	out	 a	process	 for	 campus-wide	 engagement, consultation and participation.  The options for public engagement will draw from both academic theory and practical experience of university and municipal employees working on climate action.  The options will build on the Round Table discussions already underway.  Once completed, the options will include a time line for implementation and resource templates (surveys, questionnaires, workshop structures) and an executive summary	of	my	findings	 for	use	and	circulation	by	 to	 the	staff	of	 the	Sustainability	Office	and	beyond	as desired. Importance of this Research Research of this type is important because it complements and builds on the ongoing work of the UBC Sustainability	Office.	 	 To	 date,	 their	 initiatives	 has	 focused	 primarily	 on	 achieving	 operational	 emissions reductions and compiling an inventory of past and current emissions reduction initiatives.  Some campus community	engagement	has	taken	place	through	the	issue	specific	Round	Table	discussions.	 	This	project will	seek	to	fill	two	gaps	in	the	current	climate	action	planning	process	by	first	proposing	options	for	campus community engagement and consultation and second suggesting approaches to embedding climate action into the operations, academics and governance structures of the university. Participants Selection You	are	being	asked	to	participate	in	this	study	because	of	your	experience	working	on	advancing	sustainability or climate change action (either on UBC campus or in a municipalities). What is involved If you agree to voluntarily participate in this research, your participation will include participating in a 30 minute face-to-face interview or phone interview with Jeca Glor-Bell.  Where you will be asked to discuss lessons	 learned	 from	 past	 experience	 and	 opportunities	 for	 future	 climate	 action	 that	 you	 foresee.	 	 You will also be asked what opportunities and challenges you see for integrating climate action into the current operations, governance and incentive structures at UBC. Inconvenience Participation in this study may cause some inconvenience to you in taking the time to meet for the interview. aPPendix 3 Risks Participating	 in	 this	study	will	mean	 that	your	experience	may	be	shared	 in	 the	final	 research	report	and circulated	to	members	of	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office	and	beyond.	 	Participating	in	the	study	may	cause some	emotional	stress	or	anxiety	because	of	the	magnitude	of	the	problem	of	climate	change	which	is	difficult to address and overcome. Benefits The	potential	benefits	of	your	participation	in	this	research	include	the	opportunity	to	inform	the	community engagement process for the Climate Action Partnership and to contribute to the advancement of the University’s mission statement Voluntary Participation Your	participation	in	this	research	must	be	completely	voluntary.	If	you	do	decide	to	participate,	you	may withdraw at any time without any consequences or any explanation. If you do withdraw from the study your data	will	be	used	only	if	you	give	permission,	otherwise	all	audio	and	text	files	will	be	destroyed	using	security purging software. Anonymity Ideally the researchers would like to identify you and attribute comments and suggestions made in the interview to you.  If at any time you would like for your comments to be off the record or anonymous, please feel	free	to	say	so	and	your	wishes	will	be	respected	and	your	identity	protected	in	the	final	report. Confidentiality If	any	confidential	information	is	gathered	it	will	be	kept	on	a	password	protected	computer	and/or	hard	drive. Dissemination of Results It is anticipated that the results of this study will be shared with others in the following ways •	 Project	presentation •	 Circulated	within	the	UBC	Sustainability	Office	Staff •	 Made	available	through	the	SEEDS	library	online	(www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary) •	 If	desired,	the	Sustainability	Office	may	circulate	the	findings	or	executive	summary	to	sustainability  and climate leaders on campus •	 Submitted	to	project	advisor	with	Holland-Barrs	Planning	Group disPosal of data Data from this study will be stored at UBC for up to 5 years and then destroyed using security purging software.  contacts Individuals that may be contacted regarding this study include Jeca Glor-Bell (jeca.glorbell@gmail.com or 778-829-9797),	Dr.	Maged	 Senbel	 (senbel@interchange.ubc.ca	 and	604-822-9158)	 and	Dr.	William	Rees (wrees@interchange.ubc.ca	and	604-822-2937) In addition, you may verify the ethical approval of this study, or raise any concerns you might have, by contacting the	University	of	British	Columbia’s	Office	of	Research	Services	(604-822-8595	or	ors@ors.ubc.ca). Your	signature	below	indicates	that	you	understand	the	above	conditions	of	participation	in	this	study	and that you have had the opportunity to have your questions answered by the researchers. ________________________	 _____________________________					________________             Name of Participant             Signature            Date A copy of this consent will be left with you, and a copy will be taken by the researcher. aPPendix 3 58 59 Timeline of iCaf engagemenT To daTe 2007 sPring (aPril – maY) •	 SEEDS	Project	with	initial	GHG	emissions	inventory	for	the	campus •	 Climate	Action	&	Student	Engagement	Coordinator	Hired	by	UBC	SO summEr (JunE – august) •	 Steering	Committee	formed	&	Terms	of	Reference	created •	 Technical	Advisory	Committee	formed	&	Terms	of	Reference •	 July	30:	Workshop	@	Michael	Smith	Labs	with	key	climate	leaders	on	campus	(mostly	faculty)	asking  them to contribute to the structure and join the process through a committee or participate in a Round  Table fall  (sEPtEmbEr – dEcEmbEr) •	 November	20,	mandate	from	Province	for	the	SUCH	sector	to	be	carbon	neutral	by	2010 •	 Technical	Advisory	Committee:	scoping	GHG	inventory 2008 WintEr (JanuarY – march) •	 GHG	inventory	for	2006	completed	using	World	Resource	Institute	(WRI)	scopes •	 Student	research	papers	in	initial	areas	of	scope	for	ICAF	(SEEDS	Projects) •	 Formalize	partnership	with	AMS	to	fund	implementation	of	Lighter	Footprint	Strategy	($10,000) •	 Feb.	26:	Discussion	Paper	Released:	Leadership and the Climate Agenda	(UBC	Sustainability	Office,  2008a) •	 March	 13:	 President	 Toope	 signs	 the	 ‘The	 University	 Presidents’	 Council	 of	 B.C.	 Climate	 Action  Statement’ (UBC, 2008), which he helped to create •	 Food	Round	Table,	Co-hosted	with	Land	and	Food	Systems •	 Transportation	Round	Table,	Co-hosted	with	the	UBC	TREK	Program •	 Infrastructure	Round	Table,	Co-hosted	with	Campus	and	Community	Planning •	 Presidents’	Advisory	Council	on	Sustainability	is	established sPring (aPril – maY) •	 Education	Round	Table,	Co-hosted	with	student	group,	UBC	Common	Energy summEr (JunE – august) •	 June	23:	First	meeting	of	Risk	Assessment	Group •	 August	26:	First	meeting	of	the	OAWG fall (sEPtEmbEr – novEmbEr) •	 Climate	Action	website	launched	on	SO	website •	 October	2:	Climate	Action	Symposium,	185	person	informational	event	on	climate	action	and	research  at UBC •	 Pilot	goBEYOND	project	launched	at	UBC,	UVic	and	Thompson	Rivers	University •	 Video,	presentations	and	summary	of	Climate	Action	Symposium	posted	online PEnding •	 Full	Report	on	the	Greenhouse	Gas	Inventory	2006	posted	online •	 Climate	Blog	posted	and	active aPPendix 4 ParTial lisT of ClimaTe advisors To The susTainabiliTy offiCe Faculty •	 	 Michelle	Lamberson,	Director	Distance	Education,	Instructor	Office	of	Learning	Technology •	  Les Lavkulich, Professor Emeritus, IRES, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability •	 	 Jean	Marcus,	Project	Manager/SEER,	Forestry	Faculty •	  John Metras, Director of Plant Operations, Land and Building Services •	 	 Mark	Monroe,	Advisor	 to	 the	AVP	of	Land	&	Building	Services,	Sessional	 Instructor,	Strategy	and  Business Economics, Sauder School of Business •	  William Rees, Professor of Community and Regional Planning and creator of the Ecological  Footprint Model •	 	 John	Robinson,	Professor,	IRES	/	CIRS,	Institute	for	Resources,	Environment	and	Sustainability •	  Jack Saddler, Dean and Professor of Forestry •	 	 James	Tansey,	Associate	Professor,	Organizational	Behaviour/HR	Centre	 (W.	Maurice	Young)	 for  Applied Ethics, Sauder School of Business •	  Bob Woollard, Professor, Department of Family Practice StaFF •	  Geoff Atkins, Associate Vice President, Land and Building Services •	  Leanne Bilodeau, Manager, Workplace Health and Sustainability, Human Resources - UBC  Okanagan •	  Peter Dauvergne, Senior Advisor to the President, Professor, Political Science and Canada Research 	 Chair,	President’s	Office •	  Carole Jolly, Director Transportation TREK, Land and Building Services •	 	 Aidan	Kiernan,	AVP,	Operations,	AVP	Operations	Office	-	UBC	Okanagan •	  William Koty, Director Applied Degrees, Continuing Studies •	  Scott Macrae, Executive Director Public Affairs, External, Legal and Community Relations •	  David Rankin, Associate Vice President, Business Operations, Supply Management •	  Stephen Owen, Vice President, External, Legal and Community Relations •	  Julie Wagemakers, Deputy Director, Liu Institute for Global Issues •	  Basil Waugh, Communications Coordinator, Public Affairs, External, Legal and Community  Relations •	  Dave Woodson, Director, Utilities, Land and Building Services Student •	  Chris Diplock, VP Finance for AMS •	  Tarini Fernando •	  Emma Hodgson •	  Javier Landaeta external •	  Peter ter Weeme, Junxion Strategies aPPendix 5 60 61 members of The PresidenT’s advisory CounCil on susTainabiliTy (PaC-s) The members of this committee are all of the Chairs of the PAC-S Working Committees plus a representative from	the	President’s	Office	and	a	representative	from	the	Vice-President	Research’s	Office	and	include: •	 Alaa Abd El-Aziz (Chair, UBC-O Working Group) •	 John	Hepburn	(co-Chair,	Research	&	Community	Partnerships) •	 John	Robinson	(co-Chair,	Research	&	Community	Partnerships) •	 Peter Dauvergne (Chair, Academic Planning) •	 James Tansey (Chair, Advisory Panel) •	 Tara MacKenzie (Chair, Development) •	 Scott Macrae (Chair, Communications) •	 Charlene	Easton	(Chair,	Operations	&	Administration) •	 Patricia	Stevens,	Director,	Office	of	the	President •	 Terry	Kellam,	Director,	Office	of	the	Vice-President,	Research aPPendix 6 members of oPeraTions and adminisTraTion working grouP (oawg) of The PaC-s  •	 Charlene Easton, UBC Director of Sustainability •	 Julie Stockton Director, Organizational Development and Learning Human Resources •	 Al Poettcker, President and CEO, UBC Properties Trust •	 Aidan Kiernan, Associate VP Operations, UBC-Okanagan •	 Nancy Knight, Associate VP Campus and Community Planning •	 John Metras, Director, Plant Operations, Land and Building Services •	 David Woodson, Director Utilities, Land and Building Services •	 Peter Smailes, Treasurer, Treasury •	 Andrew Parr and Larry Berglund for David Rankin, Associate VP Business Operations •	 David Farrar, Provost and VP Academic •	 Alaa Abd-El-Aziz, Provost, UBC-Okanagan •	 Fred Fotis, Executive Director, Housing and Conferences •	 Mona Maghsoodi, President, Graduate Student Society (proposed) •	 Chris Diplock, VP Finance, Alma Mater Society •	 Erica	Frank,		Professor,	University	Neighborhood	Association	(confirmed) •	 Ian	Burgess,	Associate	Vice-President,	Finance	Budget	Office	(confirmed) •	 3-4 Faculty Representatives •	 Les Lavkulich, Professor Emeritus, IRES •	 James	Tansey,	Sauder	School	of	Business	Assistant	Professor,	Organizational	Behaviour/ HR (OAWG, 2008) aPPendix 7 62 63 aPPendix 8 desCriPTion of The world Café model The	World	Café	 is	 defined	by	 its	 creators	 as	 a	 conversational	 process,	 but	 ultimately	 is	 a	mechanism	 for framing community discussion and consultation.  In this model separate tables are set up with separate discussion questions and each table has a facilitator and a note taker.  A sponsor sets the context for the day, introduces the discussion topic and the World Café discussion methodology.  Once the explanation is complete,	community	members	self-select	their	table	and	discuss	the	specific	question	for	that	table	together for a given period of time (in the case of the round tables, for 20 minutes).  The groups then switch and mingle to	find	a	new	table	with	a	new	group	answering	a	different	question.		In	this	way	different	group	dynamics and perspectives come forward as different groups of people discuss each question.  Key discussion themes are reported back to the full group at the end of the World Café, and notes were submitted to the round table sponsors (in this case the SO and its partners). This model is intended to offer new insights into the discussion topics, foster learning and creative thinking and evoke collective intelligence (World Café, 2008). aPPendix 9 sTraTegiC TransPorTaTion Plan advisory CommiTTee members (Reproduced from the Strategic Transportation Plan, by UBC TREK Program, 1999, p.2) UBC Transportation Planning, also known as the UBC TREK Program Centre, compiled this report for the Associate	Vice	President	of	Land	&	Building	Services.		Many	people	have	been	involved	in	gathering	and analyzing data, soliciting public input on issues and options, reviewing options and recommendations, and writing	the	final	report.		Over	thirty-five	on-	and	off-campus	stakeholder	groups	have	been	represented through the UBC Transportation Advisory Committee, its associated Action Teams, and Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit User Groups. ubc transPortation advisorY committEE mEmbErs  UBC TREK Program Centre Gord Lovegrove, (TAC Chair) Director Transp. Planning Shirley	Mahood,	TREK	Secretary	1998/99 Melissa Rosen, TREK Secretary 1999 Jesse Sims, TREK Marketing Coordinator 1999 UBC Students Maryann Adamec, kAMS Vice President Graham Senft, AMS External Commission, Transpor- tation	1998/99 Jesse Jackson, AMS External Commission, Transpor- taiton	1999/00 Darren	Haines,	AMS	External	Commission	1999/00 Beth Callister, GVTA PAC Rep Ted Buehler, AMS Bike Co-op President Ian Fisher, Chair of Transport 2000 BC Andreas Siebert, Graduate Student Society UBC Faculty Dr.	Peter	Boothroyd,	Community	&	Regional	Planning Dr. Ken Denike, Geography Dr. Dave Dixon, Engineering Dr. William Dunford, Engineering City of Vancouver Scott Edwards, Truck Engineering Forrest Klotzbach, Bicycle Engineering Lon LaClaire, Transit Engineering Wayne Pledger, Strategic Planning GVRD Chris Demarco, Strategic Planniong Greg Paris, GVRD Community Associations Gordon Dungate, West Point Grey Steering Group Liz Haan, SW Marine Drive Homeowners’ Association Craig	Heale,	BC	Coalition	of	Motorcyclists	&	Wreck Beach Preservation Society Judy Williams, Wreck Beach Preservation Society and Fraser River Coalition Bernadette Kowey, Dunbar Residents’ Association Dr. Vlad Krajina, UEL Resident Association Dick SCarth, NW Property Owners Association Jack Turner, Point Grey Residents’ Association Ministry of Transportation & Highways Katherine	McCune,	Planning	&	Development Max	Walker,	Supervisor,	Planning	&	Development University Endowment Lands (UEL) Erica Creighton, GVRD Electoral Area “A” Director Bruce Stenning, UEL Manager Eric Peterson, Public Works BC Transit/TransLink Martin Kobayakawa, Planning Bill Lambert, Strategic Planning Pat Ryan, Bicycle Planning Clive Rock, Strategic Planning Jack	Bell	Foundtation	Car/Van	Pool	Program Aran	Cameron,	UBC/JBF	Rideshare	Consultant 1998 Helen	Cain,	UBC/JBF	Rideshare	Consultant	1999 Brett	Thompson	UBC/JBF	Rideshare	Consultant 1999 UBC Staff Janet Land, AAPS Marilyn MacPherson, CUPE 2950 John Templeton, IUOE, Local 882 UBC Finance Peter Smailes, Treasury UBC Registrar Gaylea Wong, Associate Registrar UBC Parking Services Debbie	Harvie,	Director,	Bookstore,	Parking	& Campus Security 64 65  UBC TREK Program Centre Gord Lovegrove, (TAC Chair) Director Transp. Planning Shirley	Mahood,	TREK	Secretary	1998/99 Melissa Rosen, TREK Secretary 1999 Jesse Sims, TREK Marketing Coordinator 1999 UBC Students Maryann Adamec, kAMS Vice President Graham Senft, AMS External Commission, Transportation	1998/99 Jesse Jackson, AMS External Commission, Transportaiton	1999/00 Darren	Haines,	AMS	External	Commission	1999/00 Beth Callister, GVTA PAC Rep Ted Buehler, AMS Bike Co-op President Ian Fisher, Chair of Transport 2000 BC Andreas Siebert, Graduate Student Society UBC Faculty Dr.	Peter	Boothroyd,	Community	&	Regional	Planning Dr. Ken Denike, Geography Dr. Dave Dixon, Engineering Dr. William Dunford, Engineering City of Vancouver Scott Edwards, Truck Engineering Forrest Klotzbach, Bicycle Engineering Lon LaClaire, Transit Engineering Wayne Pledger, Strategic Planning GVRD Chris Demarco, Strategic Planniong Greg Paris, GVRD Community Associations Gordon Dungate, West Point Grey Steering Group Liz Haan, SW Marine Drive Homeowners’ Association Craig	Heale,	BC	Coalition	of	Motorcyclists	&	Wreck Beach Preservation Society Judy Williams, Wreck Beach Preservation Society and Fraser River Coalition UBC Public Affairs Stephen Forgacs, Communications Coordinator Paula Martin, Associate Director UBC Properties Inc. Al	Poettcker,	President	&	CEO UBC RCMP Lloyde Plante, Staff Sergeant Campus Planning and Development David Grigg, Associate Director of Campus and Community Planning TREK Conultants Richard Drdul, U-TREK Derek Hansen, Maps and Figures Rosemary Teliatnick, Marketing and Communications  aPPendix 9 © Jessica Glor-Bell, 2009 Printed on 100% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 16 30
Canada 4 0
South Africa 3 0
United States 2 1
Germany 1 6
Netherlands 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 16 0
Vancouver 4 0
Pretoria 3 0
Unknown 2 6
Leiden 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items