Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Applying value-based decision making to address conflicts over social housing projects : the case of… Lo, Patrick Wai Yan Mar 31, 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-Lo_Patrick_Conflicts_Social_Housing_2016.pdf [ 11.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0300040.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0300040-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0300040-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0300040-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0300040-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0300040-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0300040-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0300040-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0300040.ris

Full Text

APPLYING VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESSCONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTSTHE CASE OF THE TERWILLEGAR HOUSING PROJECT INEDMONTON, ALBERTAPATRICK WAI YAN LO2016 MARCH    APPLYING VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS: THE CASE OF THE TERWILLEGAR HOUSING PROJECT  IN EDMONTON, ALBERTA  by  PATRICK WAI YAN LO  B. Sc., The University of Alberta, 2013  A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  School of Community and Regional Planning  We accept this project as conforming to the required standard  ___________________________________________  ___________________________________________  ___________________________________________   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 2016 © Patrick Wai Yan Lo, 2016  VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  First of all, I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Leonora Angeles for her helpful guidance as my research supervisor, as well as her patience as I flipped and flopped through my Master’s program. I would also like to sincerely thank Mr. Nathan Edelson for graciously acting as my second reader for this research project, as well as for his kind understanding when I had to withdraw from his course.   Thank you to my peers and professors at the School of Community and Regional Planning for their support over these past three years. Thank you also to new friends and acquaintances I have met during my time at the University of British Columbia for sharing with me various interesting, fun, and valuable experiences.   A thank you goes to all of the participants in the Terwillegar housing project debate in my hometown of Edmonton, for providing such a controversial yet inspirational real-life community planning story to motivate both my capstone research project and my planning career. On a related note, thanks to Jasper Place Wellness Centre for keeping the posts and visitor comments written during the Terwillegar controversy still online and publicly accessible on their Facebook page.  On a humorous note, thanks to the 24-hour facilities at Simon Fraser University, which, unlike the facilities at the University of British Columbia, provided on many occasions an academic, quiet, and comfortable place for me to study and work during the hours deep into the night.   And lastly, thanks to my family and my closest friends for always being there.    VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   2 PREFACE  This paper presents and explores a decision-making process for decisions on social housing projects that is likely quite different from the decision approaches that are commonly used or championed by those involved in making decisions related to social housing. For one thing, this process centers on people’s values, which are based largely on opinions and perspectives, rather than centering on more rational facts and evidence. The author does not have a clear answer as to how best to fit such a value-based process within the broader policy and decision making framework that exists in our society today, which might often put more emphasis on evidence than values. Perhaps it can be argued that considering people’s values through a structured decision process can actually contribute some sort of meaningful ‘evidence’ for the benefits and drawbacks of different alternatives in social housing decisions.   In any case, the decision-making process described in this paper, and to some extent, this paper in general, is a response to the frustrating dilemma that the author sees whenever localized opposition and controversy arises over a proposal for a new social housing development – the dilemma between providing important and valuable help for those less fortunate, and enabling residents to have more influence over decisions that might (or might not) affect their lives. Many people might not consider this to be a real dilemma – simply read the commentary on any related news item to see people who lean heavily towards one side or the other. But for the purposes of this paper, let us step back, and imagine for a bit…     VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This Professional Planning Project paper proposes a value-based decision-making process for decisions on social housing projects, with the intention of trying to address the conflicts that all-too-often occur between stakeholders with differing opinions and values. Drawing upon concepts in the literature on value-based decision making and conflicts over social housing projects, the author developed a framework for this value-based decision-making process, and hypothetically applied it to the case of the controversial Terwillegar housing project in Edmonton, Alberta.  During the summer of 2013, Edmontonians were embroiled in an intense debate regarding a new social housing project in the suburban neighbourhood of Terwillegar. The proposed project was to be located on land owned by the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton adjacent to a neighbourhood church, and was to be developed and operated by a local non-profit service provider, Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre. Edmontonians living within Terwillegar, as well as Edmontonians living elsewhere in the city, expressed passionate opinions of all kinds about the project. The intensity of the debate might be attributable to this project being the first proposed development of its kind in a suburban area in Edmonton. The controversy only ended when the Anglican Diocese decided to withdraw the project primarily due to the intense controversy and lack of public support.  Essentially, the value-based decision-making process involves framing the debate about a social housing project around people’s values, working intimately with key stakeholders on all sides of the conflict to specify their values, and then creating alternatives for the decision based on those values.   For the explicit purpose of addressing conflicts over social housing projects, it matters which stakeholders will be considered when eliciting stakeholder values. Stakeholders that should be included in value elicitation, if they are present in the specific decision context, are the developer and operator of the social housing project, the ‘enabler’ who is partnering with the developer by providing the property for the social housing project, the funders of the developer for the specific project, and the neighbours of the proposed social housing.   Stakeholders that should be excluded from value elicitation are politicians, and supporters who are not part of the neighbourhood. Politicians are excluded because they can obstruct direct dialogue between stakeholders, and their presence can introduce an unnecessary power dynamic that is VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   4 unhelpful for creating and maintaining a process that is inclusive and encompassing of all viewpoints and participants. Nonetheless, with respect to broader government policies related to social housing that must be considered in all local social housing decisions, the developer and the funders will very likely convey at least the intents of these policies through their identified stakeholder values. Outsider supporters are excluded because including them can incite animosity amongst participants from the neighbourhood, which is detrimental for trying to resolve conflict over the social housing project at hand. However, as part of this decision-making process, it is still possible to constructively involve outsider supporters not directly as stakeholders at the table, but indirectly as some sort of consultants to provide evidence-based information to those at the table.  Decision makers and facilitators should be open-minded about the number of alternatives needed to best satisfy the identified stakeholder values. For instance, it is fine to have a set of coordinated alternatives, such as a main alternative with add-on minor ‘alternatives’; such a set can always be treated as a single alternative at the end of the decision process. As well, the author highly recommends consideration of “process alternatives” (Keeney, 1992) – alterations to the decision process itself – that increase stakeholder participation and inclusion in the process. This is especially pertinent if a specific social housing proposal has already been put forward and conflict between stakeholders is already considerable.   As much as possible, decision makers and facilitators should strive to address each and every one of the stakeholder values that are identified. The author believes treating all stakeholder values equally, unless there is a clear prioritization of the values agreed upon by stakeholders themselves, can make the decision process more encompassing, such as by possibly enabling a greater diversity of alternatives. This is beneficial for addressing conflict between stakeholders.  This paper presents the procedure below to create an alternative or alternatives from a list of stakeholder values or objectives that could be useful for a social housing decision or any value-based decision. Here is when facts and other evidence-based information, provided by the outsider supporter-consultants or other parties with expertise about the social housing decision at hand, can contribute to this decision process.   Start with thinking about alternative(s) for one fundamental value that forms the core of the decision, that without satisfying it, there is essentially no point to any outcome of the process. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   5  Then, consider how to address those values that are easier to achieve, that can be satisfied by adding aspects onto the identified alternative(s) without impacting the other values.  Next, consider, again through adding-on of aspects to the alternative(s), how to satisfy the values that are harder to achieve and which might be involved in trade-offs between other values.  Finally, consider how the remaining values that might have been on the losing end of trade-offs can be brought back into the currently identified alternative(s).   Various insights were obtained from the Terwillegar case study about applying value-based decision making to address conflicts over proposed social housing projects. First of all, there needs to be people who are willing to engage at all. Even if people are screaming and yelling at the decision makers, at least they are engaging in the discussion, and signal at least a bit of willingness to participate in the process. These people are more helpful than people who might choose to only protest silently while the process occurs. Decision makers and facilitators should strive to reach out to as many diverse voices in the neighbourhood as possible, and it is hoped that a better decision process will encourage all residents who have thoughts about a social housing project to check out the new process and become engaged.  Also, it is important to have people who are willing to receive, and perhaps even seek out, new knowledge about aspects of the social housing project and decision. Researchers have observed that for a value-based decision-making process to be useful for resolving conflicts, it is important that participants experience a learning effect through their participation (Hostmann, Bernauer, Mosler, Reichert, & Truffer, 2005). Furthermore, people who are open to learning new knowledge will likely participate more substantially and constructively in the process, such as by being able to contribute more diverse ideas for alternatives. This kind of “social learning” (Briggs, 2008) can resolve the potential problem of this decision process resulting in overly narrow thinking or actions.  In the same vein, it is beneficial to have proponents who are able and willing to organize opportunities for the aforementioned kinds of learning. In particular, there are many positives to letting concerned and opposed neighbours visit similar existing social housing developments, or providing a chance for them to meet and chat in-person with people living in and people living near existing developments.  VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   6 To accurately and thoroughly elicit stakeholder values, there should be a good facilitator who is able to distinguish the noise from the message. Obviously, this facilitator must remain as neutral as possible, and avoid being perceived as suggesting participants hold certain underlying values when they actually do not. This facilitator needs to be able to really listen to what people are saying or deduce what people are really conveying through written comments. The deeper the facilitator is able to go to uncover stakeholders’ opinions, motivations, and values, the more likely that concerns and opposition to a social housing project will be dealt with successfully.  It is extremely helpful to have the presence of a key stakeholder on the decision maker side who genuinely wishes to work with stakeholders and not impose something on them. Such a stakeholder will be more willing than other stakeholders to try out processes that are intended to address stakeholder conflict and improve public and stakeholder engagement. In addition, by taking on the role of an “interested facilitator” (Briggs, 2008), who is both willing to improve the stakeholder engagement process but at the same time hoping the process will achieve certain outcomes such as getting a social housing project built, these stakeholders are well-positioned to encourage capacity building for collective action by resolving process breakdowns between stakeholders.  Regardless of what alternative for the social housing decision is chosen after going through the value-based decision-making process, it is strongly recommended that after the decision is implemented, periodic check-ins are conducted with those who participated in the process, along with any new stakeholders, such as new members of the neighbourhood including tenants of the new social housing. The purpose of these check-ins is to review whether the values and objectives identified through the value-based decision process have actually been satisfied, as well as to discuss any new or ongoing issues and ideas for improving the social housing project.  Lastly, in any scenario, when trying to overcome community opposition to social housing, the decision maker and facilitator should always keep an open mind about participants and stay optimistic. As time passes, as more information and knowledge about a social housing project is shared with concerned stakeholders, and as mutual trust begins to develop between stakeholders, people can indeed change their positions and become more supportive of the social housing project.    VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.1. What is the problem? .............................................................................................................................................. 11 1.2. A proposal: Value-based decision making ..................................................................................................... 12 1.3. Project approach....................................................................................................................................................... 15 1.4. Project limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 16 1.5. Organization of report ............................................................................................................................................ 17 2. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS ..................................................... 19 2.1. Foundations of value-based decision making .............................................................................................. 19 2.1.1. Specifying values or objectives ............................................................................................................................ 20 2.1.2. Creating and selecting alternatives .................................................................................................................. 22 2.2. Applications of value-based decision making .............................................................................................. 23 2.3. Stakeholders in decisions on social housing projects ............................................................................... 26 2.4. Common sources of conflict over social housing projects ...................................................................... 27 2.5. Addressing conflicts over social housing ....................................................................................................... 28 2.6. Caveats of using value-based decision making ............................................................................................ 31 3. THE TERWILLEGAR CASE STUDY – CONTEXT AND METHODS ................................................................... 32 3.1. Case study context ................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.1.1. The project site ........................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.1.2. The social housing project ..................................................................................................................................... 38 3.2. Case study data collection..................................................................................................................................... 40 4. A VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE TERWILLEGAR CASE ............................................................................................................ 42 4.1. Framework for value-based decision making for a social housing project ...................................... 42 4.1.1. Recognize a decision problem ............................................................................................................................. 43 4.1.2. Specify values .............................................................................................................................................................. 44 4.1.3. Create alternative(s) ................................................................................................................................................ 48 4.1.4. Evaluate alternative(s) ........................................................................................................................................... 49 4.1.5. Select an alternative ................................................................................................................................................ 49 4.2. Applying value-based decision making to the Terwillegar case ........................................................... 50 4.2.1. Recognize a decision problem ............................................................................................................................. 50 VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   8 4.2.2. Specify values .............................................................................................................................................................. 50 4.2.3. Create and evaluate alternative(s) ................................................................................................................... 58 5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................ 61 5.1. Factors for ‘success’ in the case study ............................................................................................................. 61 5.2. Lessons for applying value-based decision making to social housing decisions ........................... 63 5.3. Recommendations for future research ........................................................................................................... 66 6. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 68 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 69     VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   9 LIST OF TABLES  Table 1. A comparison of steps involved in value-focused thinking and alternative-focused thinking for making a decision. .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 2. Demographics of the Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar neighbourhoods compared to the entire City of Edmonton. Data taken from the City of Edmonton’s Neighbourhood Profiles, which used Statistics Canada’s 2011 Census of Canada data. ........................................... 36 Table 3. Values of Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre as expressed through their statements about the Terwillegar housing project. ........................................................................................................ 51 Table 4. Values of the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church as expressed through their statements on the Terwillegar housing project...................................... 52 Table 5. (Split into three sub-tables) Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents in discussions about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page. Individuals are denoted by their initials. .................................................................... 53 Table 5.1. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents A. A. to J. C. .................................................................. 53 Table 5.2. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents J. K. to M. H. ................................................................ 53 Table 5.3. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents M. L. to W. M. ............................................................. 54 Table 6. Sample of statements, categorized by theme, made by Terwillegar residents in discussions about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page. ........................................................................................................................................................ 54 Table 7. Popularity of themes expressed by Terwillegar residents in discussions about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page. 55 Table 8. Stakeholder values held by Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (JPHWC) and their funders, the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church, and the neighbouring residents in the Terwillegar community. ....................................................... 57 Table 9. Structuring the values of stakeholders involved in the decision process for the Terwillegar housing project into categories around five fundamental values or objectives. ......................... 58     VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   10 LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1. Aerial imagery of the neighbourhood around the Terwillegar housing site. ............................ 32 Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the larger area around the Terwillegar housing site. ..................................... 33 Figure 3. Photo of Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the proposed Terwillegar housing project is located. ................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4. Photo of streetscape across from Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the proposed Terwillegar housing project is located. .................................................................................... 35 Figure 5. Official land use map for the neighbourhood of South Terwillegar, as presented in the City of Edmonton’s South Terwillegar Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan. ....................................... 37 Figure 6. A framework for value-based decision making to address conflict over a social housing project......................................................................................................................................................................... 43    INTRODUCTION   11 1. INTRODUCTION  Yes, I get that they want to change their lives. I do not wish to change mine. I have rights in this community too. I have lived in it for 10+ years, and I deserve to know what is going on. I deserve to know what the plan is. I deserve to know if I should kick back and relax 'cause everything is going to be just fine, or if I should actively protest a project that isn't a good fit for the prospective residents or the community in which I live. I deserve to know if I will be uncomfortable enough to move. I deserve to be able to plan. I deserve that. T. H., comment on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page, 2013 July 7.  1.1. What is the problem?  Homelessness is one of the most pervasive issues in urban communities around the world. Housing for homeless individuals can take a vast range of different forms, and the terminology used to refer to housing for the homeless is likewise variable. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the federal government agency that oversees housing matters in Canada, lists housing forms such as emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, and subsidized housing (CMHC, 2016). BC Housing, the Government of British Columbia’s Crown Corporation responsible for affordable housing issues, lists housing types such as emergency housing, supportive housing, subsidized housing, and affordable rental housing (BC Housing, 2016).   For the purposes of this project, the term ‘social housing’ will be used, and shall be defined as housing that is:  not for profit,  not distributed through the private housing market,  targeted to low-income or no-income individuals, and  intended to provide longer-term rather than temporary shelter. This excludes emergency shelters, but includes all types of transitional, supportive, and subsidized non-market housing.  INTRODUCTION   12 The term ‘social housing’ is preferred over ‘affordable housing’ because ‘affordable housing’ is a considerably broad term that may encompass both non-market and market housing, as long as the costs of the housing are considered ‘affordable’. In Canada, ‘affordable’ housing costs officially means less than 30% of a household’s pre-tax income go toward housing (CMHC, 2016); this definition is used in the United States as well (Iglesias, 2002). Another reason to use ‘social housing’ instead of ‘affordable housing’ is because ‘social housing’ has been used in recent government policies as a term to contrast with private, market housing (Government of British Columbia, 2014).  Homelessness is recognized by many politicians, community leaders, and members of the general public as an important problem to address and alleviate. Yet, far too often, when governments and non-profit agencies try to address homelessness by providing more social housing, proposals for new social housing projects are met with controversy and conflict in the public sphere between stakeholders with differing viewpoints. Many social housing developers consider public or neighbourhood opposition to social housing the most significant barrier to the development of social housing, besides lack of funding (Iglesias, 2002).  Local, neighbourhood-level opposition to social housing has arguably become almost cliché. What usually happens after opposition arises? Perhaps because such conflicts are commonly viewed as intractable or require too much effort to deal with, decision makers either give in and withdraw the social housing proposal, or simply choose to approve the project in spite of public outcry. Both of these paths are unsatisfactory in a society that supposedly values both democracy and helping fellow humans who are less advantaged.    1.2. A proposal: Value-based decision making   In this paper, the author proposes that a decision process focused on and revolving around values can be used in deliberations on social housing proposals in order to reduce and perhaps even resolve conflicts between stakeholders. A “value” shall be defined as any concept or issue that a participant in the process believes is important and should be taken into consideration. In his book Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking, Ralph Keeney (1992) proposed a paradigm for decision making that focuses on the values involved in a decision, in contrast with the typical paradigm that focuses on the alternatives available. Keeney argues that “value-focused INTRODUCTION   13 thinking” leads to better decision making because focusing on values can enable decision makers to create better alternatives.  The framing of debates over social housing has been considered crucial to the outcome of a social housing project’s decision process (Nguyen, Basolo, & Tiwari, 2013). This Professional Planning Project is based on the fundamental argument that framing debates about a social housing project in terms of values, and making values the centerpiece of the decision process, enables a more accessible and inclusive process that gives all participants more equal footing. Everyone has things that they consider important. And everyone can have a myriad of rationales, whether ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, whether moral, logical, rational, emotional, or otherwise, for ‘knowing’ that something is important. Each concern, criticism, and opinion expressed by an individual is motivated by some underlying value held by that individual, and moreover, these values can be shared to different extents by individuals across the spectrum of opinions (see Mindell’s definition of ‘role’ below). Focusing on values when addressing conflict over a proposed social housing project has the potential to bring diverse and opposing views together to create better outcomes through a more satisfactory decision process.   Arnold Mindell (1995) provides the following definition of a “role” in the context of facilitation and conflict resolution in large group settings: A cultural rank, position or viewpoint that depends on time and place. Roles […] change rapidly because they are a function of the moment and locality. Roles in groups are not fixed, but fluid. They are filled by different individuals and parties over time, keeping the roles in a constant state of flux. (p. 42)  Mindell (1995) also suggests that facilitators and negotiators should, instead of considering participants as “staked in clearly marked positions”, focus on promoting dialogue between participants even amidst “tension and chaos” (p. 202). Applying this to stakeholder engagement in a social housing decision process, instead of thinking that opponents of the housing project will always have fixed viewpoints and be unyielding in their opposition, decision makers should keep an open mind as well as be optimistic that the opposition and conflict is not intractable. Furthermore, if decision makers focus on stakeholders’ values instead of on the stakeholders themselves, there should be a greater chance of resolving core concerns that might lead any individual to become opposed to the project. INTRODUCTION   14  It might seem that the approach that will be described in this paper is similar to other communicative and deliberative methods of public and stakeholder engagement. Indeed, this approach is communicative as it places emphasis on dialogue between stakeholders. As well, it fits the general definition of “deliberation” – a discussion that is informed, value-based, and potentially transformative for participants (Blacksher, Diebel, Forest, Goold, & Abelson, 2012). However, an essential element of public deliberation is the opportunity to not only reflect on and discuss varying viewpoints, but also to “challenge and test competing […] claims” (Blacksher et al., 2012). With the current approach, the author recommends that there be an avoidance of challenging and testing of stakeholders’ viewpoints, because any kind of challenging could favour those individuals who are able to more eloquently or rationally present their viewpoints, and would create an environment that is not as inclusive and accessible as it could be. This is not to say, of course, that facilitators and decision makers should neglect the importance of maintaining a safe, welcoming space for discussion and dialogue.  The author was unable to find, in the academic literature or otherwise, cases where value-based decision making had been applied for proposed social housing projects. Why might decision makers not choose value-based decision processes for social housing decisions? One reason might be that there is a prevalent belief that “when applying communicative and deliberative planning processes at the neighborhood level, regional needs – such as affordable housing or racial integration – can be overlooked” (Tighe, 2010). Given that many political leaders, service providers for the homeless, and other decision makers generally recognize the importance and urgency in addressing the homelessness problem, and might be all-too-familiar with local opposition to development projects, it is not inconceivable that decision makers might simply prefer an easier route to getting social housing built. Besides, studies have shown that neighbours of housing projects for homeless or low-income individuals eventually become positive about the projects anyway (Tighe, 2010). This gives one more rationale for decision makers to skip spending of time and effort on an in-depth stakeholder engagement process – whether value-based, deliberative, or otherwise.   For a process such as the one described in this paper that is aimed at addressing conflict between stakeholders by giving voice and influence to all viewpoints regardless of their ‘merit’, there are some common concerns that might be raised. One is the concern that a kind of “tyranny from below” (Briggs, 2008, p. 308) will result, in which participants use a “parochial” type of decision making INTRODUCTION   15 (Briggs, 2008, p. 308) and choose actions that might be overly narrow in scope and perhaps neglect the rights or wellbeing of some individuals or groups. Another concern is that while a more collective decision process can be preferable to a more unilateral or autocratic process in terms of being more inclusive of different voices, collective processes are only as good as their ability to overcome collective impasse and enable people to actually accomplish things that make people’s lives better (Briggs, 2008, p. 315). The author believes there are ways that these concerns can be addressed through the value-based decision-making process proposed.   1.3. Project approach  This Professional Planning Project is largely an analytical investigation of the application of value-based decision making to decisions on social housing projects. First, the researcher will draw upon concepts in the literature on value-based decision making and conflicts over social housing projects to create a value-based decision-making framework applicable to decisions on proposed social housing projects. Then, this framework will be tested on the single case study of the controversial Terwillegar social housing project in Edmonton, Alberta. The results of the case study will provide insight on the application of a value-based decision process for social housing decisions in Edmonton and beyond.  During the summer of 2013, Edmontonians were embroiled in an intense debate regarding a new 60-unit, supportive housing project for people who have experienced homelessness. The proposed project was to be located in the suburban neighbourhood of Terwillegar in the southwest part of the city, on land owned by the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton adjacent to a neighbourhood church. It was to be developed and operated by a local non-profit service provider, Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (JPHWC, now known as Jasper Place Wellness Centre). Edmontonians living within Terwillegar, as well as Edmontonians living elsewhere in the city, expressed passionate opinions of all kinds about the project. The intensity of the debate could perhaps be attributed to the fact that this project was “the first proposed development of this size and scope in a suburban area” in Edmonton (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013a). The controversy continued until early November 2013, when the Anglican Diocese decided to withdraw the project primarily due to the intense controversy and lack of public support (CBC News, 2013). The land continues to sit vacant today. INTRODUCTION   16  Data from the Terwillegar case study are needed to elicit stakeholder values for the hypothetical value-based decision-making process. These data were collected by using public documents and other archival records rather than through direct observation or interviews. Specifically, the author examined press releases and official responses by stakeholders, as well as publicly accessible posts on social media related to the debate. Primary sources such as those listed above were preferred for value elicitation over secondary sources such as media reports because the author believes primary sources provide more direct, honest, and blunt insights, without being filtered by intermediaries. Document analysis and discourse analysis were conducted to draw inferences regarding what themes were expressed and what underlying values were held by the key stakeholders involved.  The Terwillegar housing project, to be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, is an excellent social housing case to use for this project because of the following reasons:  The project failed as a result of the process. It is interesting, whether from a scholarly perspective, a homeless advocate perspective, or a public engagement practitioner perspective, to imagine what could have become of the project if a different process took place.  The debate around the project still forms a prominent part of Edmontonians’ collective ethos, two-and-a-half years after it occurred (Stolte, 2016).    As will be explained later, the presence and role of the Anglican Church as a stakeholder in the project could have been very helpful to the application of a value-based decision process.   1.4. Project limitations  This project is a hypothetical application of a decision-making process to a decision from 2013 that has already concluded. Consequently, it will not have as much grounding in reality as a concrete application to an ongoing decision through a physical collaboration with stakeholders. In addition, the author had no contact with the stakeholders involved in the Terwillegar case, and therefore has not obtained the stakeholders’ opinions on how and whether a value-based decision process would have worked. Despite being unable to know for sure whether the proposed process will succeed in INTRODUCTION   17 real life, the author will still attempt to draw out key insights and recommendations for potential applications of the process.  For eliciting values of the local neighbours of the Terwillegar housing project, the author used only the comments and posts available on the Facebook page of Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre, which is completely open to the public.1  The author is aware of other Facebook pages where there were discussions of the project, but those pages are either closed to the public (they are private groups/pages), require logging in to Facebook, and/or do not appear to contain a large amount of conflicting opinions. In particular, there is a Facebook page named Terwillegar Speaks that gained infamy during the controversy as a place for neighbours opposed to the project to express their opinions (Kozicka, 2013), but unfortunately it requires an invitation to gain access. This page would have provided a wealth of data about stakeholders opposed to the project; however, for the purposes of this project, the author feels that the data obtained from the JPHWC Facebook page are sufficient.   1.5. Organization of report  The following section, Chapter 2, of this paper discusses the conceptual bases of value-based decision making and applications of value-based decision making. It also presents information about the stakeholders and the conflicts that are potentially present in the decision process of a social housing proposal.  The case study section, Chapter 3, begins with an overview of the context of the Terwillegar housing project, providing information about the Terwillegar neighbourhood, the specific site of the proposed housing, and the various stakeholders involved in the process. Afterwards, details are also provided on the author’s data collection process for the case study.   The next section, Chapter 4, presents a framework for a value-based decision-making process that is applicable to controversial proposed social housing projects. A walkthrough is provided of how the value-based decision-making framework can be applied to the Terwillegar case.                                                               1 https://www.facebook.com/Jasper-Place-Wellness-Centre-155878244434660/ INTRODUCTION   18 The paper concludes with a discussion about the ‘success’ of the case study, insights and lessons learned about applying value-based decision making to social housing decisions, and recommendations for future research.    VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   19 2. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS  2.1. Foundations of value-based decision making  Ralph Keeney (1992) proposed “value-focused thinking” as a better way of thinking about decisions than the typical paradigm which Keeney termed “alternative-focused thinking”. Table 1 shows the basic sequence of activities in each of the two approaches when a decision maker is confronted with a decision. The key difference is that in alternative-focused thinking, the decision maker considers what alternatives are available to choose from before thinking about what values are important to the decision, whereas in value-focused thinking, the decision maker first considers what values are important to the decision and then imagines alternatives based on those values. In other words, Value-focused thinking involves starting at the best and working to make it a reality. Alternative-focused thinking is starting with what is readily available and taking the best of the lot. (Keeney, 1992, p. 6)  Table 1. A comparison of steps involved in value-focused thinking and alternative-focused thinking for making a decision.  Value-focused thinking Alternative-focused thinking 1) Recognize a decision problem Recognize a decision problem 2) Specify values Identify alternatives 3) Create alternatives Specify values 4) Evaluate alternatives Evaluate alternatives 5) Select an alternative Select an alternative Source: Adapted from Keeney (1992, p. 49).  Keeney (1992) believes that using a value-based decision process will “broaden the range of alternatives considered by eliminating any anchoring on already-identified alternatives” (p. 50). As well, it has been argued that centering a decision process on objectives, intentions, and desired results – all of which relate to values – makes it easier to achieve the desired consequences of a decision (Selart & Johansen, 2011).    VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   20 2.1.1. Specifying values or objectives  Keeney (1992) states that the values of decision makers and stakeholders are made explicit using objectives. An objective is a clear statement of the thing someone wants to achieve, and contains “a decision context, an object, and a direction of preference” (Keeney, 1992, p. 33-34). Various methods can be used to identify objectives of stakeholders and thereby identify their values (Keeney, 1992, p. 57-65); these methods include:  Wish-listing: asking a participant to say, without any limitations, what they think is important.  Using existing or hypothetical alternatives and thinking about what is good and what is bad about each.  Focusing on existing problems or shortcomings of the status-quo: What should be changed or how can things be improved?  Asking participants to consider the decision problem from different perspectives, real or imaginary.  Considering “generic objectives”, which are things relevant to the decision at hand that might be of concern to any participant regardless of who they are.  Considering “strategic objectives”, which are things that a participant is always concerned about regardless of the specific decision at hand.2  With any method of identifying objectives, it is helpful to ask participants questions that probe why participants make certain statements (Keeney, 1992, p. 57-58), as well as questions that probe whether there are other things that participants have not mentioned but are still important (Keeney, 1992, p. 64).  Keeney (1992) distinguishes between two types of objectives (p. 34-35). What he terms a “fundamental objective” is an “essential reason” for a stakeholder to be interested in the decision, and it is crucial to all of the effort in the decision process. In contrast, a “means objective” is an intermediate factor that leads to achievement of a fundamental objective.                                                               2 As a side note, another one of Keeney’s main ideas is that value-focused thinking can be used to identify or create “decision opportunities”, such as by broadening the context of a decision, or by brainstorming ideas to achieve strategic objectives. See Keeney (1992, Chapter 9). Because the focus of this project is value-based decision making to address conflicts, this implies there is already a well-defined decision around which the conflict revolves; hence, the author believes it would not be useful to examine “decision opportunities”. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   21  Keeney (1992) emphasizes the importance of structuring both types of objectives to identify relationships among the objectives (p. 78, 81-82). There is a separation between facts and values in this structuring. For fundamental objectives, value judgements should be used to construct “fundamental objective hierarchies”, which identify categorical relationships between objectives. This can be done by any participant in the process. On the other hand, judgements about facts should be used to organize means objectives into “means-ends networks”, which identify cause-and-effect relationships between objectives. Keeney suggests that this is best done by individuals with technical expertise or factual knowledge about the issues relevant to the decision.  Using an example from Keisler, Turcotte, Drew, & Johnson (2014), a community-based development organization might have an overall fundamental objective to improve the quality of a neighbourhood. Fundamental objectives that are sub-categories of the overall fundamental objective include improving the character of the neighbourhood, and improving the quality of residents’ lives. Means objectives to improve neighbourhood character include improving the safety and the aesthetics of the neighbourhood, while means objectives to improve the quality of residents’ lives include improving social connections among neighbours and improving health outcomes.  Generally, when communicating with members of the public, as opposed to communicating with individuals with background or expertise related to the issues at hand, it is better to focus on the fundamental objectives instead of the means objectives (Keeney, 1992, p. 278). This is because fundamental objectives represent the things that participants in the process care the most about, and therefore pay the most attention to. Furthermore, the implications of the decision in terms of fundamental objectives are generally understandable without specialized knowledge.  For decision situations with multiple stakeholders involved, Keeney (1992) recommends that values and objectives of each stakeholder be individually elicited and structured, and then the structured objectives of each stakeholder be aggregated into a single structure (p. 95). The final, combined objectives structure should be reviewed and approved by all stakeholders so that all stakeholders are in agreement that the structure contains everything that is fundamentally important for the decision (Keeney, 1992, p. 98).    VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   22 To allow for a more complete use of objectives, Keeney (1992) suggests that decision makers identify the attributes by which each objective’s performance should be measured. Keeney (1992) also suggests “quantifying” objectives through the construction of a value or utility model. A value model specifies mathematical relationships between different values or objectives, giving information such as which values or objectives are prioritized over others and to what extent. There are both advantages and disadvantages to quantifying objectives when facilitating a decision process with multiple stakeholders. One advantage is that, once a single set of values/objectives is identified for the decision, constructing a value model for each stakeholder that quantifies the stakeholder’s value judgements allows a facilitator to identify points of agreement and points of disagreements between stakeholders’ viewpoints (Keeney, 1992, p. 282). However, Keeney (1992) recognizes that quantifying values requires more skill than listing and categorizing values; fortunately, the development of alternatives in the next step of the process does not require that values are quantified (p. 281).  2.1.2. Creating and selecting alternatives  How can objectives or values be used to create alternatives? Decision makers should begin with the fundamental objectives, as these are the essential goals that the decision makers should want the alternatives to achieve. Keeney (1992) states that making the fundamental objectives more detailed than not, for example by questioning for whom or in what circumstances does an objective matter, can increase the number of alternatives that come to mind (p. 202). The attributes that might have been specified as performance measures for each of the objectives can also help clarify what alternatives might be appropriate; in fact, considering different attributes for the same objective can enable creation of different alternatives (Keeney, 1992, p. 203). The means-ends network constructed from the means objectives is also very useful for generating alternatives that incorporate different sets of means objectives (Keeney, 1992, p. 205). Furthermore, while Keeney (1992) cautions against anchoring on a single alternative that readily comes to mind, he does suggest that a decision maker can examine the readily available alternative to stimulate thought about what is good or bad about that alternative, and thereby imagine better alternatives (p. 209).   Keeney (1992) also emphasizes that in a decision process focused on values, it does not matter whether the fundamental objectives are achieved through a single alternative or several, “coordinated” alternatives (p. 216-217). For example, after a decision maker has identified a ‘best’ VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   23 alternative, the decision maker can search for “add-on alternatives”, that is, any modifications or additions that allow the identified alternative to achieve some more objectives.  When working on a decision involving multiple stakeholders, Keeney (1992) suggests that consideration of different decision processes be part of the alternatives (p. 219). Keeney calls these alternatives “process alternatives”. For example, one can consider alternatives that vary which stakeholders are involved in the process, how and when they are involved, and how their input is used.   Different process alternatives can themselves lead to the creation of new alternatives. Sharing the effort of creating alternatives with all stakeholders, rather than having solely the decision maker or facilitator come up with the alternatives, can generate a wide variety of alternatives that differ based on different stakeholders’ value judgements (Keeney, 1992, p. 233-234). In cases where a majority of stakeholders have found an alternative that they prefer, but this alternative is one that will cause a few stakeholders to ‘lose’, the facilitator can examine whether the preferred alternative can be tweaked in a way that does not affect the majority’s preference of the alternative but results in improved outcomes for the potential ‘loser’ stakeholders (Keeney, 1992, p. 235-237).   Finally, Keeney (1992) reminds decision makers and facilitators that while it is likely not possible to change the underlying “strategic objectives” held by a participant in the decision process, it is possible to change which values and objectives a participant applies to the current decision situation (p. 261-262). This can be done through influencing the participant’s knowledge and understanding of the facts about how the decision situation relates to the participant’s objectives. If successful, the participant might change their views about the relative attractiveness of the alternatives.   2.2. Applications of value-based decision making  In a literature survey that examined journal articles published between 1992 and 2010 related to Keeney’s concept of value-focused thinking, Parnell, Hughes, Burk, Driscoll, Kucik, Morales, & Nunn (2013) found that amongst the articles describing applications of value-focused thinking, common domains that applied value-focused thinking included military defense, environment and energy, VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   24 government, and corporate. The clients of these applications were primarily either government/national policy leaders, or military leaders; although, there were some clients from university, corporate, and non-profit backgrounds as well. Interestingly, Parnell et al. (2013) also found that 65% of the application articles described using value-focused thinking to evaluate alternatives, while only 32% of these articles described using value-focused thinking to design or improve alternatives. They recommend that practitioners should more frequently use values in designing better alternatives, since one of Keeney’s key intended benefits of value-based decision making is for decision makers to create better alternatives. However, at the same time, they suggest that perhaps the problem is there is a lack of “systematic and repeatable” techniques that practitioners can use for generating alternatives from values.  The set of decision methods known as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are commonly used to formally implement a value-based decision approach (Hostmann, Bernauer, Mosler, Reichert, & Truffer, 2005). MCDA methods provide a framework that incorporates differing opinions, priorities, and values into a structured decision process (Stich, Holland, Noberga, & O'Hara, 2011).   Stich et al. (2011) created a framework that utilises both multi-criteria decision analysis methods and geographic information systems (GIS) to enhance the interaction between decision makers, public engagement participants, and transportation planners in the corridor planning process for a new highway in the Memphis, Tennessee region. Just as with social housing planning, in transportation planning delays to projects can frequently occur if stakeholders – both amongst the public and amongst government agencies – have different, conflicting opinions and value judgements. By inputting stakeholder values and prioritizing conflicting values using a GIS program, planners and members of the public alike were able to view alternatives for the highway that reflected their different value judgements. Stich et al.’s framework enabled the public not only to get involved in an interactive manner, but also to learn about how different values can lead to different outcomes.  Hostmann et al. (2005) believe that value-based decision processes can perform well for conflict resolution, because such processes enable things that facilitate conflict resolution – clarifying stakeholders’ positions/values, improving transparency of alternatives’ outcomes, and increasing the set of possible objectives. They tested their hypothesis by applying a multi-criteria decision VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   25 analysis framework to a decision on rehabilitation of a river in Switzerland. They found that a majority of stakeholders reconsidered and changed their preferences for the alternatives under consideration after being exposed to results of the analysis, and furthermore, stakeholders changed to favouring more balanced and more consensus-oriented alternatives. Stakeholders stated that their opinion changed because they considered more objectives after having applied the value-based approach once, they became more aware of and acknowledged the interests of other stakeholders, and because the approach enabled them to reconsider without losing credibility in front of other stakeholders. Hostmann et al. concluded that for a value-based decision process to be truly useful for resolving conflicts, stakeholders not only need to understand the method and accept its results, but also experience some kind of learning effect, such as becoming more knowledgeable or gaining awareness about aspects of the decision.  Multi-criteria decision analysis methods are not the only methods usable for implementing value-based decision making. Contingent valuation, an economics method used in social cost-benefit analysis, elicits values from participants by asking participants about their willingness to pay for things (McDaniels, 1996). Another method is a voting-based framework to elicit values and preferences from the public called a “structured value referendum” (SVR); this method was developed by McDaniels (1996) for a decision about wastewater treatment in Victoria, British Columbia. This voting framework reveals value judgements of the public in terms of their preferences for a set of structured decision alternatives, which “entail[ed] explicit trade-offs among objectives important to voters”. McDaniels argues that SVR has the advantage of requiring less precision and less cognitive effort from the participants in order to express their value judgements, compared to other methods. However, he also states this method is best suited for decision contexts where there are distinct, specific alternatives, and the alternatives’ consequences can be clearly forecasted and described to participants.  Is value-based decision making a foreign or rarely-used concept in the planning field, with perhaps the exception of transportation planning? There is evidence that, to some extent, value-based approaches are used in planning decision processes even without formal value-based frameworks or methods. For example, in the currently ongoing City of Vancouver planning process for the future of the False Creek Flats area, participants were first asked for their thoughts about the challenges and opportunities that exist for the area, as well as what they thought is important to consider when developing the plan for the area (City of Vancouver, 2016). Arguably, these all relate to the VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   26 participants’ values regarding the False Creek Flats. The next step for the city planners is to come up with a set of “emerging directions” – general planning policy ideas based on the feedback received from participants in the first step, in addition to any relevant municipal and regional government policies. This is similar to the creation of alternatives using stakeholders’ values, except instead of trying to create multiple alternatives, planners are effectively creating a single alternative that hopefully incorporates all of the values expressed by participants. Of course, there could always still be more alternative “directions” proposed further along in the planning process.   2.3. Stakeholders in decisions on social housing projects  A stakeholder can be defined very generally as any individual or group that is interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps the most obvious stakeholder in any social housing project is the developer of the proposed social housing.   Wynne-Edwards (2003) separates stakeholders in social housing projects into two basic groups: opposition groups and respondent groups. Opposition groups include adjacent neighbours who live right next to the project site, local residents living in the same community as the proposed housing, local schools, and local businesses. Respondent groups, which are typically the decision makers, include service providers, municipal planners, local councillors, provincial or municipal boards, and funding bodies such as the federal and provincial governments.  According to Iglesias (2002), there are five “audiences” that can be critical to determining the success of a social housing proposal, and each of these audiences requires different considerations from the developer:  Local government – This includes both municipal staff and politicians. Iglesias suggests that the most important thing for the developer to keep in mind is how they can obtain and maintain the necessary votes from politicians to get project approval.  Supporters – These can be individuals or organizations. Ideally, they are from the neighbourhood where the social housing is proposed. However, supporters from elsewhere in the local jurisdiction, and credible established groups based inside or outside the jurisdiction, are useful to have as well. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   27  Concerned neighbours – These are members of the neighbouring community who have concerns about the project.  The media – It is important for the developer to consider how it will get its message about the social housing project out to the public.  The courts – Legal action through the court system is a worst-case scenario, but the developer can still use the law in terms of educating decision makers (referring here to city staff and politicians), providing an excuse to approve a project for well-meaning decision makers facing opposition pressure, or taking enforcement actions against decision makers if the developer's rights are violated.   2.4. Common sources of conflict over social housing projects  When determining the sources of stakeholders’ opposition to a social housing project, it can be useful to distinguish between the arguments or concerns that are raised and the bases that might underlie the opposition.  According to the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness (2016), there are six common themes to the arguments made by people who are opposed to a proposed social housing development in their neighbourhood. These themes are objections about:   lowered property values,  crime and safety,  density (causing strain on neighbourhood infrastructure),  negative effect on the neighbourhood’s physical character,  new resident behaviours, and  already having enough or too much social housing in the neighbourhood.  Iglesias (2002) lists seven “bases of concern” that exist among opposed community members. These bases are what Iglesias believes are the causes of opposition:   lack of information, or misinformation,  fear of negative impacts,   complaints about the process, such as wanting or expecting greater participation,  prejudice or bias toward prospective residents,  VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   28  “conflicting interests” about typical land use concerns, such as traffic,  “value conflicts”, such as a desire to use the project site for another purpose, and  issues unrelated to the specific proposal, such as displeasure with the government.  Despite the diversity of concerns or arguments against a social housing project that can be brought up, and the various bases that may underlie those concerns, there is evidence in the literature suggesting that the primary cause of opponents’ opposition is their perceptions of the residents of social housing (Tighe, 2010). Nguyen, Basolo, & Tiwari (2013) suggest that opposition to social housing is based on opponents’ “social construction” of the tenants of social housing, and that conceptualizations of the potential tenants’ race, ethnicity, class, and citizen/immigrant status lead to tenants being considered “deviant” and “undeserving” of help. Even Iglesias (2002), who listed the seven “bases of concerns” above, acknowledges that “local opposition [to social housing] has deep roots in fear, racism, classism, ablism, and growing antidevelopment reactions".   2.5. Addressing conflicts over social housing  Wynne-Edwards (2003) uses the metaphor of an iceberg to describe the types of objections raised by opponents against a proposed social housing project and the approaches that can be used to address each type:  The tip of the iceberg, visible above the water surface, consists of objections about the decision process and the physical design of the project. These are the objections that are generally voiced at formal public engagement activities and environments. They can be addressed through having a good project proposal and an inclusive planning and decision process.  Just below the surface are “presage” objections which are primarily based on speculation rather than facts about the project, as well as “pretext” objections which relate to prior conditions or experiences of the neighbourhood. These are voiced at community meetings, demonstrations, and through the media. They can be addressed through providing good information and building trust.  Deep underwater, at the bottom of the iceberg, are objections based on fear and prejudice. These tend to be unpublicized and voiced only privately. They can only be addressed VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   29 through education and public awareness, with the intention of changing the minds of individuals and groups.  Wynne-Edwards (2003) stresses the need for proponents and decision makers to strive to uncover and address objections at every level of the iceberg, because opposition to social housing projects will persist if only the surface-level objections are addressed. In particular, fear, located at the bottom of the iceberg, is one of the strongest motivators of opposition to social housing and it must be addressed to truly overcome this opposition.   It is an interesting coincidence that Wynne-Edwards (2003) uses an iceberg metaphor to illustrate shallower versus deeper objections to social housing projects, just as practitioners of Deep Democracy use an iceberg metaphor to illustrate people’s and groups’ conscious versus unconscious thoughts and issues (Bojer, n.d.; Deep Democracy Limited, 2014). Deep Democracy is a facilitation methodology developed by Myrna and Greg Lewis with a strong basis in the ideas of Arnold Mindell, who was referenced in this paper’s introduction. It involves uncovering underwater, unconscious thoughts and issues in order to allow different parties to discover their common experiences and feelings, and thereby bring out shared wisdom or enable them to gain potential together. Somewhat similarly, Wynne-Edwards recommends uncovering and addressing underwater, deeper objections to social housing in order to really overcome conflict and opposition between stakeholders and decision makers.  In terms of educating opponents of social housing, some homelessness advocacy groups distribute informational publications containing facts that refute common objections by opponents, with the intent of informing conversations and encouraging dialogue between stakeholders (Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness, 2016). However, Nguyen et al. (2013) caution that education might work but can only go so far – decision makers should also strive to understand “the complexities of opposition” to social housing, and might even need to “deconstruct the negative image” held by opponents toward social housing residents. According to Tighe (2010), many scholars have proposed different techniques and processes to deal with opposition to social housing, but at the same time, many scholars agree that the core issue involves how to change people’s attitudes about people who are different from them. Tighe suggests that regardless of the specifics of each project and its stakeholders, it is always important to understand who is opposing and why they oppose. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   30  Iglesias (2002) states that at the outset, the range of opposition encountered to a social housing project might seem daunting to the developer; however, “the universe is limited” as generally, opponents’ arguments, issues, and even tactics are very repetitive and thus predictable. Iglesias also recommends that instead of trying to eliminate opposition or gain ‘community acceptance’, developers should focus on the more "modest" goal of "peeling away" the opposition and reducing the number of contentious issues. In particular, Iglesias warns against striving for ‘community acceptance’ as it might be impossible, unnecessary, or might require concessions to please opponents that can be legally problematic – for example, allowing neighbours to screen potential residents will infringe upon the rights of potential tenants. In Canada, the courts have ruled it illegal to do ‘people zoning’, that is, discriminating against people through land use zoning regulations (Wynne-Edwards, 2003).  With respect to common concerns about community participation in the decision process, Iglesias (2002) states that there is no good solution, as "it seems that no matter what the developer decides [about how to engage the public], it is either 'too early' or 'too late' in the view of some neighbours". Therefore, Iglesias suggests developers should choose engagement methods and timelines by considering what would "maximize [their] possibility of receiving a fair hearing and developing constructive relationships" with the community.  In spite of the difficulties of working with conflicts over social housing, there is still reason to be optimistic. Based on an idea of “subjective procedural justice”, Wynne-Edwards (2003) suggests that even if the outcome of a social housing decision process is not ideal in the eyes of opponents, if the process is perceived by opponents to be fair, they might still be satisfied. The key is that conflict needs to be addressed as soon as possible, while still in its "youth" phase, that is, when people first hear about the housing proposal and develop their first impressions and reactions. In addition, despite the real possibility that fear and prejudice ultimately underlie all opposition to social housing, Wynne-Edwards states that:  Underlying concerns and the root of opposition will not be at a level that will not afford you with the luxury of convincing people to support you based on project information.   VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   31 2.6. Caveats of using value-based decision making  A critical part of a value-based decision process is that participants in the process specify their value judgements or objectives. But a study by Bond, Carlson, & Keeney (2008) found that decision makers are generally incompetent at using personal knowledge and values to form objectives important to them regarding a decision at hand. In a series of experiments, Bond et al. found that participants initially omitted nearly half of the objectives that they later identified as relevant. They believe that this result can be explained as such: When thinking about a decision problem, individuals can become "mired in an overly narrow mental representation" that they use to simplify the problem, and consequently only the objectives "cued by this incomplete representation" come to mind. Bond et al. suggest the following ideas to assist decision makers identify objectives:  Have a good facilitator that can stimulate thinking about what's important.  Have the facilitator guide participants in approaching the task from different perspectives.  Provide a master list containing all possible considerations about the decision.  Aggregate responses of multiple participants, and share these aggregated lists.   Allow participants to obtain expert or peer opinion.   Provide an opportunity for participants to "try out" alternatives, so that participants can “confront their [identified] objectives experientially” and reconsider their objectives as needed.  If decision makers perform poorly at identifying objectives or specifying value judgements, how do they perform at generating alternatives? Selart & Johansen (2011) conducted a study where participants were instructed to complete a decision task by using either a value-focused thinking approach or an alternative-focused thinking approach. Their study suggested that using value-focused thinking produces a smaller range of alternatives, but the alternatives produced are better in terms of creativity and innovation. Just as Keeney would have predicted, the participants in their study who used alternative-focused thinking anchored on alternatives revolving around one factor that was easier and less time-consuming to think about. Nevertheless, Selart & Johansen caution that because people are generally not as accustomed to value-focused thinking as they are to alternative-focused thinking, more cognitive effort might be required to use value-focused decision approaches, which could lead to lower effectiveness and productivity.    CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   32 3. THE TERWILLEGAR CASE STUDY – CONTEXT AND METHODS  3.1. Case study context   3.1.1. The project site  The site of the proposed Terwillegar social housing project is located on land owned by and immediately adjacent to the Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church, at 1428 156 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta. Figures 1 and 2 provide maps of the neighbourhood and of the larger area around the project site, respectively.  Figure 1. Aerial imagery of the neighbourhood around the Terwillegar housing site. The site is indicated by a star; the location indicated by a diamond is the street intersection closest to the site and where the closest bus transit stops can be found; the area indicated by a triangle has two elementary schools and a park; the area indicated by a square is the neighbourhood’s ‘town square’ with multi-family housing and limited commercial services.  Source: Google (2016).  CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   33 Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the larger area around the Terwillegar housing site. The site is indicated by a star; the location indicated by a diamond is where the closest bus transit stops can be found; the area in the lower left (indicated by an oval) is Currents of Windermere, an auto-oriented ‘big box’ shopping centre with stores such as Safeway, Walmart, and Cineplex Theatres; the area in the top centre (indicated by a rectangle) is the Terwillegar Community Recreation Centre, a major public facility with two secondary schools and a bus transit exchange adjacent to it.  Source: Google (2016).  The project site is officially located at the northwest edge of the South Terwillegar neighbourhood, bordering the adjacent neighbourhood of Terwillegar Towne. Taken together, the combined ‘neighbourhood’ of Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar is bounded by arterial roadways on all sides: 23 Avenue on the north, Rabbit Hill Road on the east, Anthony Henday Drive on the south, and Terwillegar Drive on the west (Figure 2). A small Terwillegar ‘town centre’ exists close to the project site, but contains only limited commercial services such as a convenience store (Figure 1). Bus transit service is available within walking distance to the project site, at the intersection of 156 CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   34 Street and South Terwillegar Boulevard.3  Edmonton Transit System buses service this intersection seven days a week at a frequency of approximately 30 minutes, and it takes less than 10 minutes to travel from this intersection to the bus transit exchange located near the Terwillegar Community Recreation Centre (City of Edmonton, 2015a; City of Edmonton, 2015b). From there, travellers can take other buses to reach Edmonton’s light rail transit system and various shopping centres such as Currents of Windermere to the south of Terwillegar.  Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church and the project site both back onto vacant public land that is part of the rights-of-way of Terwillegar Drive and Anthony Henday Drive. Adjacent to the Church and project site is a low-rise apartment building, and across the street are single-family houses separated by a public trail along a utility right-of-way (Figures 3, 4).   Table 2 displays various points of information about the population and the housing in the neighbourhoods of Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar. Both neighbourhoods are quite new, with their housing being constructed predominately during the 2000s. The vast majority of the housing is owned rather than rented, and while there is some medium density housing available (row housing and low-rise apartment units), the majority of the housing is in the form of single-family detached houses. Compared to the population of Edmonton, the residents of Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar are generally wealthier, and the residents also consist of more young children and less older adults.                                                                        3 Imagery from Google Maps’ Street View service shows that bus service was available here since at least 2012, and service back then was provided by the same bus routes as today. CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   35 Figure 3. Photo of Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the proposed Terwillegar housing project is located.  A low-rise apartment building can be seen behind the left side of the Church. In the distance (where the transmission tower is) is Anthony Henday Drive.  Source: The author (December 2015).  Figure 4. Photo of streetscape across from Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the proposed Terwillegar housing project is located.  Source: The author (December 2015).  CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   36 Table 2. Demographics of the Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar neighbourhoods compared to the entire City of Edmonton. Data taken from the City of Edmonton’s Neighbourhood Profiles, which used Statistics Canada’s 2011 Census of Canada data.     Terwillegar Towne South Terwillegar Edmonton Age group (%) 0-9 18 17 12 10-19 12 9 11 20-29 12 24 18 30-39 21 26 15 40-49 16 13 14 50-59 9 7 14 60-69 4 3 8 70+ 7 2 8 Household income (2010 CAD) Median 119,587 97,201 72,248 Average 136,782 110,487 90,340 Residential units (%) Single-detached house 72 50 51 Semi-detached house 7 16 7 Row house 19 7 10 Apartment (5+ stories) 0 0 8 Apartment (< 5 stories) 2 27 23 Moveable dwelling 0 0 1 Housing tenure type (%) Owned 89 82 65 Rented 11 18 35 Housing construction period (%) 1960 or before 0 0 18 1961-1980 0 0 35 1981-1990 0 0 15 1991-2000 17 0 11 2001-2005 56 10 11 2006-2011 27 90 10 Source: City of Edmonton (2014a); City of Edmonton (2014b).       CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   37 The Anglican Diocese property on which both the project site and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church are located is zoned as “mixed use (institutional and residential)”, according to the official land use map for the South Terwillegar neighbourhood (Figure 5).   Figure 5. Official land use map for the neighbourhood of South Terwillegar, as presented in the City of Edmonton’s South Terwillegar Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan.  Source: City of Edmonton (2011).  The original reason for this somewhat bizarre land use designation was to accommodate a seniors’ residence apartment building attached to the Church (City of Edmonton, 2004a). The Anglican Diocese has wanted to construct such an apartment building since at least 2003, and applied to the City of Edmonton for rezoning of its property in 2004, almost ten years prior to the Terwillegar CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   38 social housing project debate. According to Edmonton City Council public hearing records, there did not appear to be opposition to this rezoning at that time (City of Edmonton, 2004b). It is unclear what happened to this proposal for a seniors’ apartment building. Regardless, the fact that the existing zoning of the project site allows for apartment-type residential uses explains why Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre and the Anglican Diocese would have only needed to obtain a development permit and did not need to go through a rezoning process (which would involve formal public hearings) in order to construct the proposed social housing project (Annable, 2013).   3.1.2. The social housing project  The proposed Terwillegar social housing project was intended to “embrace” the philosophy of Housing First, which is about providing “permanent housing along with support services, based on individual needs, to help people maintain their housing over the long term” (Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre, 2013c). The Housing First philosophy encourages spreading out social housing across a city in order to avoid concentrating social housing in certain places (Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness, 2009); this is definitely aligned with the proposal of building social housing in the suburban, relatively affluent neighbourhood of Terwillegar.  The developer of the housing is Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (JPHWC), a non-profit “social care agency” which prides itself on supporting Edmontonians from “all walks of life” who need assistance (JPHWC, 2013c). JPHWC has been, and still is, operating a supportive housing development in the relatively lower-income Jasper Place area of Edmonton (Jasper Place Wellness Centre, 2014), and wanted to expand housing services to other, more suburban areas of Edmonton, in accordance with the Housing First philosophy (JPHWC, 2013c).  JPHWC defined this project as a permanent, supportive housing apartment building, with support staff on-site at all hours of the day (JPHWC, 2013c). JPHWC emphasized that the development was not a “placement program”, as it would be accessible to prospective tenants through an application process that assesses whether a tenant is “low-risk” and can pay rent at below-market rates (JPHWC, 2013d). While the exact physical details of the development had not been finalized yet, JPHWC stated that up to 60 residential units would be in the building, and the building would have a mix of different types of units (JPHWC, 2013c).   CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   39 According to Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre, the Terwillegar social housing project had been “in talks” since 2010, and the City of Edmonton had been aware of the potential of the project site for development of social housing since 2011 (JPHWC, 2013c). In 2012, the congregation at Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church rejected an offer by a private housing developer to purchase their property, and instead decided to make the property available for development of housing for the homeless (Annable, 2013). The Anglican Diocese of Edmonton signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre in March 2013 which would have formed the basis of the Anglican Diocese’s 100-year lease of the property to JPHWC (JPHWC, 2013d). JPHWC applied for funding from the Government of Alberta, as well as from Homeward Trust Edmonton, which distributes grants on behalf of various governmental and private partners (Homeward Trust Edmonton, 2016), for the funds required for the construction of this project; JPHWC had received conditional approval for $12.1 million by the end of April 2013 (JPHWC, 2013c). Between the end of May and the end of June 2013, JPHWC met with those they considered “key community stakeholder groups” to provide information on their organization and the proposed development, thus beginning their engagement with the community. Specifically, JPHWC met with elected representatives for the local area at all levels of government, as well as members of the “recognized” community residents’ association, the Terwillegar Community League (JPHWC, 2013c). The Terwillegar Community League represents residents not only of the neighbourhoods of Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar, but also two other neighbourhoods which are farther from the project site (Terwillegar Community League, 2015). JPHWC’s intention was to sign a “Good Neighbour Agreement” with the Terwillegar Community League that would be the basis of an ongoing, long-term relationship with the community, emphasizing dialogue and accountability (JPHWC, 2013c; JPHWC, 2013b).  News about the social housing proposal broke in the media at the end of June 2013, and a passionate debate immediately ensued amongst residents of Terwillegar and the wider Edmonton community. The controversy reached a critical point when the Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church was vandalized with the spray-painted words “NO HOMELESS” in early July 2013 (Kornik, 2013). Public open houses and a townhall-style information meeting were held in August 2013 and were completely packed with hundreds of interested residents on all sides of the debate (Lazzarino, 2013). The Anglican Diocese intended for this townhall meeting to mark the beginning of a respectful consultation process (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013a), but by this point tensions amongst the public and the stakeholders had already risen to considerable levels. The conflict CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   40 reached another critical point in September 2013 when the Terwillegar Towne Homeowners Association, an organization representing residents solely of the neighbourhood of Terwillegar Towne, voted to spend $35,000 in legal fees to fight the housing project (CBC News, 2013). Everything concluded in early November 2013 when the Anglican Diocese voluntarily chose to withdraw the project, citing intense opposition and a broken process (CBC News, 2013).   3.2. Case study data collection  The author sought to investigate what values were held by key stakeholders in the conflict over the proposed Terwillegar social housing project – specifically, Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre, the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church, and residents of the Terwillegar community.   For the values of Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre, the author analyzed a series of question-and-answer documents written by JPHWC (JPHWC, 2013a; JPHWC, 2013c; JPHWC, 2013d), JPHWC’s proposed Good Neighbour Agreement with the Terwillegar Community League (JPHWC, 2013b), as well as an informational brochure that was mailed out to residents in Terwillegar (JPHWC, 2013e). All of these items are accessible through the JPHWC Facebook page.   For the values of the Anglican Diocese, the author analyzed the speech that Jane Alexander, the Anglican Diocese’s Bishop, gave at the August 2013 townhall meeting in Terwillegar (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013a), as well as a press release that the Diocese released in November 2013 when it chose to withdraw the project (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013b). Both documents are available through archives of the ‘news’ section on the website of the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton. The author also found and used one blog post on the website of Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church that is pertinent to the Terwillegar housing project (Holy Trinity Riverbend, 2013).  Records of discussions about the housing project on social media were used to elicit values of Terwillegar residents. Specifically, the author examined all of the posts relevant to the Terwillegar housing project that were posted onto the official Facebook page of Jasper Place Health and CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS   41 Wellness Centre4 between the end of June 2013 and early November 2013, as well as all of the comments written beneath each of those posts. Not all of the participants of the discussions on the JPHWC Facebook page are from Terwillegar, however. To ascertain which participants are Terwillegar residents are which are not, the author used a combination of inferring from the participants’ expressed viewpoints on the JPHWC Facebook page, cross-checking participants’ names with names on the members’ lists of two Terwillegar-oriented, non-public Facebook groups (Terwillegar Community League5 and Terwillegar Speaks6), and deducing from their activity on the “JPHWC Project in Terwillegar” Facebook page7 which is a forum open to any individual interested in the project. 76 participants posted or commented on the official JPHWC Facebook page, excluding JPHWC themselves. 46 participants, or 61%, were determined by the author to be Terwillegar residents. These 46 participants authored a total of 206 comments and posts, making up 56% of the total 371 comments and posts on the JPHWC Facebook page that were not authored by JPHWC themselves.                                                                4 https://www.facebook.com/Jasper-Place-Wellness-Centre-155878244434660/ 5 https://www.facebook.com/groups/43763598465/ 6 https://www.facebook.com/groups/517606331638317/ 7 https://www.facebook.com/groups/187310701437114/ THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   42 4. A VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE TERWILLEGAR CASE  4.1. Framework for value-based decision making for a social housing project  The framework shown in Figure 6 is proposed to guide the application of a value-based decision-making process for a proposed social housing project, with the intention of addressing conflict – whether potential or already present – between stakeholders.   This framework is tailored for projects with an already-identified project site. It is neither intended for making decisions where a decision maker is still in the stage of choosing where it would like to develop social housing, nor intended for making decisions about social housing policies that apply on a wider or more general scale.  The following subsections will elaborate on the stages in the value-based decision process, using the template from Keeney’s (1992) Value-Focused Thinking which was presented earlier in Table 1. The term ‘decision maker’ will be used to refer to whichever stakeholder, or group of stakeholders, is spearheading the effort for the proposed social housing project; they can also be generally referred to as ‘proponents’. Although not always mentioned explicitly, it is reasonable to expect that there may be a facilitator who guides the decision maker and the other stakeholders through the entire process.             THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   43 Figure 6. A framework for value-based decision making to address conflict over a social housing project.   4.1.1. Recognize a decision problem  An important question that must be answered when starting to apply the value-based decision-making process is, “Does a specific social housing proposal exist?” This means whether the decision maker has already come up with, though not necessarily decided upon, specific details about the proposed social housing, such as the type of housing, the housing’s intended tenants, or the Recognize decision problem  Does a specific social housing proposal exist? Specify values Neighbours Developer Funders Enabler Neighbours Developer Enabler Specify values Y N Create alternative(s) Evaluate alternative(s) Coordinated alternatives Process alternatives Select an alternative THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   44 population it will serve. If a specific proposal does not exist yet, that means there merely has been an expressed desire to develop social housing at the identified project site. The answer to this question has implications during the specification of values stage and the creation of alternatives stage.  Note that the answer to this question is highly dependent on when the decision maker chooses to begin applying the process. Generally, if conflict or controversy has already started to appear, the answer to this question is most likely ‘Yes’. In fact, ‘Yes’ is probably the more common scenario for many decision makers as they begin to consider external stakeholder engagement, as ‘No’ would require essentially a blank slate in terms of concepts for social housing at an identified site. Nevertheless, given that the literature suggests the earlier a conflict or potential conflict is addressed, the easier it becomes to work with the conflict (Wynne-Edwards, 2003), it is definitely advisable for the decision maker to apply the process while the answer to this question is effectively still ‘No’.  4.1.2. Specify values  The stakeholders that are included in this stage, from whom values will be elicited, are selected because they are important to addressing conflict over the social housing project.  The following are the stakeholders that should be considered:  The neighbours – These are the people who live adjacent to the site or in the nearby area; the scope of this area can vary. When considering the neighbours, do not separate residents into sub-groups such as supporters versus opponents; instead, treat neighbours along the entire spectrum of opinion – regardless of whether they fully support, fully oppose, or land somewhere in between – as one heterogeneous group. Treating the neighbours as one group lessens the possibility of the decision maker or facilitator being perceived as favouring some neighbours over others, and also accounts for the real possibility that people’s viewpoints and positions can change during the process over time.  The developer – This is the stakeholder that will develop the social housing project. They might commonly be a government agency or a non-profit service provider, but can also be a private sector firm or even some kind of community group; there are many possibilities. Sometimes, such as in the Terwillegar case, the developer might both develop and operate the social housing project; at other times, the developer might choose a separate THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   45 organization to be the operator of the project. In the latter case, for the purposes of this decision-making process, it is fine to consider the developer and the operator together as one stakeholder role as long as they share the same goals for the project.  The funders – This is the group that provides funding, through grants or otherwise, to the developer so that the social housing can be built. Examples of funding bodies are senior levels of government and philanthropic organizations. Because the developer will have to adhere to clear conditions and satisfy clear criteria in order to receive funding, any values of the funders relevant to the decision are likely to be channeled through the developer.  The enabler – This can be understood as the stakeholder who is enabling the project by providing the property – the land and/or building – that is identified as the project site for the proposed housing. They are a partner for the developer. The Terwillegar case prominently featured a stakeholder as the enabler – the Anglican Diocese. Perhaps in many scenarios, such as where the government owns the property on which it plans to develop social housing, the enabler is equivalent to the developer. Nevertheless, the author believes distinguishing between a developer role and an enabler role is helpful even if they are occupied by essentially the same stakeholder, because doing so can clarify what state of mind the stakeholder is in depending on the current decision context.  The answer to the question “Does a specific social housing proposal exist?” changes what stakeholders are present at this stage.  If the answer is ‘Yes’: The developer, and by extension, the funders, are both present. The enabler might be present but this depends on the context of the decision. For example, the enabler would be equivalent to the developer if the developer has complete ownership of the property where the housing project is proposed. The developer, and possibly the enabler as well depending on their level of involvement, occupies the role of the ‘decision maker’. Note that if a specific proposal exists, the values of the decision maker can be elucidated through that proposal.  If the answer is ‘No’: The enabler is present. The developer is not present, unless the developer is equivalent to the enabler, or unless a separate developer has been selected even though a specific proposal has not yet been prepared. Regardless, there are no funders present yet. The enabler, and possibly the developer, occupies the role of the ‘decision maker’.  THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   46 There are some prominent groups that are purposely excluded from the decision-making framework. One group is politicians. Giving politicians who are not members of the neighbourhood a seat at the table in the process, especially during the value elicitation stage, can complicate the process and hinder the effective addressing of conflict between stakeholders by introducing an intermediary that obstructs direct dialogue. Even for politicians who are actually neighbours, by virtue of their official, legislative, decision-making power, participation by politicians can introduce an unnecessary power dynamic – additional to the inherent power dynamic already present between the neighbours and the project proponents – that is unhelpful for creating and maintaining a process that is inclusive and encompassing of all viewpoints and participants. Thus, it is better for politicians to act as sidelined observers rather than active participants. This appears to go against Iglesias’s (2002) statement that the most important thing for social housing developers to consider in a social housing decision process is how to obtain and maintain politicians’ votes to approve their project. However, the author believes that if the developer is able to obtain widespread public acceptance of their project through the value-based decision-making process, there is no defensible reason for politicians to reject their project.  On a related note, where do local or regional government policies related to social housing, which might have been approved by politicians after various broader public and stakeholder engagement processes, fit into a localized value-based decision-making process? The author believes that, at minimum, the intents of government policies applicable to the housing project at hand will be conveyed through the values of the proponent stakeholders, particularly the developer and the funders. For example, in the Terwillegar case, Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre wished to develop a social housing project based on the Housing First philosophy, and Housing First is the approach that has been championed by the municipal government and the provincial government for addressing the problem of homelessness (JPHWC, 2013c).  Another prominent group purposely excluded from the framework is supporters of the proposed social housing project that are not neighbours. Including outsider supporters would be detrimental to any attempt to reduce or resolve conflict over the housing project, because including them might be interpreted by the neighbours as sending an inflammatory message to concerned or opposed neighbours suggesting outsiders without a perceived direct stake hold some of the levers to the outcome of the project. Unfortunately, outsider supporters would likely include potential tenants of the project, who arguably do have a direct stake in the project. The author believes the interests of THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   47 potential tenants should already be well-represented by the proponents. Nevertheless, as part of the decision-making process, it is still possible to constructively involve potential tenants as well as other outsider supporters – not directly as stakeholders at the table, but indirectly as ‘consultants’ to provide evidence-based information to those at the table. This idea will be elaborated upon later.  The following are some suggestions for how to effectively facilitate the elicitation of values from stakeholders:  For the neighbours, strive to get as many participants as possible. The more participants involved in the process, the greater the likelihood of getting a representative sample of the different values that the neighbours hold. The facilitator and decision maker should post signage at prominent locations such as primary entryways into the neighbourhood and local businesses; spread information using both physical and electronic networks, contacting any kind of formal – and even informal – organizations in the community, including associations, clubs, faith groups, and schools; and publicize the project and the decision process through mainstream media.  Keeping in mind the difference between fundamental objectives and means objectives (Keeney, 1992), it would be helpful to focus discussions on the fundamental objectives, since fundamental objectives are more easily understood by all stakeholders and thus are more approachable. Ask participants about the essential or crucial things they want to see addressed by the end of the decision process.  To assist participants with identifying their values, the facilitator could share values that other participants have expressed in order to stimulate thought about any missed but important things. This can help expand people’s incomplete representation of the decision at hand (Bond et al., 2008), and also encourage participants to consider perspectives other than their own, which can help resolve conflict between participants (Hostmann et al., 2005).  The facilitator should also constantly probe participants’ statements, such as by asking ‘why’ questions, to properly and accurately identify participants’ values. Property values are a great example of this. As the literature stated, impact on property values is a common theme of arguments by people opposed to social housing projects. But why are participants concerned about property values? Is it because of the monetary aspect, related to losing equity? Or is it because property values are an indicator or proxy for the desirability and quality of life of the neighbourhood? (Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness, 2016) THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   48  With respect to the structuring of values or objectives, the author recommends that structuring be optional, and only be done to organize values rather than to attempt to prioritize them. On a related note, there does not need to be quantification of the objectives, unless the participants so desire. The author believes avoiding the prioritization and quantification of objectives can make the decision process more encompassing, such as by possibly enabling a greater diversity of alternatives. This can be beneficial for addressing conflict between stakeholders.  At the end of the specification of values stage, perform a check-in: Ask all participants whether the list or structure of values/objectives is complete and reflects their values thoroughly and accurately.  4.1.3. Create alternative(s)  After the specification of values stage, the remainder of the decision process is basically the same regardless of whether there exists a specific proposal for the social housing project. At the creation of alternatives stage, the facilitator and decision maker should note the importance of the ‘(s)’ in the framework (Figure 6). This means the facilitator and decision maker should be open-minded about the number of alternatives needed to best satisfy the identified stakeholder values. As Keeney (1992) stated, it is perfectly fine if the decision maker creates a set of coordinated alternatives, such as a main alternative with add-on minor ‘alternatives’. Such a set can always be treated as a single alternative at the end of the decision process. As well, the author recommends consideration of process alternatives that increase stakeholder participation and inclusion in the process, especially if a specific social housing proposal already exists and stakeholder conflict is already present. This relates back to the idea that stakeholders who are not completely pleased with the final outcome might still be content if they feel the decision process is fair to them (Wynne-Edwards, 2003).   After some alternative(s) have been developed by the facilitator and/or decision maker, perform a check-in with participants by asking if they have any other alternatives that they believe are viable and should be considered. Not only does this expand the range of potential alternatives, it also increases the inclusiveness of the process.  Going back again to Keeney’s (1992) differentiation between fundamental objectives and means objectives, whereas the author recommends focusing on fundamental objectives during the THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   49 elicitation of stakeholder values, the creation of alternatives stage is when means objectives can be explored. In other words, when considering alternatives to satisfy the identified stakeholder values, the facilitator, decision maker, and other participants might want to explore various intermediate objectives representing different ways of achieving high-level goals defined by the stakeholder values. Here is when facts and other evidence-based information, provided by the outsider supporter-consultants or other parties with expertise about the social housing decision at hand, can contribute to this value-based decision-making process.  4.1.4. Evaluate alternative(s)  The creation and evaluation of alternatives are very much intertwined and exist in a feedback loop. There might not even be an explicit evaluation stage, if the creation stage involved all stakeholders so substantially and sufficiently that a widespread and clear preference has emerged for a ‘best’ alternative. Nevertheless, evaluation of alternatives can elucidate whether there are any stakeholders or stakeholder values that ‘lose out’ from the currently ‘best’ alternative and/or can be satisfied more fully. If there are, the facilitator should consider whether any modifying, tweaking, or adding-on to the current alternative can satisfy stakeholders and stakeholders’ values more thoroughly.  Conduct a check-in with participants by presenting every evaluation of the alternatives. Ask if they agree the evaluation correctly confirms whether a stakeholder value or objective has been satisfied, and ask for any suggestions of improvements to the alternative(s).  4.1.5. Select an alternative  The final step of the value-based decision process is to simply select and implement an alternative. It is recommended that periodic check-ins with participants be conducted sometime after the social housing project has been completed to review whether the participants’ values and objectives have actually been satisfied, and also to discuss and address any issues and ideas for improvement.    THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   50 4.2. Applying value-based decision making to the Terwillegar case  Using the framework presented above, a value-based decision-making approach can be applied to the decision process for the Terwillegar social housing project.  4.2.1. Recognize a decision problem  In the case of the Terwillegar social housing project, there definitely was a specific proposal already developed and put forward by Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre. Indeed, faced with accusations of secrecy and not being forthright with the community earlier, JPHWC repeatedly stated that they did not believe any development could be brought to the community before there is a “viable” development in place, with details such as a secured project site, architectural concepts, and even preliminary budgets; otherwise, discussion would be based on speculation and uncertainty (JPHWC, 2013d).  4.2.2. Specify values  Considering that there already was a specific project proposal, the following stakeholder roles can be identified for this case:   The developer: Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (JPHWC)  The funders: Government of Alberta and Homeward Trust Edmonton  The enabler: the Anglican Diocese and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church  The neighbours: the residents of the Terwillegar community  Many of JPHWC’s values are embodied through the specific proposal that they put forward, and through the words they used to describe themselves and their motivations (Table 3).       THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   51 Table 3. Values of Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre as expressed through their statements about the Terwillegar housing project. Excerpted statement Value “Our clients are people. [… We] believe that they are worthy regardless of where they come from.”A non-judgemental, inclusive “… People can change. We see the evidence every day…”B opportunity to change “This project embraces the principles of 'Housing First'”C Housing First “We will have a shuttle van for added tenant convenience […] support staff onsite 24 hours a day…”C ongoing tenant support “It is our genuine goal to build positive and respectful relationships with the identified stakeholder groups”C mutual trust Sources: A: JPHWC (2013e); B: JPHWC (2013b); C: JPHWC (2013c).  A key component of JPHWC’s values is the concept of Housing First, which has been adopted by both the Government of Alberta and the City of Edmonton with respect to addressing the problem of homelessness (JPHWC, 2013c). According to Edmonton’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, which uses Housing First as its centerpiece, the core values of Housing First include (Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness, 2009):   changing the system to adapt to the clients instead of the other way around,  respecting client choice, such as letting clients continue to use substances until they wish to begin substance abuse treatment (subject to rent/lease conditions),  helping clients learn to be a good tenant, and  building community amongst clients.  For the values of the funders – the Government of Alberta and Homeward Trust Edmonton – it is reasonable to assume that both organizations are strongly supportive of the Housing First concept, since Housing First has been endorsed by the municipal and provincial governments. Thus, all of the values associated with Housing First would be their primary values as well. In the Terwillegar housing project case, an additional value held by the funding bodies is respect for the neighbouring community, as evidenced by the requirement for community consultation as part of the funders’ funding arrangement with Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (Annable, 2013).    THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   52 Table 4 shows the values of the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church as expressed through their statements on the Terwillegar housing project.  Table 4. Values of the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church as expressed through their statements on the Terwillegar housing project. Excerpted statement Value “Safety, support and welcome for all our neighbours [present and future] are priorities…”A safety, helping others, creating a welcoming environment “In 2011 we […] signed an interfaith statement on homelessness and affordable housing. We committed ourselves to work together with the City of Edmonton’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness.”B Housing First “[We] are listening. We want to work with the community and not impose something ON it.”B communication, collaboration “... our faith compels us to stand in solidarity with those who are poor and vulnerable, and affirm the importance of inclusive and welcoming communities…”C helping the disadvantaged, being inclusive and welcoming “… needs to be grounded in relationships between the church, the community and the developer…”C mutual trust Sources: A: Holy Trinity Riverbend (2013); B: Anglican Diocese of Edmonton (2013a);  C: Anglican Diocese of Edmonton (2013b).  Table 5 shows the different themes found within the comments or concerns that were expressed by each of the 46 Terwillegar residents who participated in discussions on JPHWC’s Facebook page. Table 6 provides examples of statements by Terwillegar residents that the author categorized under each of the identified themes. Table 7 indicates how common each theme was amongst the Terwillegar residents. Some residents did not express any specific theme; for example, one resident simply asked for clarification about when they would receive JPHWC’s mail-out brochure. The theme of communication was the most common, and often involved trying to get clear answers from JPHWC to residents’ questions; for example, requesting that JPHWC clarify what “low-risk” meant in regards to the potential tenants. Other common themes included transparency, which related to being able to trust JPHWC and the other decision makers; thorough collaboration, referring to suggestions that JPHWC should try to obtain the input of as many individuals and groups as possible, and also that JPHWC’s list of “key community stakeholder groups” was insufficient; and neighbourhood safety, especially considering Terwillegar’s relatively high number of young children. THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   53 Table 5. (Split into three sub-tables) Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents in discussions about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page. Individuals are denoted by their initials. Table 5.1. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents A. A. to J. C. Participant AA AB AR AW BC CC CJ CM CS CY DM(1) DM(2) DS HM JC(1) JC(2) Help homeless                 Clear support of project                 Thorough consultation  x     x   x   x   x Collaboration    x    x   x  x    Transparency   x    x  x  x  x    Communication    x  x   x     x x  Safety      x x    x  x    Community   x              Project size      x           Tenant type      x           Tenant support                 Location   x   x x          Property values                 Infrastructure             x     Table 5.2. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents J. K. to M. H. Participant JK JS JT KJ KM KS(1) KS(2) KT(1) KT(2) LE LS MB MD MH Help homeless     x x      x   Clear support of project     x x      x   Thorough consultation   x     x      x Collaboration         x    x  Transparency         x    x x Communication      x x x x x x x  x Safety        x x     x Community               Project size    x           Tenant type        x      x Tenant support              x Location x x           x  Property values x              Infrastructure              x THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   54  Table 5.3. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents M. L. to W. M. Participant ML MR MS RF RK SC SJ SM SR SS SW TG TH TL TT WM Help homeless  x           x    Clear support of project  x               Thorough consultation    x   x    x      Collaboration          x       Transparency   x       x   x   x Communication          x  x x  x  Safety x     x    x   x    Community             x    Project size                 Tenant type          x   x    Tenant support      x    x       Location   x  x     x  x    x Property values x                Infrastructure                   Table 6. Sample of statements, categorized by theme, made by Terwillegar residents in discussions about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page. Theme Excerpted statement Help homeless “I cannot think of a better use for this land, given with God's love to make a real difference to those who need it.” (K.M., 2013 July 3) Clear support of project “I’m within walking distance of the proposed site and support it 100%.” (M.R., 2013 June 26) Thorough consultation “Why is the Terwillegar Towne Residents Association not considered one of your stakeholders?” (A.B., 2013 June 29) Collaboration  “I had requested a tour for some of the residents through your existing centre and have yet to hear back... Is this something that can be arranged?” (M.D., 2013 July 5) Transparency “Starting off by hiding it from the community wasn't helpful. We now need a lot of disclosure if we're going to reach a place of trust, and I think that is just so important to success.” (T.H., 2013 July 6) Communication “I appreciate the answers that have been posted on a consistent and prompt basis.” (M.B., 2013 July 10) Safety “If the crime rate rises steadily to say over 30% above what it was prior to your development coming in, are you going to pull your program out of the community?” (D.S., 2013 July 13) THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   55 Theme Excerpted statement Community “Shame on him for trying to push this project into our family focused neighbourhood […] where the heart of the community is our schools and our children.” (A.R., 2013 June 28) Project size “… virtually every other complex like this […] is far less than 60 units.” (K.J., 2013 July 25) Tenant type “Can the tenant application for this building be made public?” (S.S., 2013 July 12) Tenant support “… what will be done in a situation where a tenant may be struggling and failing the program and/or becoming a high-risk individual.” (S.C., 2013 July 11) Location "I don't necessarily have an issue with who they want to move in […] It is not in a good location for this project. It is not close to stores, bus routes or hospitals." (W.M., 2013 July 8) Property values "… potential property value drops to the neighborhood. For the most part we are talking about high-end, high value homes. Why not put the complex in an area with lower value homes as to limit the impact of affecting real estate pricing?" (J.K., 2013 July 4) Infrastructure "The road is not developed, there are no sidewalks, street lights […] Who will absorb the cost of this basic infrastructure?" (M.H., 2013 July 16) Source: https://www.facebook.com/Jasper-Place-Wellness-Centre-155878244434660/  Table 7. Popularity of themes expressed by Terwillegar residents in discussions about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page. Themes in the rows highlighted in grey are those that the author feels can be easily interpreted as stakeholder values. Theme Number of residents who expressed this theme Communication 17 Transparency 12 Thorough consultation 11 Safety 11 Location 11 Collaboration 7 Help homeless 5 Tenant type 5 Clear support of project 4 Tenant support 3 Community 2 Project size 2 Property values 2 Infrastructure 2 THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   56  The themes differ in how well they lend themselves to be interpreted as stakeholder values. The themes of communication, transparency, thorough consultation, safety, collaboration, helping the homeless, and providing ongoing tenant support are the ones most easily re-interpreted as values or objectives of the Terwillegar residents. What about the other themes?   Location of the project is among the more common themes expressed by the Terwillegar residents, but can refer to a multitude of factors. For example, it could tie into whether there are good supports for tenants, relate to concerns about how tenants would integrate successfully into the community, or, perhaps cynically, it could also mask opinions that simply want to reject homeless or low-income individuals from the neighbourhood. Considering that location-related concerns persist despite JPHWC’s indication that they will provide a shuttle service for tenants to address concerns about the project site’s isolation from stores and services (JPHWC, 2013c), much more information from the participants is needed to determine the values that underlie concerns about the project location.  The theme of tenant type likely ties into ideas around safety, assuming no outright discrimination or bigotry is at play.   All of the Terwillegar residents who expressed clear support for the housing project simply valued being able to help the homeless and disadvantaged above all else, and did not express any concerns. (See Tables 5.2. and 5.3.)  Community or community fit is a vague theme that could again refer to a great diversity of factors, but judging by the frequent mentions to families and children in the Terwillegar community, this theme might be tied to the theme of safety.   Project size may also tie into safety, but that is not immediately clear.   The theme of property values, as mentioned previously could indicate concerns related to the monetary aspect of losing equity, or could actually have deeper connotations about quality of the neighbourhood. Based on the statements made by these Terwillegar residents, at least some residents are concerned explicitly about the monetary aspect of property values. Fortunately, the theme of property values was not a commonly expressed theme among the Terwillegar residents, which suggests it might not be a value that is strongly held by many in the neighbourhood.   Finally, concerns about infrastructure relate more to details about the physical design and construction of the project rather than to stakeholder values, and therefore can perhaps be ignored during the process of value-based decision making.  THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   57  Table 8 provides a summary of the different stakeholders’ values that were elicited through this process. Note that the values of the funders – specifically, Housing First and respect for the neighbours – have been combined with the values of the developer.   Table 8. Stakeholder values held by Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (JPHWC) and their funders, the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church, and the neighbouring residents in the Terwillegar community. JPHWC + Funders Anglican Diocese/Church Neighbours inclusive collaboration collaboration Housing First communication communication mutual trust helping disadvantaged help homeless non-judgemental Housing First safety opportunity to change inclusive and welcoming tenant support respect for neighbours mutual trust thorough consultation tenant support safety transparency  As mentioned previously, structuring of the values or objectives is not mandatory. However, in this case, structuring stakeholder values to organize them into categories can assist the creation of alternatives in the next stage of the process. As shown in Table 9, the stakeholder values identified can be structured into categories around five fundamental values or objectives: applying Housing First principles, developing mutual trust between stakeholders, having an outcome that is inclusive of potential tenants, ensuring neighbourhood safety, and conducting thorough consultation. The author chose to treat ‘thorough consultation’ separately from ‘mutual trust’, because both are ingredients to successful stakeholder engagement. As noted in the planning literature, ‘participation’ and ‘inclusion’ are separate and equally important dimensions of public and stakeholder engagement: participation relates to increasing the amount of stakeholder input obtained, while inclusion relates to the building of connections and relationships (Quick & Feldman, 2011). Here, the value of ‘thorough consultation’ corresponds to participation, whereas the value of ‘mutual trust’ corresponds to inclusion.      THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   58 Table 9. Structuring the values of stakeholders involved in the decision process for the Terwillegar housing project into categories around five fundamental values or objectives. Housing First Mutual trust Inclusive of potential tenants Safety Thorough consultation tenant support collaboration inclusive and welcoming   help homeless & disadvantaged communication non-judgemental   opportunity to change transparency     respect for neighbours     4.2.3. Create and evaluate alternative(s)  In order to satisfy each of the five fundamental stakeholder values, the decision makers – Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre and the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton – should do the following:  Housing First: Keep the Terwillegar housing project’s concept basically the same, that is, permanent housing with always-available tenant support services.  Thorough consultation: This can be done by implementing a process alternative – a different process than the one that had taken place until now. Expand the list of “key community stakeholder groups” beyond just the local elected representatives and the official residents’ association, by including all sorts of formal, and perhaps even informal, neighbourhood organizations. Also, think of the public at large as a distinct stakeholder group by themselves, even though extra effort would likely be required to engage this group. Do not rely on representatives to sufficiently engage the residents of Terwillegar.  Mutual trust: Continue answering residents' questions, but ensure that answers are given as clearly and as thoroughly as possible. Do not brush off any question.  Safety: This stakeholder value is probably the most difficult to address, because in the author’s opinion, safety is something that regardless of how much information is given to relieve people’s fears about the safety of something, people might still be fearful to some degree unless they have personal experience with it. Yet, as Wynne-Edwards (2003) stated, addressing concerns and objections based on fear is essential to really overcome conflict and opposition to social housing projects.  o One potential way to address safety concerns about social housing is to let participants personally experience similar social housing projects by organizing THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   59 community visits to existing projects. In fact, as shown in Table 6, some Terwillegar residents had expressed interest in visiting Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s existing supportive housing development in the Jasper Place neighbourhood. While the contexts of existing developments might not match up perfectly with the context of the current project, visiting existing developments still has the benefit of providing substantial first-hand knowledge to participants in the decision-making process, thus reducing the amount of speculative information in play. o Another, possibly controversial, way to attempt to address safety concerns in this case is to introduce an activity of developing the tenant application for this housing project collaboratively. Have Terwillegar residents and the Anglican Diocese/Church together at the same table with Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre to design the tenant application. Compared to publicizing the tenant application process, as had been suggested by some Terwillegar residents, this activity should not have as much possibility to “violate tenant and privacy laws” (JPHWC, 2013a). Adding this activity to the decision process can have the additional benefit of increasing the level of collaboration in the process, and thereby build mutual trust between the stakeholders.  o Regardless of what the decision makers choose to do, a provision should be included for JPHWC to regularly follow-up and reassess the safety situation of the housing project after the housing project is complete.  Inclusive of potential tenants: If the recommendations above are followed, there is a chance that the values of safety and mutual trust will be satisfied but inclusiveness to potential tenants will be sacrificed, as neighbourhood residents might advocate for inclusion of very strict criteria on the Terwillegar housing project’s tenant application. While JPHWC’s involvement at the table might reduce this risk, an even more effective method is to have existing clients of JPHWC’s other supportive housing development join the collaborative effort of developing the tenant application. If they are willing, existing clients can provide their personal, ‘expert’ opinion about what tenant application criteria would be acceptable yet not step over the bounds and be too restrictive on client choice. Including existing clients in the decision process in this way, as some sort of consultants providing ‘evidence-based’ information, rather than as explicit stakeholders at the table during the value THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION   60 specification step of the process, has the benefit of enabling positive learning exchanges between stakeholders.  Note that in the process of creating alternative(s) for this case, a step-wise approach was used. The process began by creating an alternative to satisfy one of the fundamental stakeholder values (Housing First), and then considered how to satisfy each of the four other values one at a time. In doing so, various aspects were sequentially added-on to the starting alternative. Also note that almost all of the add-ons could be considered ‘process alternatives’. In the end, a single alternative was produced that was essentially a set of coordinated process alternatives.  Because essentially only one alternative has been created, and the alternative was created with constant consideration of each of the five fundamental stakeholder values, there is no need to go through the process of evaluating the alternative.   DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS   61 5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS  5.1. Factors for ‘success’ in the case study  In the case study of the Terwillegar social housing project, the author followed the framework developed in this Professional Planning Project to hypothetically apply a value-based decision-making process for the housing project, and was able to produce an alternative for the decision that reasonably satisfies all key stakeholders’ fundamental values. What caveats are there about the results of the case study?  First of all, because the methods used in this case study only involved document analysis and discourse analysis, without any interviews or other kinds of interaction with study subjects, the author was restricted to taking the expressed viewpoints of stakeholders at face value. Not only does this mean that the analysis of stakeholders’ underlying values from their statements could have been done very naively, the analysis was also a highly subjective method of interpretation of people’s thoughts. A Terwillegar resident who says on the public forum that is the JPHWC Facebook page that they are only concerned about the manner of the decision process, and do not care about the type of tenants that could be moving into their neighbourhood, could be completely lying to sound more reasonable. They could also change their mind later. That brings up another caveat: the analysis done for this case study relied on information that mainly provided snapshots in time of stakeholders’ thoughts and opinions; not all of the Terwillegar residents continuously posted on the JPHWC Facebook page over the course of the debate. However, as some in the literature have suggested, people’s opinions can change over time as they receive more information (Wynne-Edwards, 2003). Nevertheless, since the literature also suggests that the concerns people raise about social housing are often repetitive (Iglesias, 2002), that should mean stakeholders’ opinions and their values, if taken as a whole, would probably not deviate greatly over time.  A key point about the application of value-based decision making to the Terwillegar housing case is that during the analysis of Terwillegar residents’ comments and posts, the author noticed two ‘pivot points’ – two aspects of the Terwillegar housing project that if grasped and spun around could have made a significant impact to the outcome of the decision process. One was the list of stakeholders that was recognized by Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre as “key community stakeholder groups”. Because JPHWC decided, at least initially, that these were the stakeholders they would DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS   62 spend the most effort on engaging and building relationships with, the choice of these stakeholders was crucial to whether JPHWC could legitimately say they obtained support from the community or sufficiently engaged the community. In fact, some Terwillegar residents questioned why certain resident groups were left off the list (such as the Terwillegar Towne Homeowners Association – the group that later decided to spend money to legally fight the project), and why JPHWC felt that getting only the Terwillegar Community League to sign the proposed Good Neighbour Agreement was sufficient.  The other ‘pivot point’ the author noticed was the tenant application that JPHWC mentioned would be in place for prospective tenants of the housing project. If JPHWC shared more details about their tenant application system to the public, and perhaps allowed the residents of Terwillegar some role in shaping that system, it may be possible that many of the Terwillegar residents’ wishes could be satisfied simultaneously: for example, obtaining clear information about what kinds of tenants would live in the housing, addressing safety concerns by modifying the tenant application system, and wanting more transparency from the developer.  Now, the critical question: Was the value-based decision-making process useful for addressing conflict between stakeholders over the Terwillegar social housing project? Of course, like Hostmann et al. (2005) suggested, in a real-life scenario all stakeholders would have had to understand the process and accept the process’s results in order for the conflict to be actually resolved. But the author believes that, yes, if such a decision process was applied, conflict between the most actively engaged stakeholders could be mitigated, because it could have encouraged the creation of an alternative that could reasonably satisfy many of the stakeholders’ values and objectives. It is important to note that this primarily pertains to those Terwillegar residents that chose to engage with Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre and the Anglican Diocese/Church; that is, those that willingly took the time to communicate their thoughts to the decision makers. For residents who flatly refused to engage, perhaps because they were firmly opposed to the project whatsoever, it is unfortunately unclear whether this decision process would have had much impact on them. Nonetheless, perhaps word-of-mouth about a better decision process could have, at the very least, encouraged residents who were initially flatly opposed to check out the new process and become engaged.   DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS   63 5.2. Lessons for applying value-based decision making to social housing decisions  Having the ‘right people’ involved in a value-based decision process can contribute greatly to the success of the process in resolving conflicts over social housing decisions:  There needs to be people who are willing to engage at all. Even if people are screaming and yelling at the decision makers, at least they are engaging in the discussion, and signal at least a bit of willingness to participate in the process. These people are more helpful than people who might choose to only protest silently while the process occurs, such as the unknown individuals who vandalized the Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church in the Terwillegar case. We can only hope that a better decision process will encourage all residents who are opposed to a social housing project to check out the new process and become engaged.  It is important to have people who are willing to receive, and perhaps even seek out, new knowledge about aspects of the social housing project and decision. In the Terwillegar case, the Terwillegar residents who participated in discussions on the JPHWC Facebook page often mentioned research they did on their own time about social housing in general and about social housing projects in Edmonton, and many of them sought and appreciated opportunities to learn about social housing through JPHWC. This relates back to Hostmann et al.’s (2005) observation that for a value-based decision-making process to be useful for resolving conflicts, it is key that participants not only understand and accept the process, but also experience a learning effect through their participation. Furthermore, people who are open to learning new knowledge will likely participate more substantially and constructively in the process, such as by being able to contribute more diverse ideas for alternatives. This kind of “social learning” (Briggs, 2008, p. 305) can resolve the potential problem, mentioned in this paper’s introduction, of this decision process resulting in overly narrow thinking or actions.  In the same vein, it is beneficial to have proponents who are able and willing to organize opportunities for the aforementioned kinds of learning. In particular, there are many positives to letting concerned and opposed neighbours visit similar existing social housing developments, or providing a chance for them to meet and chat in-person with people living in (and perhaps also people living near) existing developments. In the Terwillegar case study, providing such opportunities can help address the stakeholder values of neighbourhood safety and being inclusive of potential tenants. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS   64  To accurately and thoroughly elicit stakeholder values, there should be a good facilitator who is able to distinguish the noise from the message. Obviously, this facilitator must remain as neutral as possible, and avoid being perceived as suggesting participants hold certain underlying values when they actually do not. As the literature suggests, people perform poorly when simply asked to list out their values or objectives (Bond et al., 2008). This facilitator needs to be able to really listen to what people are saying or deduce what people are really conveying through written comments. Going back to Wynne-Edwards’s (2003) metaphor, the deeper down the iceberg that the facilitator is able to uncover values from, the more likely that concerns and opposition to the social housing project will be dealt with successfully. In the Terwillegar case, concerns about the location of the project site were frequently raised, but these concerns were expressed too shallowly to enable simple deduction of the underlying values motivating them.  It is extremely helpful to have the presence of a key stakeholder on the decision maker side who genuinely wishes to “work with the community and not impose something on it” (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013a). In the case of the Terwillegar housing project, this stakeholder was the enabler stakeholder – the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton. Such a stakeholder will be more willing than other stakeholders to try out processes that are intended to address stakeholder conflict and improve public and stakeholder engagement. In addition, by taking on the role of an “interested facilitator” (as opposed to a purely neutral facilitator), who is both willing to improve the stakeholder engagement process but at the same time hoping the process will achieve certain outcomes such as getting a social housing project built, stakeholders like the Anglican Diocese are well-positioned to act as “civic intermediaries” that can encourage capacity building for collective action, for example by resolving “process breakdowns such as impasse, polarization, and avoidance” that were mentioned in this paper’s introduction as a potential problem (Briggs, 2008, p. 302-303).  As suggested in the literature, there might be a lack of systematic and repeatable methods to use for creating alternatives from values (Parnell et al., 2013). Below is one method that could be useful when working with a list of fundamental stakeholder values or fundamental objectives. Note that implied within this procedure is that decision makers and facilitators should, as much as possible, strive to address each and every one of the stakeholder values that are identified.  DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS   65  Start with thinking about alternative(s) for one fundamental value that forms the core of the decision, that without satisfying it, there is essentially no point to any outcome of the process. In the Terwillegar case, this was the principles of Housing First.  Then, consider how to address those fundamental values that are easier to achieve, that can be satisfied by adding aspects onto the identified alternative(s) without impacting the other fundamental values. In the Terwillegar case, this was the value of thorough consultation and, to a lesser extent, the value of mutual trust.  Next, consider, again through adding-on of aspects to the alternative(s), how to satisfy the fundamental values that are harder to achieve and which might be involved in trade-offs between other values. In the Terwillegar case, this was the value of ensuring safety of neighbourhood residents, which could be in a trade-off with the value of having an outcome that is inclusive of potential tenants.  Finally, consider how the remaining fundamental values that might have been on the losing end of trade-offs can be brought back into the currently identified alternative(s). In the Terwillegar case, this was done for the value of being inclusive of potential tenants.  Regardless of what alternative for the social housing decision is chosen after going through the value-based decision-making process, it is strongly recommended that after the decision is implemented, periodic check-ins are conducted with those who participated in the process, along with any new stakeholders, such as new members of the neighbourhood including tenants of the new social housing. The purpose of these check-ins is to review whether the values and objectives identified through the value-based decision process have actually been satisfied, as well as to discuss any new or ongoing issues and ideas for improving the social housing project.  As a final point, just as Wynne-Edwards’s (2003) findings suggested, in trying to overcome community opposition to social housing, the decision maker and facilitator should always keep an open mind about participants and stay optimistic. As time passes, as more information and knowledge about a social housing project is shared with concerned stakeholders, and as mutual trust begins to develop between stakeholders, people can indeed change their positions and become more supportive of the social housing project. This was evident in the Terwillegar case, as illustrated by these two Terwillegar residents’ quotes:  DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS   66 This has been under wraps for a long time, and our trust in those leading this is poor at best. So, how can we trust that the project leads/decision makers will even consider our concerns on the matter? So far this has been the biggest issue here.  S. S., comment on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page, 2013 July 8.  I'm finding that the more time passes, the more questions I have answered, and the less trepidation I have. I think we're going to find this is a good thing. It helps people in need, and I don't think it's going to harm us even a little.  T. H., comment on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page, 2013 July 15.   5.3. Recommendations for future research  One academic topic for future research is how stakeholders, decision makers, and the public can be encouraged or persuaded to adopt value-based decision making. This is especially pertinent for potentially controversial issues and decisions, like many decisions on social housing projects.  Of course, from both an academic standpoint and a professional perspective, it would be greatly beneficial if a future research project involves actually applying a value-based decision-making process to an ongoing decision process for a proposed social housing project. Such a research project should be done with the intent on gaining useful insight on things such as:   the degree to which different stakeholders are willing to use a value-based decision process and are willing to accept its results, o In particular, for stakeholders that are both the developer and the enabler, who likely have stronger decision-making power than separate developer and enabler stakeholders, are they more or less willing to apply value-based decision making?  whether, and how, conflicts between stakeholders are actually resolved or reduced,   the quality of the social housing alternatives that are created during a value-based decision process, and ultimately selected at the conclusion of the process, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS   67  whether a value-based decision process is able to address stakeholder values sufficiently enough that concerned or opposed individuals who might not have actively engaged in the process are satisfied despite their non-participation, and  any impacts that applying a value-based decision process to a topic or project as controversy-generating as social housing might have on processes or policies regarding other kinds of stakeholder engagement, or even any kind of public process in general, that occurs in the local jurisdiction.  CONCLUSION   68 6. CONCLUSION  I live here and I am staying. When something does go ahead you can be sure I will do my best to make it a success… M. H., comment on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page, 2013 July 15.  Conflict over a proposed social housing project is nothing new. Too often, decision makers can fall into the trap of perceiving a false dichotomy for a decision on a social housing project: either ignore the opposition and approve the housing anyway because the homelessness issue needs to be urgently addressed, or give in to the demands of the locals and cancel the housing proposal. Some suggest trying to overcome or address the conflict between stakeholders by using information and education, but others suggest people’s submerged thoughts of fear and prejudice ultimately triumph, rendering this approach unworkable. As this paper tried to show through a case study of the controversial Terwillegar social housing project in Edmonton, Alberta, there is another option: framing the debate about a social housing project around people’s values, working intimately with key stakeholders on all sides of a conflict to specify their values, and then creating alternatives for the decision based on those values. This value-based decision-making approach is workable for decisions on social housing projects, and has the real potential of reducing or resolving conflict between stakeholders’ viewpoints.    VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   69 REFERENCES  Anglican Diocese of Edmonton. (2013a, August 23). Diocese invites Terwillegar community to work together to end homelessness. Retrieved from http://edmonton.anglican.org/ecumenism/diocese-invites-terwillegar-community-to-work-together-to-end-homelessness/ Anglican Diocese of Edmonton. (2013b, November 5). Diocese looks to other affordable housing possibilities for Holy Trinity Riverbend land. Retrieved from http://edmonton.anglican.org/uncategorized/diocese-looks-to-other-affordable-housing-possibilities-for-holy-trinity-riverbend-land/ Annable, K. (2013, July 8). Church proud of social housing project. Edmonton Journal. BC Housing. (2016). Housing options. Retrieved from http://www.bchousing.org/Options Blacksher, E., Diebel, A., Forest, P., Goold, S. D., & Abelson, J. (2012). What is public deliberation? The Hastings Center Report, 42(2), 14-17. Bojer, M. (n.d.). Deep democracy in relation to dialogue processes. Retrieved from http://www.deep-democracy.net/view-page.php?page=Articles%20and%20Testimonials Bond, S. D., Carlson, K. A., & Keeney, R. L. (2008). Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? Management Science, 54(1), 56-70. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0754 Briggs, X. D. (2008). Democracy as problem solving: Civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2016). About affordable housing in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/afhoce_021.cfm CBC News. (2013, November 5). Terwillegar homeless residence dropped by church. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/terwillegar-homeless-residence-dropped-by-church-1.2356519 City of Edmonton. (2004a). Bylaw 13682 - Planning and development department report. Retrieved from http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/OcctopusDocs/Public/Complete/Reports/CC/Elected-1995/2004-05-18/13682by.doc City of Edmonton. (2004b). City Council public hearing minutes - May 18, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/council_committee_meetings/archives-city-council-2004.aspx City of Edmonton. (2011). South Terwillegar neighbourhood area structure plan. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/neighbourhoods/terwillegar-south.aspx City of Edmonton. (2014a). South Terwillegar Neighbourhood Profile. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/neighbourhoods/terwillegar-south-demographics.aspx VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   70 City of Edmonton. (2014b). Terwillegar Towne Neighbourhood Profile. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/neighbourhoods/terwillegar-towne-demographics.aspx City of Edmonton. (2015a). Route 337 schedule and map. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/ets/route-brochures-in-pdf.aspx City of Edmonton. (2015b). Route 35 schedule and map. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/ets/route-brochures-in-pdf.aspx City of Vancouver. (2016). False Creek Flats Planning Program. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/false-creek-flats.aspx Deep Democracy Limited. (2014). Facilitator manual: Deep democracy let's talk: Relationship conflict resolution. Retrieved from http://deep-democracy.net/lets-talk/docs/Lets%20Talk%20Facilitator%20Manual%20-%20Jan%202014.pdf Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness. (2009). A place to call home: Edmonton's 10 year plan to end homelessness. Retrieved from http://endedmontonhomelessness.com/index.php/10-year-plan Google. (2016). Google Maps. Retrieved from https://www.google.ca/maps Government of British Columbia. (2014). Housing matters BC: Housing strategy for British Columbia: A foundation for strong communities. Retrieved from http://www.bchousing.org/Initiatives/Housing_Matters Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness. (2016). 'NIMBY' to neighbours. Retrieved from http://victoriahomelessness.ca/get-informed/fact-sheets/ Holy Trinity Riverbend. (2013, June 26). Jasper Place Health and Wellness proposed apartment. Retrieved from http://www.htrchurch.org/community/jasper-place-health-and-wellness-proposed-apartment/ Homeward Trust Edmonton. (2016). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.homewardtrust.ca/about/homeward-trust-edmonton.php Hostmann, M., Bernauer, T., Mosler, H., Reichert, P., & Truffer, B. (2005). Multi-attribute value theory as a framework for conflict resolution in river rehabilitation. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 13, 91-102. doi:10.1002/mcda.375 Iglesias, T. (2002). Managing local opposition to affordable housing: A new approach to NIMBY. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 12(1), 78-122. Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre. (2013a, July 19). Additional Q&As (as of July 19, 2013). Retrieved from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notes/jasper-place-health-and-wellness-centre/additional-qas-as-of-july-19-2013/595724880449992 Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre. (2013b, July 5). Good neighbour agreement. Retrieved from http://jphawc.blogspot.ca/2013/07/good-neighbour-agreement.html Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre. (2013c, June 29). JPHWC project in Terwillegar question and answer (as of June 28, 2013). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/notes/jasper-place-health-and-VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   71 wellness-centre/jphwc-project-in-terwillegar-question-and-answer-as-of-june-28-2013/586462631376217 Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre. (2013d, July 11). July 10 JPHWC mythbusters. Retrieved from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notes/jasper-place-health-and-wellness-centre/july-10-jphwc-mythbusters/592470297442117 Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre. (2013e, August 23). Understanding both sides: Proposed housing development in Terwillegar. Retrieved from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=611536442202169&id=155878244434660 Jasper Place Wellness Centre. (2014). Property management. Retrieved from https://jpwc.ca/property-management/ Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. Keisler, J., Turcotte, D. A., Drew, R., & Johnson, M. P. (2014). Value-focused thinking for community-based organizations: Objectives and acceptance in local development. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2(3), 221-256. doi:10.1007/s40070-014-0032-y Kornik, S. (2013, July 11). Church at centre of controversy vandalized. Global News. Retrieved from http://globalnews.ca/news/710316/church-at-centre-of-controversy-vandalized/ Kozicka, P. (2013, July 8). Man behind controversial housing project in southwest Edmonton tries to set record straight. Global News. Retrieved from http://globalnews.ca/news/703113/man-behind-controversial-housing-project-in-southwest-edmonton-tries-to-set-record-straight/ Lazzarino, D. (2013, August 22). Hundreds pack townhall meeting to speak out for and against controversial Edmonton homeless project. Edmonton Sun. Retrieved from http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/08/22/hundreds-pack-townhall-meeting-to-speak-out-for-and-against-controversial-edmonton-homeless-project McDaniels, T. L. (1996). The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences for environmental policy alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(2), 227-251. Mindell, A. (1995). Sitting in the fire: Large group transformation using conflict and diversity. Portland, OR, USA: Lao Tse Press. Nguyen, M. T., Basolo, V., & Tiwari, A. (2013). Opposition to affordable housing in the USA: Debate framing and the responses of local actors. Housing, Theory and Society, 30(2), 107-130. doi:10.1080/14036096.2012.667833 Parnell, G. S., Hughes, D. W., Burk, R. C., Driscoll, P. J., Kucik, P. D., Morales, B. L., & Nunn, L. R. (2013). Invited review - Survey of value-focused thinking: Applications, research developments and areas for future research. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 20, 49-60. doi:10.1002/mcda.1483 Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272-290. doi:10.1177/0739456X11410979 VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS   72 Selart, M., & Johansen, S. T. (2011). Understanding the role of value-focused thinking in idea management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(3), 196-206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00602.x Stich, B., Holland, J. H., Noberga, R. A., & O'Hara, C. G. (2011). Using multi-criteria decision making to highlight stakeholders’ values in the corridor planning process. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4(3), 105-118. doi:10.5198/jtlu.v4i3.171 Stolte, E. (2016, January 18). Edmonton 'ambassador' aims to cut through conflict over subsidized housing. Edmonton Journal. Retrieved from http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-ambassador-aims-to-cut-through-conflict-over-subsidized-housing Terwillegar Community League. (2015). About the Terwillegar Community League. Retrieved from http://terwillegar.org/about.php Tighe, J. R. (2010). Public opinion and affordable housing: A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 25(1), 3-17. doi:10.1177/0885412210379974 Various authors. (2013). Jasper Place Wellness Centre. Retrieved from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Jasper-Place-Wellness-Centre-155878244434660/ Wynne-Edwards, J. (2003). Overcoming community opposition to homelessness sheltering projects under the National Homelessness Initiative. Retrieved from http://homelesshub.ca/resource/homeless-crisis-canada-if-not-my-backyard-then-whose-overcoming-community-opposition   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0300040/manifest

Comment

Related Items