UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Defining effective participation : a case study of the Vancouver International Airport Environmental… Rowson, Juliet Mary 1993

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0028.pdf [ 3.12MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087308.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087308-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087308-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087308-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087308-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087308-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087308-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Defining Effective Participation:A Case Study of the Vancouver International AirportEnvironmental Assessment and Review ProcessbyJuliet Mary RowsonB.Sc., The University of Durham, 1991A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Resource Management Science Progrannne)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRI/fH COLUMBIANovember 1993QJuliet Rowson, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)______Department of QOkYLQ MaJ,ft1A7 S’CJ€?ii(The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE-6 (2/88)AbstractSince the late 1960’s, public participation in environmental decision making hasbecome increasingly common. Such participation, however, has often been performedin an uncoordinated fashion, with little reflection upon the forms of participation whichare most effective in terms of meeting societal goals. In a democracy such as Canada,effective participation is the form of participation deemed most desirable by the generalpopulation. Therefore, the aim of this study is to obtain a ‘democratic’ definition ofeffective participation in environmental decision making. I have selected the VancouverInternational Airport Environmental Assessment and Review Process as a case study.Interviews with forty-three participants were carried out in order to determine theirdefinition of effective public participation.Public participation has been conceptualized as being composed of a primarydimension, the degree of power sharing between elected officials and the public; andfive secondary criteria which are necessary to reach effective participation in practice.These five criteria are: who is permitted to participate in environmental decisionmaking; the degree of access to resources; the nature of the participatory mechanism;the scope of the participatory process; and finally the stage in the decision makingprocess that participation is solicited.In terms of the primary dimension of participation, it was found that the consultativemodel of decision making was the most popular definition of effective participation.The Environmental Assessment and Review Process itself was a consultative process,therefore, the majority of the interviewees considered the ‘status quo’ level of powersharing to be most conducive to effective participation. Opinions of effectiveparticipation in terms of power sharing were dependent upon individuals’ participatoryexperiences, motivation for participation, and sociological makeup. In terms of the fivesecondary effectiveness criteria, a third of the participants found that the EnvironmentaliiAssessment and Review Process was already conducive to effective participation.Alternative visions of effective participation in practice were expressed, and they werecommonly associated with an individual’s motivation for participation.iiiTable of ContentsAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Tables viiList of Figures viiiAcknowledgment ixChapter 1: Introduction 11.1: AimofThesis 21.2: Thesis Approach 51.3: Scope 6Chapter 2: Literature Review 72.1: Public Participation and Democracy 72.2: Participation in Environmental 11Decision Making in Canada: Pressures forDirect Democracy2.3: Establishing a Participatory Spectrum 172.4: Defining Effective Public Participation 202.5: Other Parameters for Defining 27Effective Participation2.6: Factors Potentially Influencing 33Conceptions of Effective Public Participation2.6.1: Participatory Experience 332.6.2: Environmental Attitude 342.7: Summary 39Chapter 3: Case Study and Methodology 413.1: The Environmental Assessment and 42Review Process3.2: Vancouver Airport EARP 45iv3.3: Sampling Methodology 483.3.1: The Sampling Frame 483.3.2: Sample Selection 503.3.2.1: Stratification Criteria 503.3.2.2: Stakeholder Selection 513.4: Interview Questions 543.4.1: Eliciting Environmental 56Attitudes3.5: Summary 58Chapter 4: Dramatis Personae: Participants and 59Perceptions of EARP4.1: Setting the Stage 594.1.1: Dramatis Personae 604.1.2: Roles Assumed by the Players 654.1.3: The Players’ Perceptions of the Audience 714.2: Opinions of the Process and 73Suggested Improvements4.2.1: Opinions of EARP 734.2.2: Suggested Improvements to EARP 764.2.3: Summary of the Findings 78Concerning Participant Opinions ofthe Process and Improvements to It4.3: Participants’ Perceptions of EARP and 79Effective Public Participation4.3.1: Locating EARP on Each Continuum 794.3.2: Conceptions of Effective 82Participation According to the FiveParameters4.4: Conclusion 85Chapter 5: Defining Effective Public Participation 875.1: Participant Definitions of Effective 91Participation5.2: Explanation of Aggregate Results 935.3: Conclusions 100VChapter 6: Explaining the Varying Conceptions of 102Effective Public Participation of ThoseInterviewed6.1: Reasons for Participation, Participatory 102Experience, Gender and Definitions ofEffective Participation6.1.1: Degree of Involvement in 104Participatory Activity and Definitionsof Effective Participation6.1.2: Experience of Direct 106Democracy and Definitions ofEffective Participation6.1.3: Perceptions of Success 109or Failure and Definitions ofEffective Participation6.1.4: Motivation for Participation 112and Definitions of EffectiveParticipation6.1.5: Gender and Definitions of 114Effective Participation6.1.6: Summary 1166.2: Environmental Attitude and 117Definitions of EffectiveParticipation6.3: Conclusions 122Chapter 7: Summary and Reflections 1247.1: Summary 1247.2: Reflections 129References 133Appendix 1: Interview Questions 141Appendix 2: Participants’ Opinions of EARP 146Appendix 3: Participants’ Opinions Concerning 147Improvement of EARPAppendix 4: Summary of Participant Responses to 148Interview Questions Q, R, and SviList of Tables2.1: Examples of Government Sponsored Participatory 15Initiatives in the Late 1980’s and Early 1990’s2.2: Parameters for Evaluating Effective Participation 29from the Literature2.3: Parameters for Evaluating the Effectiveness of 31Participation According to the PluralistCritique2.4: O’Riordan’s Conception of Environmental Ideologies 36and their Associated Characteristics3.1: Stratified Sampling Matrix 523.2: Matrices of the Total Population and the 53Sample Interviewed:a: Matrix of the Total Populationb: Matrix of the Sample Interviewedc: Matrix of the Percentage of the TotalPopulation Interviewed4.1: Summary of Participant Groups Involved in 61the Vancouver Airport EARP4.2: Locating Participant Roles and Participant 71Groups in a Matrix Referring to theirParticipatory Motivation and GeographicLocation4.3: Distribution of Participant Interviews 72According to Role and Stakeholder Group6.1: Experience of Consensus Decision Making 107and Definition of Effective Participation6.2: Definition of Effective Participation and 115Gender6.3: Questions Participants Were Asked in Order 118to Elicit their Environmental AttitudevilList of Figures2.1: Participatory Implications of Theories of 11Democracy2.2: A Participatory Spectrum 192.3: A Spectrum of Definitions of Effective 22Participation from the Literature2.4: Continua for Parameters for Evaluating 32Effectiveness of Participation2.5: The Relationship between Environmental Ideology 37and Definition of Effective Participation3.1: Map of Vancouver International Airport and 46Proposed Runway4.1 Map Locating Residences of Local Participants 674.2: Spectra Conceptualizing the Roles Played by 70Participants in the Vancouver Airport EARP4.3: Locating the Vancouver International Airport 82EARP on the Participatory Continua5.1: One Individual’s Conception of the Difference 89Between Consultation and Partnership5.2: A Spectrum of Definitions of Effective 92Participation Selected by Interviewees6.1: Definitions of Effective Public Participation 105and Degree of Involvement in Participatory Activity6.2: Definition of Effective Participation and Degree of 106Involvement in Participatory Activity: A Summary6.3: Definition of Effective Participation and 110Position in Relation to Runway Construction6.4: A Spectrum of Definitions of Effective 113Participation According to Motivation forParticipation6.5: O’Riordan’s Conceptualization of 122Environmentalism Compared with the Viewsof Three IntervieweesviiiAcknowledgmentsI would like to thank members of my Masters Thesis Committee for their patientreading of my thesis drafts and for helpful comments given throughout the formulationand writing of this thesis. In addition, I thank Julia Gardner, my external examiner foruseful and thoughtful questions submitted.During my research, the Vancouver Branch of the Federal Environmental Assessmentand Review Office provided me with much necessary documentation and the muchappreciated free photocopier! I am also grateful to U.B.C. Undergraduate GeographyClass 415 who were very generous in allowing me to test my interview questions onthem. I am deeply indebted to the participants in the 1991 Vancouver AirportEnvironmental Assessment and Review Process, who were kind enough to allow me tointerview them. Without the goodwill of these individuals this thesis could not havebeen carried out.On a more personal note, I would like to thank Les Lavkulich, Nancy Dick and thestudents in the Resource Management Science Program at U.B.C. who gave muchsupport, kindness, encouragement, and provided a pleasant working environment. Iwould especially like to thank Susan Toller, Alison Blunt, Robyn Dowling, and NatalieJamieson for their much valued friendship over the last two years. Finally, I would liketo express my deep gratitude to Martin, whose encouragement and friendship remainedconstant throughout. Without his support, this thesis would surely not have beencompleted.ixChapter 1INTRODUCTIONSince the late 1960’s there has been an increase in demands made by the general publicto participate in environmental decision making. Governments have largely met thesedemands by increasing participatory opportunities in decision making processes. Thishas, however, been performed largely in an uncoordinated fashion, without any realconsideration of how such participatory activity meets overall societal goals andaspirations. If participation is a means to an end rather than an end in itself, it can beargued that participatory activity can only be considered effective if it enables the goalsof society to be reached. However, just as there is no general agreement as to whatconstitutes societal goals, there can be no universal definition of effective participation.Given that this study is set within a democracy, it can be argued that societal goals areformulated from the aggregate of individuals’ personal, as well as societal goals andaspirations. Therefore in a democracy, effective public participation is that level ofparticipation that the general population deems sufficient to meet societal objectives.Many writers have produced their own definitions of effective participation (forexample, Manheim, 1981, 330; Arnstein, 1969). However, none has claimed to haveconsulted any members of the general public when formulating their definition. Itseems rather paradoxical that these writers, who have shown themselves to beconcerned with participation, neglected to solicit any when forming their defmitions.This thesis will extend the definitions of effective participation given in the literature byconsidering directly the views of members of the public in formulating a definition for,and analysis of, effective participation.11.1 Aim of ThesisThe broad aim of this thesis is to develop a definition of effective participation byasking members of the public their views directly. I will then attempt to understandwhy respondents conceptualized effective participation as they do.Public participation is multifaceted and therefore complex. In order to define effectiveparticipation, it is first necessary to develop a theoretical conceptualization of publicparticipation. This involves identifying specific parameters which can be used toevaluate the effectiveness of participation. The pertinent literature reviewed hasidentified several parameters in this context. I argue that one of these parameters is ofparamount importance and will refer to it as the primary dimension of participation.This dimension is the degree to which decision making power is shared between electeddecision makers and members of the general public. This can be visualized as aspectrum on which the elected official has all the decision making power at oneextreme, and the general public has all the power at the other extreme. Mostcommonly, however, there is some degree of power sharing between elected officialsand members of the general public. The extent of power sharing can only be regardedas the sole criterion for effectiveness of participation if the pluralist assumption isadopted. Pluralism assumes that all members of the general public have an equal abilityto participate in decision making processes. Factors such as unequal access to resourcessuggest that such an assumption is unjustified. Therefore, five further parameters havebeen drawn from the literature in order to further defme effective participation inpractice. The first concerns which individuals and/or organizations are pennitted toparticipate. Some participatory processes bar groups of individuals from participating;for example, participants in a B.C. participatory process may not consider opinions ofthose from outside the province as being relevant. The second criterion concerns accessto resources, such as time, money, information, and expertise, which are spread2unevenly across the general population. Thirdly, the nature of the process mechanismneeds to be considered when defining effective participation. For example, publichearings can be intimidating for speakers, thereby precluding some participants fromtaking part in discussions. Fourthly, effective participation depends upon the scope ofthe process which refers to the nature and breadth of issues in which the public ispennitted to participate. The final criterion concerns the stage in a decision makingprocess in which participation is solicited. The potential impact and overall nature ofinput is likely to vary according to the stage of the decision making process in whichparticipation is solicited.In order to produce a definition of effective participation, it is first necessary to identifythe level of power sharing which is deemed most effective in terms of meeting societalgoals. Once this has been identified, the other five participatory parameters must beconsidered, as they are necessary for achieving effective participation in practice. Thepower sharing conception of effective participation is considered to be primary becauseit is the factor that has the most influence in shaping a decision. For example, aparticipatory process may be considered perfect in all matters, except that the decisionmaker’s only purpose is to inform. Hence, no matter who attends, and how well fundedparticipants are, participants will still only have minimal impact upon the decision.In order to obtain a democratic definition of effective public participation, I haveundertaken a case study methodology using the 1989-199 1 Vancouver InternationalAirport Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP). The relevant publicfor this study included those who participated in the EARP. Forty-three participants inthe process and all four panel members were interviewed.The above discussion of effective participation constitutes the broad aim of this thesis.Within it there are three specific objectives. First, is to focus on the most fundamental3dimension of participation, namely the degree to which decision making power isshared between elected decision makers and members of the public, and to locate thepoint upon the power sharing spectrum which is considered most effective byparticipants in the Vancouver Airport EARP.Second, the thesis addresses why individuals perceive effective participation in terms ofpower sharing as they do. The reason for the second objective is summed up by Pepper(1984, 2),we should listen to what others say, and reflect not necessarily upon thetruth’ of their arguments, but on why they make them or believe them, i.e.from what material or ideological vested interest position they speak, and whatbroader assumptions and philosophy serve their interest. (original emphasis)This discussion will be conducted on two levels. Firstly, the thesis explores whetherand how various personal and participatory experiential factors influence anindividual’s preferred definition of effective participation; and secondly, the thesisexamines the suggestion that conceptions of effective participation in environmentaldecision making are shaped to some extent by one’s ‘environmental attitude. ‘1Thirdly, I will explore participants’ views of effective participation in practice throughtheir perceptions of the dynamics, strengths and weaknesses of the EARP participatoryprocess. To do so, the public hearings within the EAR process can be conceptualized asa theatrical stage, onto which players congregate, adopt the role they have chosen forthemselves and say their piece. They are there to be heard, and to convince. Their goalis to persuade the audience who, as in all theatres, will ultimately be the judges of theirperformance. Their job is not an easy one. As with all actors on a set, they have tointeract with, and react to, other performers who are assuming very different roles. Inaddition, they are constrained by the context in which they are set, namely the subject1 An attitude has been defined by Schiff (1971, 8-9) as an ‘...organized set of feelings and beliefs whichinfluence an individual’s behavior’. Thus an ‘environmental attitude’ would refer to a set of feelings orbeliefs associated with environmental issues.4of the play, their own terms of reference, and the nature of their audience. In thistheatre, the players are the participants, and the audience the EARP panel. The subjectof the performance is the Vancouver International Airport EARP.The Vancouver International Airport EARP can be situated at a discrete point upon thepower sharing spectrum. By evaluating participants’ comments concerning EARP in thelight of the five participatory parameters, it is possible to develop an understanding ofhow participants conceptualize effective public participation in practice.1.2 Thesis ApproachChapter 2 reviews the literature in order to demonstrate the context from which thethree research questions have been developed. In addition, a conceptual framework issuggested for evaluating effective participation both in terms of power sharing and thefive subsidiary parameters.As already stated, the study population has been defined as the participants in theVancouver International Airport EARP. Chapter 3 explores why this particular casestudy and such a narrow sector of the public have been chosen for analysis. The chapterthen proceeds to describe the proposal to build a parallel runway, introduces the EARprocess, and discusses the methodology adopted in this study.Chapters 4, 5, and 6 present and analyze the results obtained from interviews with 43participants and four EARP panel members. In particular, Chapter 4 develops aconceptual framework of the participants within the Vancouver Airport EARP. Thiswill help illuminate participants’ views of the process, allowing an evaluation ofeffectiveness according to the five parameters. This provides the basis for assessment ofthe participants’ conceptions of effective participation in practice.5Chapters 5 and 6 present the selected definitions of effective public participation (interms of the power sharing dimension), provided by those interviewed and attempt toexplain the reasons behind the selection of these definitions.2Chapter 5 presents thedefinitions of effective participation given, and investigates the reasons whyconceptions of effective participation were as given for the sample as a whole. Chapter6 then attempts to explain the reasons behind these preferred definitions of effectiveparticipation by looking at the varying responses within the interview sample. Thisinvolves disaggregating the responses according to participants’ reasons forparticipation, participatory experience, and gender. In addition, Chapter 6 investigatesthe alleged relationship between people’s definitions of effective participation and their‘environmental attitude’. Finally, Chapter 7 will conclude by summarizing thecontribution of this study to the literature, and by discussing some of my ownreflections concerning EARP and effective participation.1.3 ScopeThe intention of this study is to achieve a definition of effective public participation forthe interviewed participants in the Vancouver International Airport EARP. Theinterviewed sample is not statistically representative of the general public. Therefore,although I speculate how the views of those interviewed may differ from the opinionsof the general public, I cannot, and do not attempt to make any concise statementsconcerning the general public’s conceptions of effective participation.2 It must be noted that my third thesis objective is discussed in the text before my first and secondobjectives. The reason for this is that whilst discussing the Vancouver Airport EARP in order to achievemy third objective, an important conceptualization of the participants in the process is developed. Thisconceptualization is then used in discussions of my first two objectives. To present each objectivesequentially would have resulted in fragmented discussions in later chapters and unnecessary confusion.6Chapter 2LITERATURE REVIEWIt has been held that this act of establishment [representative democracy] was acontract between the people and the rulers it sets over itself- a contract in whichconditions were laid down between the two parties binding the one to commandand the other to obey. It will be admitted, I am sure, that this is an odd kind ofcontract to enter into.it would come to the same thing if the name contract? were given to the actof one man who said to another: ‘I give you all my goods, on condition that yougive me back as much of them as you please’.Rousseau (1961, 81)The broader literature on public participation provides a basis for the development of atheoretical framework in which to consider effective public participation inenvironmental decision making in Canada. In particular, it is necessary to consider theambiguous relationship between participation and democracy.2.1 Public Participation and DemocracyBecause of a focus on public participation in Canada, all ensuing discussions in thisthesis will assume the existence of a democratic framework. Democracy literally means‘government by the people’ (Oxford English Dictionary), and hence participation,which means ‘a taking part (with others) in some action or matter’ (Oxford EnglishDictionary), is an essential element of democracy. Because this analysis is set within ademocratic framework, only these forms of participation which are considered to belegitimate will be considered. Forms of participation, such as rioting, are notaddressed. However, there are different interpretations of democracy, and it isimportant to review these, as an individual’s conception of legitimate publicparticipation is necessarily constrained by his/her vision of democracy.7There are two long-opposed theories of democracy, each of which is grounded in abelief in the nature of freedom (Parenteau 1988, 1). The first theory, that of directdemocracy,1stems from a belief in ‘positive freedom’. This upholds the right and dutyof individuals to be able to determine their own lives. Direct democracy involves “thedirect rule of the people themselves as a body without superior authority set over them”(Hirst 1990, 23).This form of democracy can be traced back to the origins of democratic thought andpractice in Athenian Democracy (Mayo 1960, 35), and was supported by suchphilosophers as John Stuart Mill and Rousseau (Pateman 1970, 21). From about theeighteenth century to the 1960’s, however, it has been considered unnecessary inmodern Western politics because of an increasing division of labour and individualspecialization. However, since the 1960’s the concepts of direct democracy have beenrevived (Quaker 1986, 267) and to some extent implemented within the political arena.In contrast, ‘negative freedom’ involves a belief in the right of individuals to beprotected from intrusion and coercion by other people (Gibson 1975, 27). Thisprovides a rationale for the existence of the second theory of democracy, namelyrepresentative democracy.2 ALthough forms of representative democracy have beenpracticed for hundreds of years (Arbiaster 1987, 82), it was first formulated as adistinct theory by Joseph Schumpeter in 1943 in his book, Capitalism, Socialism andDemocracy (Pateman 1970, 3). He conceived of democracy as a political method andstated that1 Direct Democracy has also been termed Participatory Democracy (Qualter 1986, 267; Pateman 1970,42) and face-to-face democracy (Mayo 1960, 42).2 Also termed Elected Democracy (Parenteau 1988, 1).It must be noted that forms of representative government did not surface within Upper and LowerCanada until 1850 (Fairley, undated, 9).8the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at politicaldecisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of acompetitive struggle for the people’s vote. (Schumpeter, third edition, 1950,269)Considerable debate exists between the proponents of each form of democracy.Controversy stems from different assumptions as to the essence of human nature. Twotheories are commonly advanced (for example by Gibson, 1975, 11 and Warren, 1992,8). The first theory conceives humans as being ‘consumers’, and is assumed byproponents of representative democracy. This vision of human nature has its origins innineteenth century liberal thought (Warren 1992, 8). As Gibson (1975, 22) explains:The elite theorists’ (supporters of representative democracy) opposition towidespread and significant public participation rests on their fundamentalassumption that individuals are essentially selfish and insatiably desirousconsumers of satisfactions whose interactions are necessarily typified byopposing interests and conflict.... Consequently, the consumer assumption leadselite theorists to conclude that the exercise of power by elite rulers is required ifthe necessarily conflicting demands of individuals are to be prevented fromdisrupting the continued and expanding provision of consumables.Individuals are required to vote periodically to ensure that elected decision makers areheld accountable for their actions, and partnership or citizen control are seen asunnecessary or even undesirable.The second conception of human nature regards humans as being ‘exerters’. They areboth social beings and self-determining. Because these needs are not satisfied under asystem of representation, some commentators (for example, Gibson 1975) regardrepresentative democracy as being unethical. Supporters of direct democracy declarethat it alone allows individuals “to be informed, interested and involved citizens whohave a sense of control over their own lives” (Olsen 1982, 22). They argue thatparticipation in decision making is not merely a means to an end. Instead, participationis regarded as an end in itself for two reasons. Firstly, John Stuart Mill (1946 ,150) hasemphasized its value as an educator, and Warren (1992, 8) and Gibson (1975, 23)9discuss its value in leading to a positive self-transformation of the participatingindividual.Other debates between the proponents of direct and representative democracy concernthe practicality of direct democracy. Stankiewicz (1980, 164) has commented that thegeneral public is on the whole not competent enough for decision making. However,Pateman (1970, 42-43) has argued that the more that individuals are enabled toparticipate, the ‘better’ they will become at it. Stankiewicz (1980, 164) arguedhowever, that society is too fragile and complex to permit such a trial and errorapproach to decision making.A related criticism concerning the practicality of direct democracy has been raised byQualter (1986, 268). He claims that the general public would not be interested inparticipating, and that there is often a feeling of general apathy with respect toparticipation. This has been noted especially amongst the less educated (Milbrath andGoel 1977, 47-8). However, Gibson (1975, 25) believed that such apathy is notsurprising given that the vast majority of the public have never been given a chance toparticipate. He claimed that elite theorists assume people are naturally apathetic, whenin fact they have been socially conditioned to be so. Hirst (1990, 23) and Wengert(1976, 33) have challenged the practicality of direct democracy from a differentperspective. They concede that it may have been possible once, but that society is toolarge and complex today for it to work.Such debates illuminate the forms of participatory action considered adequate andlegitimate under each form of democracy. If society subscribes to a pure representativedemocracy, then in theory, the only necessary and legitimate participatory activitywould be voting for elected representatives. Elected representatives would then be ableto make all public decisions, being held accountable periodically at the ballot box. In10contrast, if a pure direct democracy were considered the ideal, then voting for oneperson to represent a constituency on all matters would be undemocratic. Instead,individuals would participate directly in decision making, perhaps using mechanismssuch as binding referenda, voting on individual issues at town meetings, or stakeholdergroups negotiating an acceptable resolution. This discussion suggests that there are onlytwo discrete forms of participation which are consistent with democratic theory (seefigure 2.1). Of course, in practice there is a spectrum of participation which rangesbetween these bipolar extremes. Such a discussion of democratic theory leaves open thequestion of how such considerations of democracy and participation relate to actualparticipatory experiences. In order to elucidate the nature of the spectrum of forms ofparticipation, the recent history of participation in environmental decision making isexplored below.Figure 2.1Participatory Implications ofTheories of DemocracyDirect Democracy Representative Democracy* > *2.2 Participation in Environmental Decision Making in Canada: Pressures forDirect DemocracyCanada is primarily a representative democracy. However, recently emerging voiceshave been increasingly calling for direct means of participating in environmentaldecision making. This evolution of citizen participation since the emergence ofrepresentative democracy has been summarized by Tester (1992, 37-8):11Three distinct but overlapping phases of citizen participation can be identifiedwithin the history of liberal democracies. The first phase centered on gradualextension of the right to vote.... A second phase... was characterized by astrong commitment to representative democracy and the development of alimited form of the welfare state.... It was also dominated by social valueswhich included respect for authority and expertise.... The third phase began inthe mid to late 1960’s, a period often characterized as a time of rising socialconcern and activism.., citizen participation was something actively demandedby the public.This third phase of citizen participation coincided with a dramatic rise in environmentalawareness in North America (one manifestation of the ‘rising social concern’), whichhas been dated from 1968 (Paehlke 1992, 18). Hence, it is not surprising that,citizen participation was an important part of the early stages of theenvironmental era.... More than that, environmentalists have consistentlypressed at every opportunity for more and more effective means of involving theeducated and general public in decision-making processes. (Paehlke 1990, 41)Several reasons have been given as to why there has been a general increase indemands to participate in environmental decision making from the late 1960’s until thepresent day. These may all be viewed as symptomatic of people becoming dissatisfiedwith being ‘consumers’ and of their desire to be ‘exerters’. Firstly, Sadler (1978, 3)and Webb (1990, 218) point to a disillusionment with our elected officials. Sewell andO’Riordan (1976, 2) write that this disillusionment has occurred as government hasfrequently misidentified the desires of the public; however, Nord and Weller (1983,252) have attributed it to increased alienation experienced by the general public.4Inglehart (1977, 4) on the other hand, has two alternative explanations for increasingdemands to participate. Firstly, he suggests the existence of a decline in the perceivedlegitimacy of such constructions as hierarchical authority, patriotism, and religion,which leads to a decline in confidence in institutions. Secondly, there is a shift in theAccording to Marxist analysis, alienation will lead to a struggle for power by the alienated groups,leading to a loss of faith in elected decision makers and greater demands to participate. Wengert (1976,28) and Kierans (1985, 32) attributed this feeling of alienation to increasing government centralization,with resulting removal of local decision making power. In contrast, Nord and Weller (1983, 252) haveattributed it to the conflicting interests of groups in society, to which government has been unable torespond adequately.12balance of political skills between elites and the masses. As the general public becomeincreasingly better educated and politically aware, they demand to have a greater inputinto decision making. Finally, Tester (1992, 34) regards the increasing demands toparticipate as being a case of positive feedback where,the positive steps toward openness and participation won by environmentalactivists and others have encouraged a general expansion of public expectationsabout being consulted on a wide range of policy matters.The most well known example of this in Canada is the celebrated Berger Inquiry of1975 which was set up to review a proposed natural gas pipeline in the Arctic.Since the 1970’s, governments have largely responded to these participatory demandsand heightened environmental concern by creating formalized environmental decisionmaking processes which allow for public consultation. In Canada, several processeswere established in the 1970’s in the field of environmental impact assessment,including the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process Cabinet Directive(1973) and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (1975). The processesincorporated in this Directive and Act involve participation in the form of publichearings.The Berger Inquiry established several participatory procedural precedents including theprovision of participant funding, and use of alternative participatory formats to thepublic hearing, for example, preliminary and community hearings (Smith 1987a, 217).This inquiry became a role model for later participatory exercises, as Smith (1987a,223) explains:If the Berger Inquiry characterized the state-of-the-art regarding participatorypractice in Canada, it has been the repercussions of the Berger experience thathave defined recent practice. The Berger Inquiry created an awareness and anexpectation of how public participation should be practiced in Canada....In spite of these precedents, later participatory activity did not fulfill the expectationsthat the Berger Inquiry had cultivated. The expense of the Inquiry in terms of time and13money resulted in government reluctance to initiate repeat performances (Reed 1984,29). Such government attitudes were compounded by the economic recession during thelate 1970’s and early 1980’s which resulted in budgetary cutbacks, narrowing the termsof reference for public participation programmes. This has led to considerabledisillusionment in post-Berger participatory practice in Canada (Smith 1987a, 224).This disillusionment with participation, combined with a renewed wave ofenvironmental concern in the late 1980’s (Paehlke 1992, 18), and the recommendationsfor enhanced public participation in the Brundtland Report (World Commission onEnvironment and Development, 1987) prompted federal and provincial governments toreview their participatory infrastructures. This resulted in the formation of participatoryformats which were very different from the traditional public hearing that was sopopular in the 1970’s. The new processes were frequently based upon consensusdecision making, involving members of the public representing different interests, butlike the earlier governmental initiatives, they tended to be advisory in nature. Examplesof such processes from the late 1980’s until the present day in Canada are listed in table2.1.14Table 2.1Name Date MandateFormedFraser River EstuaryManagement Plan (FREMP)(FREMP 1988, 1)Remedial Action Plans (RAPs)(Hartig and Hartig, 1990)Federal Round Table(B.C. Round Table 1993, 26)B.C. Provincial Round Table(B.C. Round Table 1993, 27)B.C.Commission on Resourcesand the Environment (CORE)(CORE 1993, 1)1985 to provide the meansfor accommodating agrowing population andeconomy, whilemaintaining the qualityand productivity of theFraser Estuary’snatural environment1985 to clean up the GreatLakes Basin1989 to provide leadershipin the new way we mustthink about therelationship betweenthe environment and theeconomy and the new waywe must act1990 to consult with thepeople in the provinceabout land conflictsand a sustainabledevelopment strategy1992 to consult with thepublic about developingand implementing a landuse and relatedresource and environmental managementstrategy for theprovinceExamples of Government SDonsored Participatory InitiativesIn the Late 1980’s and Early 1990’s15All of these initiatives involved governmental reactions to public demands toparticipate. However, beyond this, there have also been several recent local initiativesby citizens constructing their own decision making processes independently ofgovernment, suggesting the existence of further demand to participate in environmentaldecision making over and above what is offered by governments. These initiatives oftenrecommend participatory management, frequently along the lines of co-management.5Examples from British Columbia include the Hazelton Framework for WatershedManagement6(Hazelton, 1991) and the Tin Wis Coalition7 (Pinkerton, 1993; Tester,1992) which have both proposed co-management approaches to forest practices.Another example has been the extension and adaption of the government initiated roundtables by communities who have formed their own local versions, such as the HoweSound Round Table.8Thus, it can be seen that government-minded environmental assessments have tended toinvolve consultation with members of the general public. More recent governmentinitiatives, although still consultative in nature, tend to have a broader mandate and thecommitment to consensus and the diverse nature of individuals involved at least ensuresthat all viewpoints are considered. The Remedial Action Plans9 (table 2.1), institutedby the government of Ontario, are a step even closer towards direct democracy as thegovernment has entered into joint decision making with the public. In addition, sinceCo-management usually develops around common property resources and usually involves genuinepower sharing between community-based managers and government agencies (Pinkerton 1993, 37).° In 1991, the Village of Hazelton recommended a set of principles and rules of practice for sustainableforestry in B.C. The aim was to reduce the number of confrontations between communities, the forestindustry and government.The Tin Wis is a coalition of different interest groups who proposed a model Forest Practices Act forB.C. in 1991.8 The Howe Sound Round Table was launched on 14th July, 1993. Members of the Round Table comefrom major stakeholder groups in the area and they work on a consensus basis. The broad aim of theRound Table is advisory, to attempt to balance environmental, social and economic interests in the HoweSound region.These were set up by the Province of Ontario to clean up the Great Lakes Basin. The project dependson the full and effective involvement of all stakeholders, both in the development and implementation ofRemedial Action Plans (Hartig and Hartig 1990, 26).16the 1970’s there has been an evolutionary change in public demands from consultationtowards a demand for direct democracy, as members of the public are beginning todefine problems and attempt to resolve them using participatory processes which areeither joint with, or independent of government.Therefore, both the public demands to participate in environmental decision makingand governmental responses to them seem to be moving the decision making fulcrumaway from the representative participation of the 1960’s towards participationcongruent with direct democracy. This trend in environmental decision making has alsobeen noted by Tester (1992, 38), who states:The record of gains for citizen participation in the 1970’s and 1980’s has beenlargely in accord with Arnstein’s depiction10. Under citizen pressure,governments have moved slowly to allow increasing direct citizen involvementin a variety of areas, including environmental policy and regulation.2.3 Establishing a Participatory SpectrumConsideration of practical experiences of environmental decision making in Canadasuggests modifications to the bipolar theory of democratic participation summarized infigure 2.1. The representative democracy conception of participation has effectivelybeen expanded, due to public pressure, in the direction of direct democracy. As aconsequence, several additional points can be identified on the participatory spectrum(figure 2.2) which ranges from the one extreme of citizen control to representativedecision making at the other.Within the rubric of representative democracy, three forms of decision making haveemerged. Representative decision making (A on figure 2.2) is the classic form ofparticipation under representative democracy, and refers to a situation where an elected10 Amstein (1969) produced a ladder of citizen participation which is mentioned in section 2.4. Shebasically envisions society moving up the ladder, where the bottom rung corresponds with purerepresentative democracy, and the top, direct democracy.17individual makes decisions without consulting the general public. A slightly moreparticipatory form of decision making is informative decision making (B), whichinvolves minimal public contact. The public contact that does occur tends to be a one-way flow of information and views. For example, the decision makers ‘educate’ thepublic to come round to their own viewpoint. There is little interest in obtaining thepublic’s views. Consultation (C), the second modification of representative democracy,has been defined differently by various authors in the literature. For example,Parenteau (1988, 6-7) defines it as,a process in which an authority voluntarily enters into interaction with thepublic and invites comments on a pending decision. It commits itself to takingthese contributions into account in the decision making process, so as to balancethe interests of the parties involved.In contrast, Dorcey and Riek (1987, 8) consider it to occur,when an individual or organization consults with other individuals andorganizations before making the trade-offs and imposing the decision.In Parenteau’ s definition, if the authority decides to consult with the public, then theyare obliged to take the public’s views into consideration, whereas in Dorcey and Riek’ sdefinition, there is no such requirement. The definition that has been used on thespectrum above is the one provided by Dorcey and Riek because it is similar to thedefinition of ‘consultation’ used in the Environmental Assessment and Review Process.Thus, the definition given by Parenteau would fall to the left of consultation on thespectrum above. Hence, the only forced accountability of the decision maker under theconsultative model is at the polls.18Figure 2.2A Participatory SpectrumDIRECT DEMOCRACY REPRESENTATWE DEMOCRACY.-.--- >CI RT EI C PZ P 0 I RE A N N EN R S F ST U 0 EC N L R No E T M TN R A A AT S T T TR H I I Io i 0 0 0L P N N NI I I I ICE) (0) (C) (B) (A)Direct democracy encompasses two major elements on the spectrum. The first of theseis partnership (D) which in its true sense involves the sharing of decision making powerbetween elected officials and non-governmental players (Phillips 1991, 185). Phillipswarns that this term is often interpreted differently by governmental departments and issometimes “used as nothing more than tinsel to adorn an existing arrangement” (p185).This study uses the word partnership in its ‘true sense’11. The second form of directdemocracy is ‘citizen control’ (E) which occurs when members of the public reachdecisions amongst themselves. In theory, citizen control would only occur within adirect democratic framework, where there would be no traditional elected officials. Inpractice, it also occurs within representative democracy, where there are ‘enclaves’ ofdirect democracy within a broader representative framework. Where this occurs,classify partnership as a form of direct democracy because it allows all citizens to become directlyinvolved in decision making, even if it allows the elected decision maker to enter into the decisionmaking process.19elected officials do not take part in the decision making process, and are just requiredto help implement the decision that is reached. In Canada, there are very few examplesof where citizen control decision making is practiced. However, some First Nationscurrently have control over aspects of education (for example the Nisga’ a from BritishColumbia) and may gain control in other areas in the future.Informative and consultative decision making processes are simply a modification ofexisting representative participation and are part of representative democracy. They arethe result of reformist reactions to the problems associated with a pure representativedemocracy. In contrast, citizen control and partnership are regarded as being part ofdirect democracy, and have developed as a more radical reaction to representativeparticipation.2.4 Defining Effective Public ParticipationPublic participation is defined as any activity which falls upon the power sharingspectrum ranging from voting for an elected representative, to citizen control overdecision making. However, the central question to be addressed is what is effectivepublic participation.Rosener (1978, 459) comments that considerations of effective participation can occurat two levels. These depend on whether participation is regarded as a means to an endor an end in itself (as proponents of direct democracy assert, as discussed in section2.1). Consideration of participation as an end in itself is important, but beyond thescope of this study which focuses on participation as a means to an end, the end beingthe attainment of various societal goals. Therefore, participatory activity can only beconsidered to be effective if it helps to achieve these goals.20A search of the environmental decision making literature was undertaken in order togauge recent conceptions of effective participation. Thirteen definitions of effectiveparticipation were identified and they are located on the spectrum according to who hasthe ultimate decision making power, the elected representatives or the public (figure2.3). Where the elected decision maker has ultimate decision making power, thedefinitions are located according to how much participatory input they solicit beforereaching their decision. It must, however, be emphasized that choosing where to locatedifferent definitions on such a spectrum is subjective.1) The Canadian Nuclear Association (1980, 66) viewed participation as fulfilling thefollowing role;the primary purpose of the process [public participation] should be todemonstrate to the public that right decisions are being made for, on balance,the right reasons.This involves a one-way flow of information from the decision makers to the concernedpublic. It allows no input from the public and hence is a classic definition ofinformative decision making.2) The study group on Environmental Assessment Hearing Procedures (1988, 18)defined effective participants as ‘those who the panel listens to most of the time’. Thisimplies that the decision maker only has to listen to citizens for involvement to beeffective; there is no notion of their views having to be heeded. Thus, such a definitionis congruent with consultative decision making.3) Manheim (1981, 330) had the following views concerning participation:There must be full opportunity for timely and constructive involvement ofaffected interests in the process, such that every interest -individual or groupthat may potentially be affected by the changes being considered has full andtimely access to all relevant information and has full opportunity to influencethe process constructively.21Figure 2.3A Spectrum of Definitions of Effective ParticipationFrom The LiteratureDIRECT DEMOCRACY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY><CI RT EI C Pz P 0 I RE A N N EN R S F ST U 0 EC N L R No E T M TN R A A AT S T T TR H I I Io i 0 0 0L P N N NI I I I I I II II I12 10 9 8 7 6 54 32 113 11Key:1= Canadian Nuclear Association (1980)2= Study Group on Environmental Assessment Hearing Procedures (1988)3= Manheim (1981)4= Lucas and McCallum (1975)5= Jainetal. (1981)6 = Sewell and O’Riordan (1976)7= UN Conference on Habitat (1976)8 = Connor (1972)9= Gibson (1975)10= Manty et al. (1974)11= Goldenberg and Frideres (1986)12= Arnstein (1969)13= Tester (1989; 1992)22The statement suggests that the participants will gain direct access to the decisionmaker. However, the statement ‘opportunity to influence the process constructively’implies that decision makers are not obliged to take their views into account. It is up tothe participants to seize the opportunity to attempt to influence them, leaving the onuson the participant, not the decision maker.4) Lucas and McCallum (1975, 313) believed that the public should be involved inenvironmental impact assessments,first, as a contributor to decision-making and second, as a scrutineer to ensurethat the proper procedures are followed.Not only should the public have a voice, but the word ‘contributor’ suggests that theirvoice should be taken into account at least to some extent when decisions are made.5) Jam et al. (1981, 128) state that several conditions must be met for effectiveparticipation. First, as much information as possible should be made available to thepublic. Second, community members must have access to the decision process. Third,the input provided by citizenry should result in a course of action consistent with thedesires and needs of their fellow community members. Thus, not only are participantsallowed to voice their opinions, the final decision should also reflect their interests.6) Sewell and O’Riordan (1976, 16) wrote thatthe ultimate aim of participation is community particlpatoly design wherecitizens, resource professionals and politicians work together to resolvelegitimate disagreements and fairly allocate environmental resources.They then add:Maybe on grounds of practicality and political realism it is neither possible nordesirable to raise the level of public involvement much beyond what is found insome of the more advanced participatory programs today.... Effectiveparticipatory experiments are expensive and time consuming, requiring highlytrained skills of communication and group problem solving that are not readilyfound among resource managers of today, nor yet widely taught in theprofessional syllabuses. Hence, in the absence of a tremendous amount offorethought, good faith and patience, most participatory programs will probablyfail. Indeed they may even prove to be counterproductive in the sense that23sincerely motivated citizens may become deeply frustrated, resentful and cynicalabout the whole political process and the holders of power. (19-20)The authors seem to believe that partnership is optimal, yet they are more cautious inpractice. Because of this, they have been placed between consultation and partnershipon the spectrum.7) The U.N. Conference on Habitat (1978, 88) assumed that:Public Participation is the dynamic incorporation of the people in the economic,social, and political life of a country which would ensure that the beneficiary isan effective participant in collective decisions with regard to the common good.The words dynamic incorporation’ and ‘collective decisions’ suggest that individualsare very much more involved in the decision making process than proposed by authorsnumber 1 to 6. Nevertheless, there is no specific allusion to power sharing betweencitizens and traditional decision makers.8) Connor (1972, 15) wrote that constructive citizen participation is a process whichprovides an opportunity for citizens, planners, managers and elected representatives toshare their experience, knowledge and goals and to combine their energy to create aplan which is acceptable by most affected people.9) Gibson (1975, 7) discussed the necessity of a broad redistribution of decision-making power if significant and effective public participation is to be permitted andencouraged. His paper justifies the necessity of direct over representative democracy.He wanted elected decision makers to redistribute much of their power, but there is nomention of them losing all their powers. Hence, traditional decision makers are likelyto still be involved in the process, even if marginally so.10) To Manty et al. (1974):Effective community participation is a community acting with full information,equal access to decision-making institutions, and implementing its jointlyarticulated objectives.2411) Goldenberg and Frideres (1986, 273) defined real participation as the “involvementof members of the public in a decision-making capacity”.Although the writers of definitions 10 and 11 advocate direct democracy, they do notexclude representative decision makers from participating in their official role, and aretherefore not definitions of pure citizen control. In contrast, definitions 12 and 13correspond to citizen control. Neither allow elected decision makers to be involved indecision making in their professional capacity12 (although they may be involved indecision implementation).12) For Arnstein, effective public participation occurs when rung 8 on her participatoryladder is reached. This is where “have-not citizens obtain the majority of the decisionmaking seats or full managerial power” (1969, 217). She warns against participationwithout complete power redistribution using the following example (216):Je participe,tu participes,il participe,nous participons,vous participez,us profitent.13) For Tester (1989), an ideal approach to public participation in environmental andsocial impact assessment would be whenlocal communities conduct their own research, and develop their ownconsciousness and positions through sharing knowledge and experience.This description does not intuitively fit onto the spectrum as there is no comment on theallocation of decision making power. However, Tester (1992, 38) did discuss thedesirability of community management over environmental resources.12 It must be noted that writers have different ideas of how to reach direct democracy. For example,Arnstein implies that she envisions society climbing up her ladder of citizen participation in a reformistmaimer, until it finally reaches ‘citizen control’. In contrast, Tester envisions a paradigm shift in orderfor citizen control to be reached, presumably as society ‘flips’ from a representative to a directframework. He envisions a much more radical (if not revolutionary) approach to change, where onewould move straight from the current system to citizen control.25It can be seen clearly how definitions of effective public participation vary from authorto author. It has been previously mentioned that demands to participate have becomestronger since the late 1960’s, and hence it might be expected that the definitions on thespectrum would reflect this. However, this does not seem to be the case, anddefinitions are not found on the spectrum in any chronological order. It seems likelythat the reason for this is that academic opinion does not necessarily mirror publicopinion at all. This is not surprising considering that none of the writers of thedefinitions appeared to have consulted with any members of the general public whilefonnulating their ideas of effective participation. Instead of tightly following, or evenleading public opinions and trends, the definitions in the literature are probably moreinfluenced by an individual’s personal outlook. Some writers tend to be more utopianand radical, whereas others are more conservative.I would argue that no single definition is more correct than any other, because there isno ‘right’ definition of effective participation. Each individual’s definition of effectiveparticipation is dependent upon his/her particular conception of both his/her own andsociety’s goals. There is a wide range of opinion as to what comprises society’s goals.In a democracy, the level of participation should be in accordance with the wishes ofthe general public and this should constitute the working definition of effectiveparticipation. This definition of effective participation is likely to be transient asopinions are reconstituted over time.I have not encountered any authors who have professed to having asked the public itsviews concerning effective participation, which surely is a first step towards achievingeffective public participation in practice. This is a significant gap in the literature, andforms the focus of this thesis. Therefore, I will address my first thesis objective, toobtain a ‘democratic’ definition of effective participation, using the participants in theVancouver Airport EARP as a sample population. Results are presented in Chapter 5.262.5 Other Parameters for Defining Effective ParticipationIn Chapter 1, effective participation has been defined in this thesis as the point on thepower sharing spectrum which was most ‘desirable’ (i.e. in accordance with the wishesof the general public). However, the conception of effective public participation assimply a point on a power sharing spectrum requires the assumptions of the pluralisticmodel of democracy. A pluralist philosophy involves:the belief that democratic values can be preserved in a system of multiple,competing elites who determine public policy through a process of bargainingand compromise, in which voters exercise meaningful choices in elections andnew elites can gain access to power. (Dye and Zeigler 1978, 10)The pluralist model assumes that interests are equal in their opportunity to influence thefinal decision (Lang and Armour 1980, 304). In practice, however, this is not the caseas unequal access to both resources and decision makers render some groups ofindividuals better able to influence a decision than others. In addition, just as thepluralist model ignores the fact that some sectors of society have less access to decisionmakers than others, the model pays no attention to which environmental decisions areopen for participatory input, and which are not. Thus, the pluralist model must berejected as being an unrealistic representation of society because it conceptualizeseffective public participation solely in terms of the degree of power sharing betweenelected officials and the public and ignores these other considerations.These two criticisms of the pluralist model must be addressed if a workable conceptionof effective public participation is to be reached. The relevant literature has beenreviewed to identify parameters which have been used to define effective participation(table 2.2). These ‘effectiveness’ parameters identify practical mitigation measureswhich attempt to negate the criticisms of the pluralist model (summarized in table 2.3).These parameters therefore constitute further components to the definition of effectiveparticipation.27The extent to which decision making power is shared between elites and the public (#1in table 2.2) is recognized by at least five writers as important. The other parameterscan be categorized according to the two identified criticisms of the pluralist philosophy,namely unequal interest representation, and lack of attention to which decisions areopen for participatory input, and which are not. There are two parameters identified inthe literature which will not used in this study. First is citizen organization, whichrefers to the degree to which participating citizens are organized. Citizen organizationis independent of any participatory process, and because this study is interested inevaluating a process with respect to effective participation, this factor is not a relevantconsideration. Second, is the awareness criterion which refers to the amount ofawareness and education created by participation (Smith 1993, 70). This effectivenesscriterion will not be used in this study because it regards participation as an end initself. As was discussed in section 2.4, such considerations are beyond the scope of thisstudy.Interest representation refers to whether all interests are represented in the process ornot. The literature suggests that interest representation can be gauged in three differentways. First, ‘who’ participates refers to whether everyone has equal legitimacyparticipating. Participatory processes can be closed to some people; for example, aprocess may only allow participants within a certain geographic region to participate.Second, access to resources is recognized as essential for effective public participation.Resources include time, money, information, expertise, and organizational andadministrative support. Inaccessibility to resources can preclude various interests andindividuals from being heard. Finally, the process mechanism adopted can restrict someindividuals and interests from participating by being inherently biased against somepopulation groups. For example, some participatory processes may be culturally28Table 2.2Parameters for Evaluating Effective ParticipationFrom the LiteratureEffective- Lang and Jam eta!. Lucas (1978, Mitchell Smith (1993, Commentsness Armour (1981, 128) 44) (1989, 117- 70)Criteria (1980, 303- 120)6)1) Power x x x x x 1) PrimarySharing Criterion2)Who x x x 2),3)andParticipates 4) areRelated3) Access to x x x x x to InterestResources Representation4) Mechan- x xism5) Scope x x 5) and 6)Refer6)Stage x x totheOpenness of7) Citizen x the ProcessOrganization 7) and 8) areNot Included8) Awareness x in myanalysisDefinitions of Effectiveness Parameters:1) Power Sharing: The degree that decision making power is shared between elected representatives andthe general public.2) Who Participates: Concerns whether a participatory process bars certain individuals fromparticipating.3) Access to Resources: Degree of access to resources, such as time, money and information.4) Mechanism: Concerns whether a participatory mechanism is inherently biased against someparticipants.5) Scope: The nature and breadth of issues in which the public are allowed to participate.6) Stage: The stage in the process in which participation is permitted.7) Citizen Organization: The degree to which participating citizens are organized.8) Awareness: Degree of awareness and education created by participation.29inappropriate; indigenous peoples may fmd community meetings to be more conduciveto effective participation than a judicial public hearing. With respect to the secondcriticism levelled at the pluralist model, namely that it does not address which issuesare open for participatory debate, two indicator parameters were identified in theliterature. The scope of the process refers to the nature and breadth of issues that thepublic are permitted to participate in. Stage refers to the stage of the process whenparticipation is permitted. Stage is related to scope in that if people participate earlier ina decision making process, the scope is often broader than if they participate at the end,when many issues have already been determined.These five parameters are used for evaluating the effectiveness of public participation inpractice. Each one can be conceptualized on a continuum. Every participatory processcan be located at a point on each of these continua (as well as on the power sharingspectrum). Effective public participation can also be visualized as a point on eachcontinuum. Thus, a democratic definition of effective participation is the combinationof discrete points on each continuum which is deemed most effective by the generalpopulation.Figure 2.4 illustrates the five continua that have been developed for the parameterswhich will be used to determine effective participation. The continuum pertaining towho is permitted to participate ranges from open (where anyone can participate) torestricted participation (some stakeholders are banned from participating). Access toresources can be visualized as a spectrum ranging from very uneven resourcedistribution between interests (the status quo) to one where each participant has equalaccess to resources. The participatory mechanism is represented as a spectrum whichranges from being accessible to all stakeholders to inaccessible to some interest groups.A participatory mechanism would be considered to be accessible, for example, if it was30Table 2.3Parameters for Evaluating theEffectiveness of ParticipationAccording to the Pluralist CritiqueAssumptions of the Pluralist ParametersModelInterest Representation Who is allowed to participate(all interests have equal Resource Distributionability to be represented Participatory Mechanismin the participatoryprocess)Decisions in which partici- Scope of discussionspation is solicited Stage of participation in(Is not concerned with processwhich decisions are openfor participatory input andwhich are not)culturally appropriate for all participants. The scope of a participatory process can varyfrom a very narrow scope, which only seeks ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses to an issue, to anundefmed scope, where participants can discuss whatever they like. Stage ofparticipatory activity varies on an axis from idea conception to the end of a processwhen the final decision is made.The pluralist model does not acknowledge the importance of any of these parameters;they are simply ignored. In a society adhering to the pluralist model, the parameterswho is permitted to participate, the participatory mechanism, scope, and stage areconsidered independent factors which will not preclude or advance the achievement ofeffective participation. In contrast, the pluralist philosophy requires the resource accessparameter to be uneven, at the far right of the continuum, as it assumes equal ability toinfluence decision makers without a reallocation of resources. In this study, I have31rejected the pluralist model because it is an untrue and unfair representation of society,and hence, for effective participation to occur, the resource access parameter has to bemodified at least to some extent from the far right of the continuum.These five spectra provide the framework for achieving the final thesis objective. Oncea location on the power sharing spectrum (figure 2.2) has been selected, then the fiveparameters can be employed to evaluate the effectiveness of participation in practice.The five parameters have been tied to a discrete point upon the power sharing spectrumrather than being considered in an abstract fashion because the level of each which isdeemed effective will vary with the degree of power sharing. For example, equalaccess to resources during informative decision making may be considered lessimportant than during citizen control decision making.Figure 2.4Continua for Parameters forEvaluatin2 Effectiveness of ParticipationWho is Permitted to Access to ResourcesParticipateClosed orRestricted Even UnevenParticipatory Mechanism ScopeNarrowlyAccessible Inaccessible Undefined DefinedI I IStageBeginning End(Idea Conception) (Project Implementation)322.6 Factors Potentially influencing Conceptions of Effective Public ParticipationThe second thesis objective is an attempt to explain why individuals perceive effectiveparticipation (in terms of power sharing) as they do. The literature discusses thepotential influence of previous participatory experience and an individual’senvironmental attitude in shaping conceptions of effective participation. Thus, thethesis will attempt to discern the extent to which these shape participants’ views ofeffective participation. The theoretical basis for each is discussed in turn.2.6.1 Participatory ExperienceThe impacts of participatory experience upon views of effective participation have beendeveloped in the literature along two lines. Combining the conclusions of Leighley(1991, 209), Ginsburg (1982, 182) and Madsen (1987, 571), it is suggested that if aparticipant perceives him/herself to have been successful within a participatory process,(s)he is more likely to support (or be neutral towards) a form of participation which iscongruent with the status quo. In addition, (s)he is more likely to support participationin the future. In contrast, if a participant is unsuccessful, (s)he is more likely toperceive government as unresponsive and will seek more radical alternatives.Secondly, the degree to which an individual participated within a given process mayaffect her/his definition of effective public participation. Finkel (1985, 908, 909)implied that a low level of involvement within a participatory process may cause anincrease in the feeling of process legitimacy. More time-consuming involvement withina participatory process may lead to neutral or negative feelings of this process. Hence,those very involved would have a more radical definition of effective participation andthose less involved may be content with the status quo.332.6.2 Environmental Attitudeo ‘Riordan (1981, 376) has implied that there is a relationship between environmentalideology and conceptions of effective participation within environmental decisionmaking. He has made this connection while developing a conceptualization ofenvironmental ideologies (O’Riordan 1977, 1981, 1985a, 1990) in the form of aspectrum of environmentalism which ranges from technocentrism to ecocentrism.According to O’Riordan (1977, 6):Technocentrism is associated with professional and managerial elitism, scientificrationality, and optimism. It is utilitarian to the core....In contrast, ecocentrists,not only believe in the finiteness of the earth... [they] also accept that nohabitable future is possible without a fundamental change of attitudes away froma sense of technological hubris towards a much more humble and humaneapproach of harmony with ecological processes and a sense of true associationwith the earth. (O’Riordan 1981, 377)On this continuum he identified four points: deep environmentalism, self-reliance,accommodation, and cornucopianism’3(table 2.4). These points are associated withparticular attitudes towards participation (figure 2.5). Cornucopianism is characterizedas involving a strong faith in experts. It does not recognize the necessity of involvingmembers of the public in decisions concerning the environment, as the ‘expert’ is muchbetter qualified to make them. Hence, a cornucopian approach to environmentalismwithin a democracy would sanction representative, or possibly informative decisionmaking, as the experts ‘educate’ the public. Accommodation has been characterized asthe liberal branch of technocentrism (0’ Riordan 1977, 11), and is open to more13 It must be noted that these are discrete points, and others could have been identified on the spectrum.For example, Colby (1990, 8) and the Govermnent of Canada, (1991, 1-7) who are effectively using asimilar conceptual framework, select different points along the continuum. In addition, Reed (1988, 16)adds sustainable developers to O’Riordan’s spectrum. These additional locales along the continuum couldall be amalgamated, which would be useful for characterizing environmental attitudes. However it wouldnot be helpful for this study as ORiordan’s four points are far enough apart that they can be associatedwith distinct participatory expectations. If any additional environmental ideologies were added, it wouldblur the distinction in participatory attitude between one locus and its adjacent point.34interactive decision making techniques such as environmental and social impactassessment. Such forms of decision making necessarily involve the public. Hence, thisideology would certainly sanction consultation, and possibly even partnership in somecases in an effort to reach a socially acceptable decision. EARP, with its consultativeemphasis in environmental impact assessment, appears to be a classic example of theaccommodation approach in practice. The philosophy of self-reliance involves theconcept of participatory democracy. A proponent of the self-reliance ideology wouldsupport direct democracy, either in the form of partnership or citizen control.The deep environmentalist position is profoundly ecocentric, embracing thecharacteristics discussed in table 2.4. This ideology consists of several strands ofthought. Each strand identifies with the characteristics that 0’ Riordan outlines, but theyalso incorporate unique aspects. Examples of philosophies which are consistent withthat of deep environmentalism are deep ecology (Naess, 1973), social ecology(Bookchin, 1982), and ecofeminism (for example, Merchant, 1992). 14 O’Riordan doesnot, even in his 1990 paper, distinguish between these splintered approaches to deepenvironmentalism. It seems likely that they would all be located in a similar positionupon his ecocentric-technocentric spectrum, and hence there is no need to distinguishamong them. However, one point of divergence among these various strands of deepenvironmentalism concerns participation. For example, some deep environmentalprinciples and their advocates have been charged with being eco-fascist,15 and thereforeagainst participatory decision making, whereas others have been described as being14 Although these are all profoundly ecocentrist, each has a different emphasis. For example, socialecology criticizes social hierarchy and believes that the domination of nature by humans stems from thedomination of humans by humans (Eckersley 1992, 148). Ecofeminists on the other hand believe that thedomination of nature and the domination of women by men both stem from patriarchy (Plant 1991, 102).In contrast, deep ecology is frequently noted by an absence of a structural explanation for the dominanceof nature. Instead it tends to regard all human beings as being responsible for this domination, withoutemphasizing any intra-societal divisions. For example Naess’ and Sessions’ principles of deep ecologyclass all humans together, no distinctions are noted (Devall and Sessions 1985, 70).For example, by Pepper (1984, 204-2 13), Bookchin (in Bookchin and Foreman 1991, 60), and Regan(1983, 362).35Table 2.4O’Riordan’s Conception of Environmental Ideologiesand their Associated CharacteristicsEnvironmentalismDeepEnvironmentalistsEcocentrismSelf-Reliance AccommodatersTechnocentrismCornucopiansI.Lack of faith inmodem large-scaletechnology and itsassociated demands onelitist expertise, centralstate authority, andinherentlyantidemocraticinstitutions2.Implication thatmaterialism for itsown sake is wrong, andthat economic growthcan be geared toproviding for the basicneeds for those belowsubsistence level3. Intrinsic importanceof nature for thehumanity of man (sic)4. Ecological (and othernatural) laws dictatehuman morality5.Biorights- the right ofendangered species orunique landscapes toremain unmolestedSource: 0’ Riordan(1981, 376)I. Lack of faith inmodem large-scaletechnology and itsassociated demands onelitist expertise, centralstate authority andinherentlyantidemocraticinstitutions2. Implication thatmaterialism for its ownsake is wrong, and thateconomic growth can begeared to providing forthe basic needs forthose below subsistencelevel3. Emphasis onsmallness of scale andhence communityidentity in settlement,work, and leisure4. Integration ofconcepts of work andleisure through aprocess of personal andcommunal improvement5. Importance ofparticipation incommunity affairs, andof guarantees of therights of minorityinterests. Participantsseen both as acontinuing educationand political function1. Belief that economicgrowth and resourceexploitation cancontinue assuming(a) suitable economicadjustments to taxes,fees, etc.(b) improvements in thelegal rights to aminimum level ofenvironmental quality(c) compensationarrangementssatisfactory to thosewho experience adverseenvironmental and/orsocial effects2. Acceptance of newproject-appraisaltechniques and decisionreview arrangements toallow for widerdiscussion or genuinesearch for consensusamong representativegroups of interestedparties3. Provision of effectiveenvironmentalmanagement agencies atnational and local levelsI. Belief that man (sic)can always find a wayOut of any difficulties,either politically,scientifically, ortechnologically2. Acceptance that pro-growth goals define therationality of a projectappraisal and of policyformulation3. Optimistic about theability of man (sic) toimprove the lot of theworld’s people4. Faith that scientificand technologicalexpertise provides thebasic foundation foradvice on matterspertaining to economicgrowth, public health,and safety5. Suspicious ofattempts to widen thebasis for participationand lengthy discussionin project appraisal andpolicy review6. Belief that anyimpediments can beovercome given a will,ingenuity, and sufficientresources arising Out ofwealth36Figure 2.5The Relationship Between Environmental IdeologyAnd Definition of Effective Participation(As Defined by ORiordan)DIRECT DEMOCRACY REPRESENTATWE DEMOCRACYCI RT EI C PZ P 0 I RE A N N EN R S F ST U 0 EC N L R No E T M TN R A A AT S T T TR H I I Io i 0 0 0L P N N NI ICornucopianism ><-Accommodation><Self-Reliance><DE>DE Non-Authoritarian Strand of Deep Ecology1616 Deep ecology can also be authoritarian in approach (see text). However, authoritarianism is notincluded within the participatory spectrum because it is not a democratic form of decision making.37eco-socialist,17 implying a fundamental commitment to participatory decision making.There is therefore no coherent relationship between deep environmentalism andconceptions of effective participation.Ideally, it would be preferable to depart from 0’ Riordan’ s classification at this point,and attempted to characterize each of the deep environmentalist perspectives in tenns oftheir particular conceptions of effective participation. However, because of the naturein which participant interviews concerning environmental attitudes were structured, thiswas not possible. 18Thus, as 0’ Riordan implies by his silence, it is not realistic to attempt acharacterization of deep environmentalists in tenns of their definition of effectiveparticipation. Deep environmentalists themselves do not attempt to do this, and theirviews of participation cannot be inferred because of the ambiguous political nature ofthe ideology. The radical nature of the ideology and its apparent association withextreme political positions suggests that views of participation will also be radical,either ‘citizen control’ or ‘authoritarian.The relation between ideology and participation identified by O’Riordan (forcornucopianism, accommodation and self-reliance) seems to suggest a relationshipbetween an individual’s ‘environmental attitude’ and her/his conception of effectiveparticipation. This would require an individual identifying with a particular17 For example, by Pepper (1984, 188-204).18 The interview questions designed to elicit environmental attitudes consisted of three questions, eachone involving an environmental scenario. For each there was a range of possible policy reactions, eachone corresponding to an environmental attitude. Each participant was asked to select their preferredoption (for a justification of this interview technique see 3.4.1). It is fairly straightforward to createpolicy options which correspond with the four ideologies O’Riordan outlines. However, when Iattempted to design options which were consistent with the various strands of deep environmentalism, itwas difficult to characterize each accurately whilst maintaining distinct policy options. This is becausethese strands would often be in agreement respecting policy options. In addition, where there aredifferences in their attitudes, it is very difficult to attempt to characterize them as they are often blurredand open to debate.38environmental ideology, which would then shape his/her ‘attitude’. O’Riordan (1981,1432; 1985b, 413) and Pepper (1984, 27) warn, however, that no one would identifywith a single strand of ideology, and hence there is no such thing as an ‘environmentalattitude’. Yet, both use 0’ Riordan’ s spectrum throughout their work and they commentupon points of the spectrum as if they were attitudes held by people as well as abstractideologies. For example, O’Riordan refers to ‘the ecocentrists...’ (1981, 377) andPepper (1984, 11) writes that the spectrum is for ‘classifying environmentalists andtheir ideologies’. Despite their warnings, both writers imply that individuals canidentify with these ideologies and hence have an ‘environmental attitude’.It is not suggested that everyone would have an ‘environmental attitude’. However itdoes seem likely that some people would, especially as increasing environmentalawareness has led people to consider both environmental issues and approaches towardsthem more explicitly. In order to test this hypothesis, a preliminary study was carriedout on a fourth year U.B.C. Geography undergraduate class. It was found that half ofthe students demonstrated a consistent environmental attitude (see section 3.4.1 for adefinition of this). It is therefore reasonable to attempt to test whether there is arelationship between environmental attitude and an individual’s definition of effectiveparticipation.2.7 SummaryThe literature reviewed has provided both a justification for the three researchquestions, and the tools needed in order to respond to them. The literature hassuggested that public participation in environmental decision making may beconceptualized on a spectrum from representation to citizen control. This spectrum canthen be used to define effective participation in terms of power sharing. In order toovercome the disadvantages of the pluralist assumption which is built into this power39sharing conceptualization of effective participation, five parameters were also selectedfor defining effective participation in practice. The literature suggested that participantswill have different interpretations of effectiveness of participation based upon theirparticipatory experience and environmental attitude. These ideas are examined in thecase study which follows. However, first, Chapter 3 presents details of the case studyand research methodology.40Chapter 3CASE STUDY AND METHODOLOGY‘Effective’ public participation within environmental decision making is a somewhatabstract concept. Therefore, rather than gather a random sample of opinions from thegeneral public, many of whom may not have considered the issue, I was interested inhearing the views of those who are likely to have an infonned opinion. It seemsplausible that those who have participated in an environmental decision making processare likely to have considered opinions concerning participation. The VancouverInternational Airport Parallel Runway Environmental Assessment and Review Process(EARP) was selected as the focus of this study and a sample of the participants wereinterviewed.This particular case study was chosen for practical reasons. The airport is located closeto the University of British Columbia, where this study is being investigated. Most ofthe participants live within a close enough distance for face-to-face interviewing. Inaddition, the hearings were relatively recent (January and February 1991) so thatimpressions were still fresh in people’s minds, yet the process was not so recent thatparticipants had not had time to sit back and consider events.It is realized that substituting ‘participants within the Vancouver Airport EARP’ for‘public’ will bias the type of responses made (the possible nature of this bias isdiscussed in detail in Chapter 5). However, the object of interviewing is to obtaininterviewees’ perceptions of effective participation to provide a data set from whichqualitative, logical generalizations about participants’ views of participation can beobtained. This will help develop an in-depth understanding of opinions concerning41effective participation. Therefore, the desirability of obtaining a considered opinionoutweighed the importance of obtaining a statistically valid population.3.1 The Environmental Assessment and Review ProcessIn December 1973, the Canadian government passed a Cabinet Directive in order toimplement a process to evaluate the environmental consequences of federal programsand policies (FEARO, 1978a). This resulted in the formation of the EnvironmentalAssessment and Review Process (EARP) on the 1st of April 1974, to be administeredby the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO).Since 1974 there have been three alterations to the process. Firstly, in 1977, minorchanges were made to fine-tune the process (FEARO, 1978b). Secondly, on the 22ndof June 1984, under the 1979 Government Organization Act, a Guidelines Order forthe EARP was passed to replace the Cabinet Directive (Canada Gazette, 1984). Thesemade more explicit recommendations as to how the process should be implemented.Many criticisms had been levied at the process (for example Rees 1981, 8-17).Although Bowden and Curtis (1988, 105) and Fenge and Smith (1986, 603) suggestthat the 1984 Guidelines ironed out some of the problems with the process, it continuedto receive much criticism after 1984; for example, criticisms have been directed atEARP for not having a legislative basis (Smith 1987b, 13-14) and for its policy of selfassessment (Rawson Academy 1987,4). In response, a third change to the process wasannounced on the 23rd of September 1987. The federal Minister for the Environmentreleased a green paper calling for reform of EARP:The government will consider all feasible improvements in the scope,application and administration of the existing process. (McMillan 1987, 1)42In April 1989, the call for reform of EARP was strengthened by a court ruling on theRafferty-Alameda Dam Project1 (Canadian Wildlife Federation v the Minister of theEnvironment) which set a precedent by ruling that the application of the EARPGuidelines was not discretionary, and according to the Federal Court, the Guidelineshad the force of Administrative Law, -‘something which was never intended’ (Charest1991, 2).On June 18th 1990, the Environment Minister announced a package of reforms forEARP which included the proposed Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Bill C-78 (DeCotret, 1990). This was later altered and renamed Bill C- 13. This was passed byParliament and subsequently given Royal Assent in June 1992 and is currently awaitingproclamation (Robinson 1993, 10). The provisions under Bill C-13 will not be appliedto the process until it is proclaimed. The process under the 1984 Guidelines is ofinterest here, since it was under these that the Vancouver Airport EARP was held.The EARP Guidelines have to be followed whenever a federal government departmentintends to undertake a proposal of its own, or when a project is to be undertaken onfederal lands, or involves federal funding (FEARO 1987, 8). The full process involvestwo stages, although not all projects will reach the second stage. The first stage is thatof initial assessment, conducted by the project proponent. The second is a publicreview, administered by FEARO.In the initial assessment phase, the proponent evaluates the proposal in order todetermine if it is likely to cause significant adverse environmental impacts. If theproponents believes that no adverse impacts will be incurred, they can withdraw from1 In 1988, the federal Minister of the Enviromnent had issued a licence to build the project withoutsubjecting it to an EARP. The Canadian Wildlife Federation claimed that an EARP should have occurredand filed a law suit to set aside the licence. The Federal Court ruled in favour of the Canadian WildlifeFederation, withdrew the licence and ordered that the project be subjected to an EARP (FEARO 1991a,4).43EARP and construct the proposed project. However, if significant adverse effects areidentified, or if there is significant public concern, then the proponent refers theproposal to the Minister of the Environment for public review (Canada Gazette 1984,sections 12 and 13). In practice, very few projects ever reach the public review phase.Between July 1st and October 30th 1991, 318 decisions were made to withdrawproposals from EARP after initial assessment, 9 decisions were made to carry outfurther study on the proposal (Initial Environmental Assessment) and only one decisionwas made to refer a project to FEARO for panel review (FEARO, 1991b).If the project is referred to the Minister of the Environment for public review, theMinister will appoint an environmental assessment panel and establish its terms ofreference which describe both the nature and the scope of the review (FEARO 1987,10). The panel’s first task is to establish and publish its own operating procedures basedon FEARO’s publication ‘Procedures and Rules for Public Meetings’ (FEARO, 1985).The panel then creates scoping guidelines for the proponent which outline what they areexpected to include within the environmental impact statement. The panel may consultthe public at this scoping stage. The proponent then writes the environmental impactstatement, which is reviewed by the panel. Once the panel considers the environmentalimpact statement complete, it schedules a series of non-judicial public hearings toconsult the public. Once this has been completed, the panel writes a report to theMinister of the Environment and the Minister who proposed the project, recommendingwhether the project should proceed as intended, or under certain conditions, or not atall. The recommendations of the panel are advisory. The Minister for the initiatingdepartment then decides the extent to which the panel’s recommendations will befollowed (Couch 1988, 14).443.2 Vancouver Airport EARPVancouver International Airport is located on Sea Island, in the Fraser River Delta. Itis within the Municipality of Richmond, located 13 kilometers south of downtownVancouver (figure 3.1). Vancouver Airport was opened on Sea Island on July 22nd,1931 (Transport Canada 1991, 10) and became an International Airport in 1934. It wasbuilt and initially operated by the City of Vancouver, but in 1962 the City ofVancouver sold the airport to the Department of Transport. When the EARP wasconducted, the airport was still a federal responsibility (although on July 1st, 1992 itwas transferred to the Local Airport Authority).Currently the airport has three runways: the main runway, the crosswind runway andtaxiway Alpha, operated as a short runway (FEARO 1991c, 15). The main runwaycarries most of the airport traffic, the crosswind runway being reserved for smallaircraft and for when the main runway is closed. The taxiway is only 1067 meters longand can serve only very small aircraft. There have been increasing traffic demands atVancouver International Airport since the 1940’s and Transport Canada has proposedseveral projects in response to this since that time (FEARO 1991c, 11). One suchproject is to build an additional runway which would be orientated parallel to the mainrunway. This proposal was first put forward in 1946, and was resubmitted by theVancouver Planning Board in 1959 (FEARO 1991c, 11). The area was zoned for aparallel runway the same year. Nothing was then done until 1972 when TransportCanada expropriated much of the property on Sea Island in preparation for this runway.The expropriations resulted in a public outcry, and led to concerns about the runwaybeing voiced. In response, an Airport Planning Committee was fonned in 1973 toreview different runway proposals. This report was completed in 1975, and in 1976Transport Canada advanced another proposal to build the parallel runway. This planhas remained basically unchanged to the present day.45Figure 3.1Map of Vancouver International Airport and Proposed RunwayNuverBurnabYsurreyNewWe S tmt ns e IVANCOUVERProposed RunwayCrosswind RunwayMain Runway ‘ TerminalBuildingsTaxiway AlphaScale:0 1 2 3KmRICHMONDSource: FEARO (1991c)46The history of the EARP associated with the runway proposal spans a period of nearlytwenty years. In 1976, Transport Canada referred its runway proposal to the Ministerof the Environment for public review under EARP. A panel was fonned, and afterconsultation with the public, guidelines for compilation of the environmental impactstatement were issued in 1978. Transport Canada submitted the environmental impactstatement, but then the process was temporarily withdrawn pending the results of amaster planning exercise (Transport Canada 1990, 3). In 1983, the runway project wasagain referred to the EARP panel. This time, public hearings were held and newenvironmental impact statement guidelines were issued. However, due to the reductionin air traffic because of the economic recession in the early 1980’s, Transport Canadaagain withdrew the proposal (FEARO 1991c, 11).In November 1989, the Minister of Transport referred the proposal to the EARP a thirdtime. A preliminary environmental impact assessment was produced and used as thebasis for scoping workshops, held in April 1990, which were designed to develop theguidelines for the final environmental impact assessment. In addition to itsrequirements under EARP, Transport Canada held a series of open houses informingpeople of the proposal. The final environmental impact statement was completed inAugust 1990, and public hearings to review it were held in January and February 1991.In August 1991, the panel presented its recommendations to the Minister of Transport(FEARO, 1991c). They advised that the runway proposal should go ahead; however,they attached 22 conditions to the proposal’s construction. The Minister of Transportresponded to their recommendations on 24th June 1992 (Corbeil, 1992), and confirmedthat the runway would proceed.2The runway is currently under construction, scheduledto be completed in late 1996.2 The Minister of Transport adopted twelve of the recommendations, modified eight, and two wererejected (these were the recommendations for noise compensation, and that there should be no airportrelated commercial and urban development in the Airport North Area).473.3 Sampling MethodologyIn order to achieve the objectives of this study, 43 participants out of a total ofapproximately 220 participants in the Vancouver International Airport EARP wereinterviewed. In addition, all four of the panel members were interviewed.As has been mentioned, it is not the aim of this study to make inferences about thegeneral public’s ideal definition of effective participation, therefore there has been noattempt to make the sampling frame representative of the general public. In addition,there has been no attempt to make the sample statistically representative of the samplingframe. This is because I wanted to ensure that I interviewed as many key participantswithin the process as possible. Key participants are those who had devoted much timeto the EARP and were identified to me by the chair of the EARP panel. It wasconsidered ideal to interview these participants because, having given a lot of time tothe process, they may have given their ideal of effective participation considerablethought. In addition to attempting to interview key players, an attempt was made tointerview individuals from each type of stakeholder3 group (these are discussed insection 4.1.2) because different stakeholder groups may have varying attitudes towardsparticipation. It was therefore deemed not appropriate to select participants forinterview randomly.3.3.1 The Sampling FrameThe sampling frame for this study can be defined as the stakeholders in the VancouverInternational Airport Parallel Runway proposal. A stakeholder’ s interest may bedemonstrated in two ways: either by participating within the EARP, or by declaringA stakeholder is defined as those individuals or organizations who declare themselves to have aninterest in the proposed runway. See 3.3.1 for a more detailed discussion of this definition.48their interest but refusing to participate because they object to the process •L Wherethere was an individual (or several individuals) speaking on behalf of an organization,and the individual(s) had no direct interest in the process, it is the organization whichwas defined as the stakeholder. On the other hand, when individuals spoke on behalf ofan organization, but also declared a direct personal interest in the runway, it was theindividual who was considered the stakeholder.According to this definition of stakeholder, two groups of players in the process werenot counted as being stakeholders, and were therefore excluded from the samplingframe. These were hired consultants who participated for direct monetarycompensation; and members of the panel, who were selected for their impartialityconcerning the runway, and were therefore not stakeholders. Having removed thesetwo groups, approximately 150 stakeholders were identified in the process.In practice, however, the sampling frame had to be narrowed due to logisticalconstraints. Names of those people who either wrote letters, attended the scopingworkshops or gave presentations at the public hearings were obtained from thetranscripts of the public hearings and from copies of the letters received by the panel.This information did not reveal the names of those who only attended the publichearings without speaking. A couple of names of such individuals were obtained fromother interviewees and they were subsequently interviewed in order to attempt to obtaina broad range of responses. It was thought that their particular experience of theprocess may have introduced a new perspective. Everyone else who was interviewedeither wrote a letter to the panel concerning the runway, attended the scopingworkshops or gave presentations at the public hearings. Some people had moved sinceIn practice, however, none of the panel members, nor the panel secretary, recalled anyone who hadsaid that they would not be participating in the process because they objected to the process itself. Inaddition, there may have been other stakeholders who neither participated in the process nor stated theirinterest to the panel members or the secretary. These individuals, however, cannot be traced, and aretherefore not included within the sampling frame.491991 and could not be traced, and others did not write their address on the letter theywrote. These people had to be removed from the sampling frame.Although the sampling frame includes those who attended the scoping workshops,discussions concerning EARP in Chapter 4 concentrate on the public hearing aspect ofthe process. Only six of the people interviewed attended the scoping workshops andthey generally had fewer comments about them than the hearings.3.3.2 Sample Selection3.3.2.1 Stratification CriteriaThe literature review in section 2.6.1 outlined two factors that may influence anindividual’s opinion of effective participation: first, whether participatory efforts wereperceived to be a success or failure by the participant, and second, the degree to whichparticipants became involved within the process. These were developed intostratification criteria.The final decision to build the runway meant that amongst the participants in theVancouver Airport EARP there were both ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ to different degrees.Those who wanted the runway to be built were effectively the winners in this case, andthose who did not were the losers. It seemed likely that the winners considered theirgoals to have been achieved in the process, and the anti-runway activists viewed theiractivities as unsuccessful. Because it is not possible to measure perceptions of successfrom the lists of participants, considerations of whether individuals were in favour,neutral, or against the runway were used as proxies for stratification purposes. Thisinformation was relatively easy to obtain from the written submissions and transcriptsof the hearings. Thus from the discussion in 2.6.1, it may be expected that those whowanted the runway to be built (having effectively ‘won’ within this particular process)50would have a high opinion of the consultation process, and would emphasize itsdesirability as an effective decision making model. Those who lost would have theopposite view.The sample was stratified on one dimension according to whether the participants’degree of involvement within the process was low or high. This stratification criterionwas based upon the amount of time invested by participants and the degree to whichparticipants became directly involved within the process. It was considered that simplyattending the public hearings (without giving a presentation) or writing one letter to thepanel was a ‘low’ level of participatory involvement. On the other hand, writing two ormore letters, attending a scoping workshop or giving a presentation were considered tobe a ‘high’ level. As table 3.1 illustrates, the sample population was stratified using thedegree to which the individual participated and the position that the participant held inrelation to the runway. Stakeholder SelectionA stratified disproportionate sampling method was adopted in order to ensure sufficientnumbers of cases from each category for analysis (Babbie 1973, 102). In order to gaina balanced opinion for each perspective, it would have been ideal to carry out half theinterviews with individuals whose degree of participatory involvement was low, andhalf with those whose level of involvement was high. However, this was not possible asit would imply sampling an unrealistically large proportion of the former population(see table 3 .2a). It was decided to simply interview as many people as possible whowrote letters or attended hearings. In the end, 16 people in the ‘low’ category and 27 inthe ‘high’ category were interviewed.51Degree ofParticipationTable 3.1Stratified Sampling MatrixPosition in relation to RunwayFOR NEUTRAL AGAINSTLOWHIGHFigure Note:‘Low’ refers to those who wrote one letter to the panel concerning the runway, or onlyattended the public hearings. ‘High’ refers to those who participated by giving apresentation, attending the scoping workshop or by writing two or more letters.Ideally, it would also have been preferable to divide the interviews of those ‘in favourof,’ ‘neutral,’ or ‘against’ the runway into thirds, again in order to gain a balancedperspective. However, as can be seen in table 3.2a, there were relatively fewsubmissions who were neutral in relation to the runway. It was deemed desirabletherefore, to attempt to have at least 10 interviews in this category. In total, interviewsincluded 14 interviews of those who were ‘in favour of’ the runway, 19 ‘against’ and10 who were ‘neutral’. The proportion of individuals who fell into each category of thesampling matrix is presented in table 3.2. It must be noted that a much higherproportion of those against the runway were interviewed than those in favour of it. Thereason for this was that there were more key participants against the runway than infavour of it.52Degree ofParticipationDegree ofParticipationDegree ofPart icipat ionTable 3.2Matrices of the Total Populationand the Sample Intervieweda: Matrix of the Total PopulationPosition in relation to runwayFOR NEUTRAL AGAINST TOTALLOW 11 8 9 28HIGH 69 16 35 120TOTAL 80 24 44 148b: Matrix of the Sample InterviewedPosition in relation to runwayFOR NEUTRAL AGAINST TOTALLOW 4 5 7 16HIGH 10 5 12 27TOTAL 14 10 19 43C: Matrix of the Percentage of the Total Population InterviewedPosition in relation to runwayFOR NEUTRAL AGAINST TOTALLOW 36% 63% 78% 57%HIGH 14% 31% 34% 23%TOTAL 18% 42% 43% 29%533.4 Interview QuestionsThe method of initial contact with interviewees, interview format, and interviewquestions were passed by the University of British Columbia Ethics Review Committeein March 1993. The questions were pre-tested on a fourth year undergraduate class atthe university in order to elicit feedback and comments before interviewingparticipants. Most interviews were carried out face-to-face, except for a few bytelephone with participants living beyond the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Theinterviews were carried out in a semi-structured fashion, and the length ranged from 15minutes to 2 hours, the majority taking approximately 45 minutes. A very high positiveresponse rate was noted, with about 92% of the participants approached agreeing to beinterviewed.5Individuals who agreed to be interviewed were asked to respond on their own behalf ifthey were the stakeholder themselves. When participants were speaking on behalf of anorganization, they were asked to attempt to respond from the organization’sperspective.There were four objectives to be fulfilled while interviewing, and it was these whichdetermined the structure of the interview questions (appendix 1). The first goal was todetermine relevant infonnation about the stakeholder’ s background (questions A to Eand H to L) in order to establish links between an individual’s specific participatoryexperience, reasons for participation, and definition of effective participation. Thesecond goal was to elicit opinions of EARP and how participants believed that it couldbe improved (questions F and G) in order to gauge individuals’ opinions of EARP as anThree people refused to be interviewed because they said they were too busy, and one individualrefused because she had since left the organization which she had spoken on behalf of, and thus feltunqualified to represent their views now. Two of these individuals represented business interests, onewas a Mayor and one was a member of a local interest group.54effective process. Comments given will be evaluated according to the five parametersdeveloped in section 2.5.6The third goal was to obtain participants’ ideal definitions of effective publicparticipation in terms of power sharing in order to locate their conceptions upon thepower sharing spectrum (figure 2.2). In order to do this, question M asked eachindividual to identif’ the level of participatory activity that he/she considered ideal, ormost conducive to effective participation. Each interviewee was handed a copy of thequestion to read and consider. The five options in the question correspond to the pointson the spectrum of power sharing (figure 2.2), namely representation, information,consultation, partnership and citizen control decision making. The five options werepresented to each participant in order, from one extreme on the spectrum to the other,in order to demonstrate the concept of the spectrum. They were then asked to selecttheir preferred option, or the two options they believed they fell between, and theirleast preferred option. This latter question was asked not only to elicit their opinion butalso to validate the question by ensuring that each individual really understood whatwas being asked. For example, if someone declared that (s)he liked citizen control bestand partnership least, this would suggest that (s)he had not understood the conceptualbasis of the question. In practice, however, responses were consistent, suggesting thateveryone understood the question. Questions G and J were posed to corroborate thefindings of question M for replicability. Questions E, F, G, H, J, K and L were alsoset to aid analysis of individuals’ views of effective participation. Finally, the questionswere designed to discover participants’ ‘environmental attitude’, and the importancethey attached to environmental issues to ascertain whether there is a link between6 Participants were not asked their opinions of EARP according to the five parameters directly becausesuch narrow questioning may preclude participants articulating other parameters which had not beennoted in the perused literature. In addition, naming potential concerns of EARP to participants wasconsidered to be a leading question.55environmental attitude and definitions of effective public participation (as discussed in2.6.2).3.4.1 Eliciting Environmental AttitudesQuestions N to S focus on ‘environmental attitudes’. It is not possible to obtain an‘attitude’ directly, however (Mitchell 1989, 102), SO three ‘environmental scenarios’,questions Q, R, and S (see appendix 1), were designed to attempt to elicit it by askingindividuals their approach towards resolving various environmental issues .“ As Mitchellpointed out, such questions elicit an individual’s verbal behavior, and this has oftenbeen proven to be very different from his/her overt behavior. This problem isirresolvable and simply has to be borne in mind throughout.Each of the three scenarios was followed by four possible policy responses, and eachoption is designed to coincide with one of O’Riordan’s environmental ideologies.8Eachperson was asked to rank the four policy options in order of preference. Policy optionswere framed in a manner that suggested some of their associated implications in orderto ensure that the individual was aware that each option necessarily involves trade-offs.Each scenario raised the type of issues which respondents, as residents of BritishColumbia, would be familiar with. Considered rather than spontaneous views weresought, and it was thought that individuals would be more likely to have a consideredopinion of familiar issues. However, presenting familiar scenarios could increase thechances of the respondent being influenced by both media and current policy reactionsto that issue. In an attempt to minimize this problem, topics were selected that were notat the forefront of public debate at the time of interviewing.It would have been preferable to ask more than three questions, but it was considered that three was themaximum number that could be asked before respondent interest waned.8 Cornucopian, accommodator, self-reliant or deep environmentalist (discussed in 2.6.2).56In order to design policy responses to reflect each of the four ideologies, it wasnecessary to cover the range of possible responses within each ideology. This was fairlystraightforward for the first three ideologies (namely, cornucopianism, accommodationand self-reliance), as responses are relatively consistent from issue to issue. However,deep environmentalism was more difficult because it potentially embraces a plethora ofapproaches. For questions Q and R (concerning air pollution and electricityrespectively) the deep environmental response seems less radical than for question S(concerning smelters), because the ‘status quo’ in British Columbia is much closer tothese options in Q and R than it is for question S. The deep environmental policyoption for question S was designed to reflect the fact that the ideology can alsoadvocate more radical solutions.To exhibit a consistent ‘environmental attitude’ a respondent either had to rank the fourideologies in the same order for all three questions, or rank the ideologies identicallyfor two questions, with no more than two adjacent rankings being switched for the thirdquestion. For example, if someone ranked cornucopianism last and accommodationthird for two questions, and then switched this order for the third question, but kepttheir first and second preference constant throughout, then they would be considered tohave a consistent environmental attitude.In total, 32 out of the 43 participants were asked questions concerning theirenvironmental attitudes. Eleven people who had participated on behalf of anorganization were either too busy to respond or were interviewed by telephone, and itwas considered too problematic to ask such questions over the telephone. Although itwould have been useful to elicit the views of those representing organizationsconcerning the environmental questions, it was not essential to this study. Whenselecting a preferred definition of effective participation, such individuals had answeredon behalf of their organization, yet when giving responses concerning the57enviromnental scenarios, they gave their personal views. Thus their environmentalattitudes could not be linked with perceptions of effective participation. Questions N,0, and P were designed to determine the importance attached to environmental issuesby each respondent and to characterize an individual’s environmental attitude further.3.5 SummaryThis chapter has outlined the mechanisms of the EAR process as it was applied to theproposal to build a parallel runway at Vancouver International Airport. The samplingframe has been defined as the stakeholders in the Vancouver International AirportEARP, and participants were selected for interview using a disproportionate stratifiedsampling method. Four objectives to be fulfilled when interviewing were outlined andthese provided the rationale for the interview questions.The next chapter, Chapter 4, builds upon the Vancouver International Airport EARPcase study which was introduced in this chapter. A framework for conceptualizing theparticipants in the process is developed. In addition, participants’ opinions of EARP arediscussed, allowing an evaluation of EARP as an effective participatory process inpractice.58Chapter 4DRAMATIS PERSONAE:PARTICIPANTS AND PERCEPTIONS OF EARPThe further I went through the process, the angrier I got about being co-opted,about being just a token public opposition who was really not ever given achance. And on the other hand, I had this absurdist sense in living through asort of Alice in Wonderland world where there was simply no connectionbetween what they were doing and saying and any reality that I could recognize.Comments by a VancouverAirport EARP ParticipantThis chapter develops the ‘theatrical stage’ metaphor which was introduced in Chapter1. The ‘scene is set’ by characterizing the dynamics of the hearing process; thedramatis personae, the roles that were assumed, and the reactions of the players to theaudience. Comments made by the players concerning their experiences in the processwill then be used to reflect upon the process itself, presenting its perceived strengthsand weaknesses. Finally, the five parameters developed in Chapter 2 will be used toevaluate participants’ perceptions of effectiveness of participation in the context of theVancouver Airport EARP. This characterization of the dynamics of the hearing processis very important in the analysis of why participants hold their views of effectiveparticipation and will be discussed in Chapter 5.4.1 Setting the SceneThe Vancouver Airport EARP has been characterized by panel members and FEAROemployees as being a fairly low profile process for an EARP. One panel membercommented how little grass roots activism there had been when compared with otherEARPs, that there had not been much popular concern, just a few dedicatedindividuals. The public hearings went fairly smoothly and, on the whole, there was59relatively little visible bad feeling between proponents and opponents.1 Only once didthe chairman of the panel have to ask participants not to be so aggressive whenquestioning speakers.4.1.1 Dramatis PersonaeWithin the Vancouver Airport EARP there were several identifiable groups ofparticipants2(table 4.1). Transport Canada, the project proponent, reflecting upon thelong history of the runway proposal, took the attitude that this was its last chance to getthe runway built. As the Vancouver International Airport General Manager stated:It is extremely important that supporters get involved in the parallel runway andlet the panel know their views. If we miss this time, it’s gone.(Sounding Board, May 199O)In support of Transport Canada were the business community, labour unions, aviationinterests, and various levels of government. Business community support was chieflyorganized by the Vancouver Board of Trade. A member of the Board of Tradedescribed its campaign, thus,we also had a public information campaign on the importance of VancouverAirport relative to the economy and so on. We distributed some 80 000pamphlets.1 Toronto Pearson Airport has since been through an EARP concerning the building of a new runway(FEARO, 1992). One of the Vancouver Airport panel members who was also a panel member on thePearson EARP, commented that the Pearson EARP was a more high profile, hotly debated issue than theVancouver EARP. The Pearson EARP attracted many more participants (this may be partly because theVancouver runway project has been discussed on and off for twenty years, and there is evidence thatsome individuals had given up participating by 1991; see 4.2.1) and was much more acrimonious, withmistrust and bad feeling towards Transport Canada.2 These were identified from the transcripts of the public hearings and letters submitted to the panel.A publication of the Vancouver Board of Trade.60Table 4.1Summary of Participant Groups Involvedin the Vancouver Airport EARPPosition in relation to the runway proposal4In Favour of Neutral AgainstTransport Canada Individuals IndividualsBusiness Interests Some Environmentalists Some EnvironmentalistsLabour Unions Some Local Organizations Some Local OrganizationsAircraft Interests Community Forum Some CommunityGovernment: Government: Forum MembersMunicipal B.C. Env.GVRD Env. Canada; DFOB.C. Govt. FREMPMusqueam First NationFigure Notes:B.C. Env.: Provincial Ministry of the EnvironmentB.C. Govt.: B.C. Government Cabinet CommitteeDFO: Department of Fisheries and OceansEnv. Canada: Environment CanadaFREMP: Fraser River Estuary Management Program.5GVRD: Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictIn addition to the Vancouver Board of Trade, there were other business umbrellagroups campaigning for the runway. These included nine Chambers of Commerce andseven tourism, hotel and restaurant associations. There were also other participantsrepresenting both large and small businesses who were in favour of the runway. Thesebusinesses included local companies, as well as national and international organizations.Much of the business community supported the building of the runway because airportcongestion has resulted in flight delays which impinge upon both cargo and passengertransportation. The large tourist and hotel lobby was especially concerned with flightA breakdown of the number of interviews carried out within each participant group is provided insection 4.1.4.FREMP is an inter-governmental, inter-agency program set up to manage the Fraser River Estuary(FREMP 1988, 1).61delays. Other business interests were more concerned that the runway be built in orderto increase the general importance of Vancouver as a world trade centre.Three labour unions (Canadian Autoworkers, Canadian Brotherhood of Railway,Transport, and General Workers, and the B.C. Federation of Labour) also participatedwithin the EARP in support of the new runway provided there was adequateenvironmental mitigation. Their position was that an additional runway would lead toeconomic expansion and more job creation in the Vancouver region, if not the whole ofCanada.There was support for the runway at the municipal, regional, and provincial levels ofgovernment. There were 20 letters and presentations on behalf of municipalities,regional districts, and townships around the province, all in support of the runway,stressing their dependence upon Vancouver Airport. The Mayor of Kelowna describedthe situation for his town, which was typical of many in B.C.:The hub of B.C. air network is Vancouver International Airport. Kelowna isone of the spoke communities that depend on Vancouver Airport as theirgateway to the Lower Mainland and the rest of the world. (FEARO 1991d, 540-1)Regional and provincial governments also supported the runway, providing thatadequate environmental mitigation measures were met. The Greater VancouverRegional District supported the proposal because it felt the proposal was consistent withmany of its policies enunciated in the planning document Creating Our Future: Steps toa more Livable Region. The B.C. government formed a Cabinet Committee on theVancouver International Airport to review Transport Canada’s reports and any letterssubmitted to them. The committee concluded that the building of a runway was anecessity to address traffic congestion and flight delay problems.The aviation interests consisted of several airlines and various aircraft associations(related to business, the Canadian airforce, aircraft owners, and pilots). In addition,62participants included three aircraft worker associations (for Machinists and AerospaceWorkers, Pilots, and Air Traffic Controllers) and the Airline Union. Each had asimilar, direct interest in runway construction.There were several other identifiable stakeholder groups who were either against therunway or were neutral. Those who were neutral participated to ensure that variousmitigation or compensation measures be carried out if construction were to occur. Themost vocal group questioning the runway proposal was the Community Forum onAirport Development. It was formed in 1973 in reaction to the runway proposal, andcontinuing in existence up until the present day. This organization was registered as anon-profit society under the Society’s Act in 1976. One member described the Forum’spolicy on the runway:We had real problems with the proponent’s rationale for the need of therunway, the concerns about the increased noise impact to the community.... theimpacts on the environment overall were very concerning.The Forum, as a collective, was not against the runway, although many of its memberswere. Instead its purpose was “...to question whether this is the right move for thecommunity” (Vancouver Sun, 2.10.90).There were seven representatives participating on behalf of other local groups,including two strata corporations, a homeowner’s association, a ratepayer’ s association,a community association, and two planning committees. Some of these groups wereagainst the runway, whereas others were neutral. Of the latter, some were concernedwith the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures and others proposed additionalmeasures; for example, there was a proposal by one of the local organizations to builda berm on the south side of the island to reduce the noise impacts.Several environmental groups also participated within the process, and were concernednot only with the environmental impacts of the runway, but also with the implicit63growth philosophy adopted by proponents of the runway. Some environmental groupswere against the runway per Se, whereas others were simply concerned that mitigationmeasures were inadequate. These participants represented both international, nationaland local environmental organizations. None were, however, established specifically toparticipate in the runway review process.The Musqueam Indian Band had several concerns about the runway proposal, as thepeople use Sea Island as a point from which to fish, as well as to hunt waterfowl andgame birds. They also use it for spiritual activities and cultural ceremonies, and thereare important aboriginal archaeological sites on the island. The Band has an outstandingland claim for the whole of the Island. Runway construction could jeopardize theirchances of a successful land claim6 and would have an impact upon their traditionalactivities on the island.There were also several individuals who spoke on their own behalf. These peopletended to be either against the runway or were concerned with the adequacy of theproposed mitigation measures.Finally, FREMP and some representatives from government departments at theprovincial and federal level were neutral with respect to the proposal, for exampleEnvironment Canada and the B.C. Ministry of the Environment. This is in contrast tothe municipal, regional and provincial sectors of government who were in support ofthe runway. These neutral agencies were involved in the process in order to give adviceand infonnation concerning the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures.In addition to these participant groups, there was also an audience, the environmentalassessment panel, whose role it was to listen to all, and decide which actors’ viewpoints6 One criterion for a land claim settlement in B.C. are current levels of ‘use and occupation’ of theclaimed land. The proposed runway would reduce the available land that the Musqueam could utilize,and thus negatively impact upon a land claim (Musqueam Indian Band 1991, 14).64were the most credible. The panel consisted of four members, each appointed by theMinister of the Environment because of his expertise and perceived impartiality. Mr.Ray Robinson, was a FEARO employee (now retired) and panel chainnan, Mr. JamesWilson is a retired planner, Dr. Chad Day is a past Director of the Natural ResourceManagement Program at Simon Fraser University, and Mr. Melvin Hagglund is anaviation expert, and past employee of Transport Canada.4.1.2 Roles Assumed by the PlayersIt is instructive to compare the roles played by participant groups with those identifiedas typical both in the environmental literature and in other airport inquiries. Thiscomparison is facilitated by drawing on elements from Parenteau (1988) and O’Riordan(1978). The geographic perspective contributed by Parenteau is combined with the viewof participant motivations to participate supplied by 0 ‘Riordan in order to establish aframework for conceptualizing these participant roles in the Vancouver Airport EARP.This conceptualization will then be used to help understand why the participants heldsuch views of the process, and why they held their stated definitions of effectiveparticipation.Parenteau (1988, 25-27) considered there to be three typical groups of participants inenvironmental public hearings in Canada: first, the proponent (in this case, TransportCanada), second, ‘the government apparatus,’7 and third, the public participantsthemselves. It is this third group which is the primary focus of this study. Parenteausubdivided this third group on the basis of geographic location. ‘Local’ residents werelocated near to the proposed project and were likely to be impacted by it. This groupwas characteristically composed of both individuals speaking on their own behalf andspecial interest groups, often formed for the purpose of fighting the proposal. ‘Outside’This includes both the proponent and the review board (Parenteau 1988, 25).65participants were not located near the proposed project and are not directly impacted bythe proposal. This group usually represent established organizations and have often hadconsiderable experience participating in public hearings.‘Local’ participants are defined here as those who were located near enough to theairport to experience the direct impacts of the proposed runway, the principal one beingnoise. ‘Outsiders’ are those who were located beyond the area experiencing directimpacts from the runway. Physical boundaries have not been used to distinguishbetween ‘local’ and ‘outside’; instead the criterion is whether participants reported thatthey would experience direct impacts if the runway were built. The Musqueam IndianBand, participating members of the public, speakers for local associations and theCommunity Forum were considered ‘local’ participants. Local groups and individualscame mostly from wealthy areas of Vancouver, such as Southiands, Kerrisdale, Dunbarand Marpole (figure 4.1). Interestingly, there were very few protests from Richmondagainst the direct impacts of the runway. Finally, environmental groups, businessinterests, labour unions, government and aviation interests are defined as ‘outside’participants.Parenteau’ s conception of the participants in an environmental public hearing can beapplied to the participants within the Vancouver EARP. But his geographical divisionalone is not sufficient to characterize the role that participants played within theprocess, where some of the ‘local’ people had as much in common with the ‘outsiders’as they did with other ‘local’ people.66Figure 4.1Map Locating Residences of Local ParticipantsNVancouverDunba rNewWestminsterKerriscialeVANCOUVERSouth landsProposed Runway MarpoleCrosswind RunwayerMain Runway TerminalBuildTaxiway AlphaScale:0 1 2 3KmRICHMONDSource: FEARO (1991c)67In writing about the Third London Airport Public Inquiry, O’Riordan (1978, 143-4)described the anti-airport protests as falling into two categories: amenity protest groupsand ideological environmental pressure groups. Unlike Parenteau’ s geographiccharacterization of participants, 0’ Riordan’ s formulation was based on the role thatindividuals adopted when participating. Thus, amenity protest groups fought the airportbecause they wanted to preserve their current rural amenities, and the airport wouldthreaten these. Ideological pressure groups “sprang up to oppose the philosophytowards growth and nature dominance” (O’Riordan, 143).8It would seem that similar roles can be identified in the Vancouver EARP, but0’ Riordan’ s characterization alone is too simple and results in the unnecessarypolarization of participants. For example, members of the Community Forum said theywere protesting both for ideological reasons and because they were going to be directlyimpacted by the runway, due to physical proximity.If the conceptualizations of O’Riordan and Parenteau are combined, however, a usefulcharacterization of the participants emerges. This combination would create threeparticipant groups: (1) participants who are locally situated who are amenity protestactivists, I will term ‘NIMBY’ (Not In My Back Yard), (2) those who are locallysituated, being both ideological and amenity protest activists, will be called‘community’ groups, and (3) those who are ideologically motivated, and who arepredominantly ‘outsiders’ who will be termed ‘ideological’ actors.98 Kemp, O’Riordan, and Purdue (1984, 480) characterize these ideological pressure groups as beingrecently emerged third party participants (whereas the project proponents and locally impacted residentswere first and second parties), who claim to represent the broad public interest.It must be noted, however, that there were three locally situated individuals who emphasized that theywere not participating because of the noise impacts upon themselves but for ideological reasons. Thesethree people were thus also classed as ideological actors.68O’Riordan, unlike Parenteau, did not include those who were in support of the airportin his classification. Therefore, in order to place these stakeholders in the classification,I will extend O’Riordan’s amenity protest group to a broader category called ‘self-interest’. Self-interest refers to any action taken to benefit an individual directly. Thosein support of the runway are outsiders by nature, and all had at least an indirect, if nota direct interest in the runway construction. Hence, like most local objectors, they werealso participating from a self-interested position.In addition to speaking from a self-interested position, many stakeholders who were infavour of the runway may have also been speaking from an ideological position, beingfundamentally pro-growth. Therefore, in order to include those who were ideologicallypro-growth, O’Riordan’s definition of ‘ideological’ is broadened to include anymotivation which is beyond that of immediate self-interest. It is not possible todetermine whether participants who were in favour of the runway were acting out ofself-interest alone or for both ideological and self-interested reasons. This is becausethe two are so closely associated.Participants who were outsiders but in favour of the runway for self-interested and/orideological reasons will be called ‘professional’ people10 (see figure 4.2). I have coinedthe term professional because nearly every person within this category was participatingon behalf of a company, organization, municipality or government department and wasacting within a professional capacity.10 The only exceptions are the few participants from provincial and federal government who wereprofessional, but neutral with respect to the runway. They will also be included within this classificationbecause they were still professional actors.69Figure 4.2Spectra Conceptualizing the Roles Playedby Participants in the Vancouver Airport EARP‘Local’Community >NIMBY > Iaeo ‘Environmental’Professional“p‘Outsider’Combining and adapting the characterization of O’Riordan and Parenteau suggests thatthere are four general types of roles being enacted: three neutral/against the runway andthe fourth in favour of the runway (see table 4.2). Table 4.3 classifies the 43 interviewsaccording to stakeholder category.70Table 4.2Locating Participant Roles and Participant Groupsin a Matrix Referring to theirParticipatory Motivation and Geographic LocationParticipantMotivation Geographic LocationLocal OutsiderSelf-Interest NIMBY PROFESSIONAL”[Individuals] [GovernmentSelf-Interest CO?,4UNITY Airline InterestsAnd Ideological [Community Forum BusinessLocal Organizations Labour Unions]Musqueam BandIndividuals]Ideological IDEOLOGICAL[Individuals] [Environmentalists]4.1.3 The Players’ Perceptions of the AudienceNearly half of those who commented about the panel used such terms as ‘fair’,‘impartial’, ‘concerned’, and ‘impressive’. There was no distinct participant group whomade such comments. However, there were some professional and communityindividuals who did raise criticisms relating to the perceived bias of the panel. Fivecommunity members thought the panel was biased towards Transport Canada. Someconsidered this to be a blatant bias; for example, one member of the Forum commentedthat the panel had simply ignored the proposal put forward by some participants tobuild a short runway, despite it being within the panel’s terms of reference:As already mentioned, it is not possible to determine whether these professional groups were actingout of self-interest alone or for both ideological and self-interested reasons.71I was very curious to see how the panel would deal with that in the final report,and the answer was that they did not deal with that. They did not even takecognizance of that argument.... They simply ignored that level of argumentwhich I’m afraid could only be deliberate.Other community members perceived the panel’s bias to be more implicit, that they had‘listened with only one ear’ and had already made up their minds to build the runway.Table 4.3Distribution of Participant Interviews Accordingto Role and Stakeholder GroupParticipantMotivation Geographic LocationLocal OutsiderSelf-Interest NIMBY PROFESSIONALIndividuals 6 Business Interests 6Labour Unions’2 0Total: 6 Aviation Interests 2Government:Self-Interest COUNITY Municipal 5and Ideological Community Forum 3 Regional 1Local Groups 4 Provincial 1Musqueam Band 1 Federal 1Individuals 4 FREMP 1Total: 12 Total: 17Ideological IDEOLOGICALIndividuals 3Environmental Groups:Local 3National 1International 1Total: 8Numbers Refer to the Number of Interviews Held in Each Stakeholder Group12 No interviews were carried out with participants who spoke on behalf of labour unions because theseindividuals could not be contacted.72In contrast, a professional participant said he thought the panel was biased againstTransport Canada! In addition, two community members questioned the impartiality ofone of the panel members who had previously worked for Transport Canada, althoughnow retired. This panel member, when interviewed, seemed rather sensitive on thesubject as he brought it up and was eager to point out his neutrality concerning therunway. He claimed that because he was retired and was not receiving any money fromTransport Canada, he was impartial. Another individual who was in favour of theproposal had a totally different view of the panel members and suggested that only thispanel member had enough experience, and that the others had insufficient expertise todo the job!4.2 Opinions of the Process and Suggested ImprovementsEach individual was asked his/her opinion of the EAR process and how (s)he felt thatthe process could be improved. A full list of comments made about the process isprovided in appendix Opinions of EARPAbout one third of the people interviewed thought the process was good, and hadfurther comments about it. It must be noted that the vast majority of those who likedthe process were professionals who had been in favour of the runway. Since this grouphad very little to say except that the process was ‘OK’, ‘fine’, or ‘excellent’, the rest ofthis section will be devoted to those who had criticisms.The criticisms can be separated into two categories according to the seriousness of theallegation. There were ‘fundamental’ criticisms (questioning the nature of the process),and practical ones (concerned with correcting some aspects of the process). Thesecategories are certainly not mutually exclusive and some practical criticisms could be73interpreted as being fundamental and vice versa. For example, a few individuals saidthat resource inequity was a problem, and although it was perceived as a serious barrierto participation, they regarded it as a practical constraint which could easily berectified. Hence, this criticism is discussed as if it were a practical constraint. Yet, aMarxist interpretation of this ‘practical issue’ would be that the resource inequity was adeliberate attempt to prevent a powerful opposition. Hence, it becomes a fundamentalproblem. Bearing in mind that each criticism is not necessarily constrained to onecategory, I will discuss the criticisms in the way that they were presented to me by theparticipants.A ‘fundamental’ criticism which was levied against the process by several community,ideological, and NIMBY individuals was that the decision had already been made tobuild the runway before the hearings had occurred. 13 They felt that they had no chanceto influence the process and some felt used. One angry Community Forum membercommented:I realized after awhile and this impression just strengthened until the end that wewere being co-opted. They wanted to give an illusion of a public process, ofgetting the public involved, but in fact it was always carefully managed, theywere never listening. We were just tokenism, it was just a way of saying look,we did include the public and yet this is what the panel came up with.Two others had very different ‘fundamental’ criticisms of the process. Their commentssuggest that they felt that the process ought to be more tokenist in form. One neutralNIMBY who sympathized with Transport Canada, commented:The idea of giving protest groups money to protest what you’re doing, I don’tknow, somehow doesn’t seem right, it doesn’t seem fair.... To what extentwould you want to go to make it more difficult? These guys [Transport Canada]went through a lot of effort to get this thing.13 It must be noted that there were some participants who complained of this but did not seem to find it afundamental problem. For example, one NIMBY participant commented ‘It [the process] was OK, butthe decision had already been made before we started.” Thus she suggested that the process could still beevaluated independently of this constraint and did not feel that it rendered the process meaningless.74He seemed to feel that the runway should go ahead despite the results from thehearings, providing Transport Canada had put some effort into the process. The otherperson, a professional businessman, suggested that the panel should not attempt tocompromise to please the maximum number of stakeholder groups. He commented onthe panel’s report:So they built a whole lot of recommendations into it trying to appease all thegroups which appeared before them, balancing all the points of view. Youended up with some curious recommendations.... Some pretty odd things, [forexample] land compensation, two for one, or three for one ratios which cameout of nowhere.It seems that both believed the process should not attempt any fundamental change ordepart from the ‘business as usual’ stance.Several NIMBY, community and ideological participants commented that the panel’srecommendations were not legally binding and that this was a serious disadvantage ofEARP. One of these people was a panel member who was very angry and distressedthat Transport Canada should be allowed to reject the panel’s recommendations; forexample, the panel’s recommendation to instigate a noise compensation program forthose affected by the runway was completely dismissed. He said he was concerned forthe people and the birds. He commented that the ‘bureaucrats completely manipulatedthe process’, and blamed this on the model of the British Parliamentary System andministerial discretion. However, two other panel members were not so concerned bythe non-binding nature of the recommendations. One commented that it did not upsethim because the ministers would override the recommendations later if they wanted to.The other thought it was fme that Transport Canada could change the recommendationsbecause, after all, it was clear from the beginning that they could. In addition, therewere some participants who thought ministerial discretion was a good thing. Thesepeople were professionals, in favour of the runway, and upset with some of the panel’s75recommendations; for example noise compensation for local residents. Hence they werepleased that some of the panel’s recommendations were overruled.Four practical constraints to the process were raised. One complaint concerned resourceinequity between the proponents and the opponents in the form of money and time. Amember of the Community Forum reported that she asked Transport Canada what theirbudget was for the whole process. They replied ‘as much as it takes’. The CommunityForum, in contrast, received $91 000 in intervener funding.’4 Another participantcommented that the giant machine represented by Transport Canada was ‘Goliath’ andthose against them were ‘David’, almost to the point of being overwhelming. Therewere also complaints about the length of time that the discussion of the runway hadbeen going on (nearly twenty years, on and oft). This had resulted in local residents,who were against the runway, assuming that it would eventually happen, that thedecision had already been made, and therefore they had stopped fighting. Twoparticipants reported that their friends and neighbours had tired of fighting theproposal, and their attitude was ‘well build the damn thing if you’re going to’.Transport Canada had won a war of attrition. Others commented that the act of havingto make a presentation was very intimidating, and discouraged people from presenting.Finally, one professional businessman commented that he thought that the process wastoo time-consuming and too expensive to the taxpayer.4.2.2 Suggested Improvements to EARPParticipants were asked how they thought the EAR process could be improved. A thirdof the participants felt that no improvements to EARP were necessary. Of those whodid suggest improvements, recommendations varied enormously. Some suggested thatour whole attitude system and priorities needed changing in order to improve decisionIn total, $170 500 was provided for intervener funding (FEARO, 1990a).76making. Alternatively, others suggested that a different process would be ideal.However, most made comments about practical alterations to the current process. Eachsuggestion is considered in turn (and a complete list of comments is presented inappendix 3).Four participants believed that we need to reorient societal priorities if we are toimprove environmental decision making. One ideological and one communityparticipant commented that we need to stop making economic goals our top priority andshould focus more upon environmental and social considerations. A NIMBY participantcommented on improving EARP:Well, you would have to start by shredding the whole govermnent and gettingrid of half the bureaucracy in an effort to respond to people.Another community individual commented that she did not see how the process couldbe improved because they had made up their mind to build the runway anyway. Hence,she suggested that a more fundamental problem than the process is our attitude towardspublic participation and decision making.Four people commented that they would like to change the format of the EARP and putanother process in its place. However, their conceptions of its content were verydifferent. One professional individual thought there should first be a set of hearingswith an expert panel to discuss the technical feasibility of the project. If the projectreceives approval, there should be environmental hearings to deal with mitigationaspects. He made no comment concerning the broader need for the project and assumedthat if the project is feasible, it should go ahead.In contrast, a panel member suggested that there should be two panels in the process,one to look at the need, and the other to look at the environmental impacts if need isestablished. An ideological person who was against the runway thought that the processshould also involve two stages: the first, a one-to-one contact with the panel, so that77individuals could voice their concerns freely, and then a public hearing stage. Hestressed that once they had written their report, the panel should return to thestakeholders to discuss their recommendations. Finally, a professional commented:I think a much better process... is one that doesn’t become nearly as public. Itstill provides an opportunity for all the views to be heard, but in a much moreprofessional and thoughtful way.He thought it better for everyone to write letters, which would be available for anyoneto look at and respond to, but that there should be no hearings. He was concerned thatparticipants in the EARP ‘spoke to the cameras’ and that those with a more radicalposition got greater media coverage and hence influenced the panel twice.Suggestions of how to alter EARP itself were made by many participants. Commentssuch as making the recommendations binding and providing better funding forinterveners were as expected, as these were raised as criticisms of the process. Othersuggestions such as opening up the process to the public earlier and letting the Ministerof the Environment decide whether to accept the panel’s recommendations (not theMinister of Transport with his/her vested interests) were also made. Another manobjected to the tone of the public hearings, saying:Transport Canada was the proponent, so right away the thing was cast off in anadversarial mode, that you have the proponent and opponents.... I feel that ifthe process had started by looking for more creative solutions... then we mighthave seen them. But this way we just went the conventional route with all thisartillery and bulldozers rolling over anyone who had any alternatives.... What Ithink would be great is if they had a relatively short process of honestly lookingat alternative schemes.4.2.3 Summary of the Findings Concerning Participant Opinions of the Processand linprovements to ItThe range of opinions about EARP and potential improvements to it can be seen to belarge. Criticisms and suggestions varied widely from a fundamental reorientation of oursociety to altering specific aspects of the present process. The process was liked most78frequently by professional participants, which is not surprising given that it resulted ina favourable decision from their perspective. The professional participants whocriticized the process did so because they found it to be too favourable towards theopponents of the runway. They had only a few suggestions for improvement, and thesetended to be fairly conservative. On the other hand, NIMBY, community, andideological participants tended to be more critical of the process, which is again notsurprising as the outcome of the process did not satisfy many of these individuals.Criticisms centred upon the fact that the process was perceived to be unfair and biasedagainst them. In addition, many people were very upset that the panel’srecommendations were not binding. Suggestions for improvement focussed uponmaking the process more accessible and the recommendations binding.4.3 Participants’ Perceptions of EARP and Effective Public ParticipationFive parameters for evaluating effective participation, in addition to the power sharingdimension, were developed in section 2.5. Each criterion has a continuum of possibleresponses, and the Vancouver Airport EARP will be located on each of these continuausing the 1984 EARP Guidelines Order and the mandate to the Vancouver AirportEARP panel (issued by the Ministers of Environment and Transport) for the airportinquiry. Participants’ comments concerning EARP will pennit the location of theirconceptions of effective participation on each of the continua.4.3.1 Locating EARP on Each ContinuumIn figure 4.3, the approximate position of EARP on each continuum was determined bythe following factors. First, the Vancouver EARP was an open process in whichanybody was permitted to participate. Second, in terms of access to resources,participant funding was available for interveners. This money was given to assistparticipants in the review of Transport Canada’s Environmental Impact Statement and79in presenting their views to the panel at the public hearings. In addition, the public hadaccess to all relevant information that they requested (Canada Gazette 1984, 7).Although such regulations potentially help to remedy the resource inequality betweeninterest groups, a significant imbalance still remained. EARP is therefore located on thecontinuum half way between even and uneven resource access.Thirdly, public hearings, as a participatory mechanism, do not explicitly bar anyindividuals from participating, as for example litigation may (because some individualsmay not attain standing). However, even though the EARP public hearings are non-judicial in nature, the process can unwittingly exclude individuals, because giving apresentation can be intimidating. The Vancouver Airport Environmental AssessmentPanel (FEARO 1990b, 1) recognized this fact and commented that the scopingworkshops and written submissions provided other avenues of participation if anindividual did not want to give a presentation. However, the scoping workshops wereheld earlier in the process than the hearings, and were designed to address the scope ofthe impact statement, not if, and how the runway should be built. Therefore, thescoping workshops were not a real alternative to participating in the hearings. Inaddition, it is likely that an individual would be disadvantaged writing a letter (insteadof both writing and presenting), as he/she may have less of an impact upon the panel.Thus, although the EARP public hearings tend towards being an unrestrictedparticipatory process, they are not completely so.Fourth, the scope of the process was determined by the panel’s mandate. This mandateincluded looking at project alternatives, related future development plans for theAirport, economic costs and benefits of the project, environmental and socioeconomiceffects of the runway, and potential mitigation and compensation in order to reduce anynegative environmental impacts from runway extension (FEARO 1991c, 119). Thisbreadth of mandate was carried into the public hearings, and participants were free to80discuss these issues. Thus, the scope of debate was fairly broad in terms of the airportand the regional aviation context. In addition to environmental impacts, social andeconomic considerations were also discussed. However, the scope of the discussionsdid not branch into broader debate concerning how such a runway would shape theoverall development of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The scope ofparticipation is broad, but is not totally unrestricted.Finally, the stage of EARP in which participation occurs is very late. By the time thepublic is allowed input, the preferred project has already been selected and detailed.Thus, although the scope of the project allows for broad debate concerning projectalternatives, by the stage at which participation occurs, Transport Canada is financiallycommitted to its project and is unlikely to be open to debate concerning projectalternatives. In addition, the panel’s mandate is to present recommendations concerningthe benefits and disbenefits of the proposed project (FEARO 199 ic, 119). There is nomention of the panel actually recommending project alternatives. Thus, although thescope of discussions seemed to be broad, the likelihood of public input at this broadlevel being heeded is slim, due to the late stage of the process that participation issolicited and the nature of the mandate concerning the panel’s recommendations.81Figure 4.3Locating the Vancouver International Airoort EARPon the Participatory Continua1) Who is Permitted to 2) Access to ResourcesParticipateClosed orOpen Restricted Even UnevenII I I IEARP 1ARP3) Participatory Mechanism 4) ScopeNarrowlyAccessible Inaccessible Undefined DefinedI I I IEARP ‘EARP5) StageBeginning End(Idea Conception) (Project Implementation)‘EARPFigure Note:EARP refers to the approximate location of the Vancouver International EARP on eachspectrum.4.3.2 Conceptions of Effective Participation According to the Five ParametersWhen participants made no comment upon a subject, it was assumed that they wererelatively content with the status quo (i.e. the location of EARP in figure 4.3). In termsof who should be allowed to participate, most participants did not criticize EARP forany lack of openness. However, there were three professional individuals who objectedto the EARP policy of openness. Two believed that local residents and the CommunityForum should not be able to participate as they chose to live near the airport in the first82place. The third believed that more weight should be given to those who spoke onbehalf of a large number of people. He was concerned with the representativeness ofparticipants. All three individuals were basically concerned that the public interestcould be subverted by self-interested, minority pressure groups. With respect toresource access, there were again relatively few complaints. Two NIMBYs and oneideological person commented that it was unfair and that the proponents had moreresources than opponents. They thus perceive effective participation to involve a moreeven distribution of resources than under EARP. Yet, none of these three regarded suchresource inequity as a fundamental flaw in the process. Unlike the Marxist view, whichwould demand equal access to resources, they simply requested more equal access tosuch resources. However, there was one NIMBY individual who preferred resourcedistribution to be less even than under EARP.Three participants commented that making a presentation at the public hearings wasintimidating, suggesting that they prefer participatory mechanisms to be less restrictedthan EARP. In addition, an ideological actor said he preferred a process with one-to-one contact with the panel as this would be less inhibiting for participants. All fourindividuals clearly preferred a more unrestricted participatory process to publichearings.There were three comments made by participants concerning the scope of participationwithin the process. Two were community participants, one of whom commented thatmore attention should be given to discussing the need for the runway. The second feltthat it would have been better if there had been more brainstorming for creativesolutions. Both these individuals believed that the scope of discussions should bebroadened further. The third person was the professional who envisioned a two-stageprocess replacing EARP. His vision of a process would have had a much narrower83scope than the current EARP. There would be no consideration of project alternatives,or whether net socio-environmental-economic costs exceed the benefits.In terms of the stage of the process at which participation was solicited, opinion wasunanimous that initial participation should not occur any later within the process. Onecommunity person commented that the process should have been opened up toparticipation much earlier. In addition, there were many comments from NIMBY andcommunity participants that the decision had already been made before the publichearings, implying that participation should have occurred much earlier within theprocess. Finally, two people had commented that it was very difficult to persuadepeople to turn up to participate at this stage of the process. If input had been permittedearlier, it is likely that more individuals would have participated.It can be seen that, frequently, participants were relatively content with theapproximate location of EARP on each spectrum. However, when criticisms weremade, many could be predicted according to the participant’s role within the process.The NIMBY, community and ideological participants (except one NIMBY participantwho sympathized with Transport Canada) believed that more effective participationrequired more even access to resources, a less inhibitory participatory mechanism, abroader scope, and participation at an earlier stage. They had no comments concerningwho should be allowed to participate. In contrast, some professional participants’conception of effectiveness of participation involved placing restrictions on who isallowed to participate, and narrowing the scope of discussions. However, oneprofessional wanted a less restricted participatory mechanism. No professionalscommented upon the stage of the process in which public input was solicited,suggesting that they were content with the status quo.844.4 ConclusionThis chapter has attempted to characterize the Vancouver Airport EAR process in termsof the participants and their opinions of the process. A conceptual framework wasprovided onto which participant groups and their associated roles were superimposed.Participants’ views were elicited of effective participation in practice by evaluatingtheir comments concerning EARP in the light of the five parameters developed inChapter 2. About one-third of the interviewed participants made no specific commentsabout the ineffectiveness of EARP, so it was assumed that EARP satisfied theirconception of effective participation.15 Of those who considered EAR.P ineffective insome way, those in favour of the runway preferred a narrower participatory base, andthose neutral or against the runway preferred a broader one. This is not surprisinggiven that those in favour of the runway wanted to ensure that the runway is built, andwith minimum time delay. Participation potentially threatened both of these goals.Those against the runway and those who were neutral wanted to ensure that theirconcerns about the runway were fully and adequately addressed. This was most likelyto occur through participation. Thus, the importance of self-interest in determiningconceptions of effective participation is emphasized.It was interesting to note that individuals often seemed to assume that their views wererepresentative of the ‘public interest’. Sometimes, those individuals who disagreed withthem were regarded as being selfish and speaking against the common good. Thereoften seemed to be a lack of comprehension among participants of there being anyrational viewpoint other than their own. Those in favour of the runway tended toassume that economic growth was the most desirable goal and they could genuinely not15 It must be remembered that views of effective participation within this chapter pertain to the fiveparameters developed in section 2.5. Effectiveness of participation in relation to power sharing isaddressed in chapter 5.85understand why others were challenging them. Some of those against the proposalassumed that environmental quality and social equity were highly desirable and thesingular goal of economic growth was both unsustainable and irrational. Given thisapparent clash of woridviews, it is not surprising that the participants held suchopinions of the process and effective participation.This chapter has characterized EARP and discussed the effectiveness of participation interms of the five parameters developed in 2.5. The next chapter reviews participants’opinions of effective participation in terms of the ideal level of power sharing betweenthe public and elected officials.86Chapter 5DEFINING EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONOf course they would want our policies if they could understand all theimplications. But ordinary voters are simple people, they don’t see their needs,they’re not trained to analyze problems. How can they know what’s good forthem? They need proper leadership to guide them the way they ought to go.Extract from Yes PrimeMinister (1989, 398)This chapter presents the selected definitions of effective public participation gleanedfrom interviews with participants in the Vancouver Airport EARP. Building upon theliterature cited in Chapter 2, these results will be used, both in this chapter and thenext, to develop insights as to why participants selected the definitions of effectivepublic participation that they did.Definitions of effective participation will be discussed and analyzed on four differentlevels in an attempt to understand why participants selected their preferred definition ofeffective participation. The first two levels involve assessing the responses of theinterview sample as a whole and are studied in this chapter. The third and fourth levelsinvolve investigating intra-sample variation in conceptions of effective participation,and are presented in Chapter Six.The first level analyzes the responses concerning effective participation by locatingthem on the power sharing spectrum developed in Chapter 2. The second level attemptsto understand why the interview sample as a whole responded as it did. This willinvolve discussing how these responses may differ from those of the general public.However, before discussing participants’ preferred definitions of effective participation,I will present an account of the reaction of participants to the question eliciting their87views of effective participation (see figure 5.2 for the question asked). Reactions wereboth interesting and relevant.Not one person interviewed admitted to having thought about effective participationbefore, even those who had spent a large proportion of their lives participating withinone process or another. Only one person really articulated the difference between directdecision making and consultation without my having to explain it. He said whencomparing a direct decision making process to EARP:[In] our public meeting, we did the vote and we formed what was happening atthe end, whereas at the airport we said what we wanted and someone else wentaway and decided, we didn’t make the decision.Once the concept of the participatory spectrum had been discussed, one woman drew auseful conceptualization of how she perceived the difference between consultation andpartnership, her preferred method of decision making. This is shown in figure 5.1.Most people selected their ideal level of participation without much reaction at all.However, there were a few individuals who commented that it was an interestingquestion, and wondered why they had never given it any consideration before. Inaddition there were three men (two professional and one ideological) who thought thequestion unnecessary. One of the two professionals commented in a surprised voice,that he preferred:Consultation obviously, we’re a parliamentary democracy aren’t we?The other responded saying he preferred:Consultation without a doubt. I am a great believer in Edmund Burke, who saidsomething like, I would be making a mistake to let you represent yourself whenyou’ve elected me to do it.Both comments would suggest that these individuals would actually preferrepresentation to consultation, yet both seemed to accept that environmental decisionmaking without participation was unacceptable.88Figure 5.1One Individual’s Conception of the DifferenceBetween Consultation and PartnershipConsultation PartnershipE1E1 IKey:Stakeholder—k One Way Flow of Information and Opinions4— Two Way Flow of Information and OpinionsThe ideological man refused to select any point on the power sharing spectrum as ideal,commenting that he disliked every point equally. He regarded consensus decisionmaking (associated with direct democracy) as being “Academic bull shit”, commentingthat it does not work because, “some people (like himself) have principles and othersdo not, so the ones with principles cannot compromise.” He also disliked therepresentative end of the spectrum commenting that, “the political elites are morallybankrupt.”TraditionalDecisionMaker89Debating the ideal location on the spectrum was irrelevant to him, since he perceivedsocietal problems as being less related to the participatory process, and more due to thenature of society’s goals and aspirations. He considered that a reorientation of oursocio-economic-political system was needed. This would only be brought about by afundamental shift in our values. To him, the means (how we make our decisions) aremuch less relevant than the ends (that we begin to make the right decisions) and until achange in our values occurs, no tinkering on the participatory spectrum will have mucheffect on the nature of the final decisions.His point is interesting and pertinent, yet further discussion of it is outside the scope ofthis study which focuses on participation within the current socio-economic-politicalstructure; that is, within a democratic framework.1 In contrast, he called for anecessary change in the value orientation of society, whether it is wanted by themajority or not. He assumed that we have to change, due to impending environmentaland social crises, whether we want to or not. Therefore his response cannot be analyzedwithin the framework established.On reflection, it was surprising that no one had given the question of the ideal level ofpower sharing in environmental decision making any consideration. It was alsointeresting that only two people responded that they thought the question unnecessarybecause we should never have more participation than consultation. Given the increaseddemands to participate over time noted in Chapter 2, perhaps twenty years ago, nearlyeveryone would have dismissed such a question. It seems that people are slowlybeginning to recognize the validity of such a question, or at least do not dismiss it asunnecessary. Yet, it seems that people have not attempted to formulate such a questionin their own minds when participating within environmental decision making.1 It must be admitted that not all decision making within the current political structure is democratic, forexample administrative decisions made by bureaucrats (Torgerson and Paehlke 1990, 7). However, thisstudy assumes the existence of a democratic mechanism in environmental decision making.905.1 Participant Definitions of Effective ParticipationEach interviewee was asked to select her/his preferred definition of effective publicparticipation in terms of power sharing. Each definition was then superimposed on theparticipatory spectrum (figure 5.2). The results on the spectrum represent only 42 outof the 43 individuals interviewed, as the ideological respondent discussed above refusedto select any point on the spectrum.From the spectrum in figure 5.2, it can be seen that the expressed ideal level ofeffective participation lay between consultation and citizen control. Individuals repliedunanimously that they considered the Vancouver EARP to be ‘consultative’. Parenteau(1988, 24) also defined EARP as a consultation process. Therefore EARP could betermed the ‘status quo’ in this study. Hence, everyone stated their ideal level ofparticipation to be the status quo or further towards direct democracy on the spectrum.In terms of options on the spectrum that people liked least, representation was leastpopular. It seems that this form of decision making within an environmental context isno longer acceptable. In addition, many were very suspicious of the citizen controloption; those that placed it last did so because they saw it as impractical and unrealistic.91Figure 5.2A Spectrum of Defmitions of Effective ParticipationSelected by IiitervieweesDIRECT DEMOCRACY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY>< >CI RT EI C PZ P 0 I RE A N N EN R S F ST U 0 EC N L R No E T M TN R A A AT S T T TR H I I Io I 0 0 0L P N N NI I I I I I I I I2% 19% 26% 53%[37%] [63%]Unbracketed Numbers Refer to the Percentage of Respondentswho Agreed with that Level of Participation Most StronglyBracketed Numbers Refer to the Percentage of Respondents whoDisagreed with that Level of Participation Most StronglyParticipants were asked: “With regard to the Vancouver airport public process (1) which one of the followingoptions do you agree with the most strongly? (these may seem to be imperfect options and if you feel you fall inbetween two categories, let me know) (2) which one do you disagree with most strongly?a) The elected representative should make decisions without consulting the public.b) The elected decision makers should consult the public only when they require information from the public.Otherwise, the decision makers should make the decision themselves.c) When a decision concerning the environment is to be made, the public should always be consulted, but an electeddecision maker should make the fmal decision and should be responsible for the consequences of that decision.d) The public and the elected decision maker should share the decision making power.e) The public should reach decisions amongst themselves and then the elected decision maker should be required toimplement the decision.’925.2 Explanation of Aggregate ResultsWhen the participants’ preferred definitions of effective participation are comparedwith the academic definitions, it can be seen that participants’ views are moreconsistent with the status quo than the opinions in the literature (figures 2.3 and 5.1).The range of academic definitions on the spectrum is far greater than those given byparticipants in the EARP. This study does not, however, attempt to determine whichset of results reflects more accurately the views of broader society. Academics are oftencharacterized as living in ‘ivory towers’, being somewhat removed from concerns andissues within society. The vast majority of interviewed participants were white, middle-class, middle-aged professionals. Therefore, both academic opinion and the views ofthe sample population are clearly likely to be unrepresentative of the views of society asa whole concerning effective participation.With reference to the responses given during the interviews, it can be seen that nearly80% of the participants in the EARP were content to keep participation levels either atthe ‘status quo’, or between consultation and partnership. I will attempt to explain whyrespondents tended to select these options by discussing why participants were neithermore radical nor more conservative in their conceptions of effective participation. Suchdiscussions involve debating the ways in which the sample is atypical of the generalpublic, and speculating where the general public’s views would fall on the spectrum.No one professed to preferring a more representative position than consultation.However, there were two male professional participants who chose consultation as theirideal level of participation, yet their views seemed more consistent with representation.One claimed the EAR process was fundamentally flawed, saying:So if there is one person who represents friends of the longhorn sheep then theyget equal time compared with a mayor that represents fifty municipalities acrossthe province.93The second man claimed that the panel should sort out who the important players were,namely those who spoke for the interests of the general public, and that they should begiven proportionally more time to speak than the special interest groups.Although both men questioned the concept of participation without representation, thisviewpoint was not expressed when selecting their preferred level of participation. Iwould argue that this is because they still prefer the consultation option, yet feel thatthe balance of time and consideration during the consultation should be dedicated tospeakers who represent large groups of individuals. These two individuals were infavour of the runway, and those speakers in favour appeared to represent much largernumbers of people than those against it. It is perhaps not surprising that they wereconcerned that their views could have been sacrificed in favour of the views of agenerally more vociferous minority. Thus, these men were advocating a broadconsultative framework, but one that pays attention to the relative representativeness ofparticipants.It seems likely that no one chose an option to the right of consultation on the spectrumbecause each individual had effectively bought into consultation by participating withinthe EAR process. By participating, individuals were legitimating a consultative process.However, it is not so clear why most interviewed participants preferred consultation tomore radical participatory options. There are four potential reasons as to why thismight be. First, it is possible that EARP was so satisfactory that the intervieweesconsidered this the ideal decision making model. Second, participants may have beeneffectively co-opted into feeling that consultation was a suitable form of decisionmaking. Third, it can be argued that participants, once they have participated within aprocess, begin to identify with that process and feel grateful that they have participated.They are thus likely to sanction similar forms of decision making in the future. Finally,specific characteristics of the interviewed population may ensure that their perceptions94of effective participation are at variance with definitions that would be given by othersectors of society. These possible explanations will now be considered in turn todetermine if there is supporting evidence for each.Firstly, the evidence does not strongly support the conclusion that the EAR process wasperceived to be so good that participants considered consultation to be a perfect form ofdecision making. Nearly half of those who selected the consultation option conducive toeffective participation declared the EARP to have at least some drawbacks. In addition,of the four people who declared EARP to be fundamentally flawed, three had selectedthe consultation option as preferable.Secondly, Susskind and Elliott’s theory of ‘paternalism’ (1983, 6) could be used toexplain why participants were content with a consultative form of decision making.Paternalism is a form of consultation in which decision making is highly centralized,and advice giving by citizens is either discouraged or closely managed by electedofficials. A paternalistic approach is usually adopted when elected officials regardparticipation as being necessary in order to legitimize decisions and forestall oppositionto such decisions. Yet “a paternalistic pattern of participation can lead to whateveroutcome the elected or appointed officials have in mind” (Susskind and Elliott 1983,7). When it comes into conflict with the general public’s desire to be heard in decisionmaking, paternalism can be regarded as being manipulative, co-opting the generalpublic into acquiescence. It can be argued that because participants felt that they wereconsulted, and as they were co-opted into accepting the final decision, it is likely thatthey felt that consultation was conducive to effective participation.Several contemporary writers have noted such paternalist tendencies within thegovernmental approach to public participation. For example, Tester (1992, 34) hascommented of the Canadian government:95Recent government responses to citizen participation demands suggest aconscious effort to control the expansion of opportunities for public involvementso that the scope of deliberations is carefully constrained and so that finaldecision-making authority remains in present hands.In addition, Torgerson and Paehlke (1990, 9), Ginsburg (1982, 182), Finkel (1985,893), and Smith (1987a, 221; 1993, 66) have commented that governments haveattempted to use participation to legitimize decisions. Smith (1993, 66) wrote,public participation is often viewed as a means to legitimize administrativedecisions on the assumption that consultation will ease the implementation ofpolicy and have a cathartic effect on dissenters.Two participants, one professional and one community participant, did comment thatthey found the process very structured and that opportunities to participate by the publicinterveners were organized and restricted. As was reported in Chapter 4, several othersreferred to the limited scope of deliberations by protesting that the process did notadequately address runway need within the broader context of long range growthplanning for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Eight people also said that theyfelt angry that the panel’s recommendations were not binding (hence leaving decisionmaking in traditional hands). Only one individual, the community participant who feltthe participants had been organized and restricted, commented directly that he thoughtparticipants had been used to legitimize the process. Although several others stated thatthey believed that the decision to build the runway had already been made before thepublic hearings, they did not comment that they felt used and that their time and energywas being wasted.This analysis does not attempt to determine whether paternalist activities did or did notoccur within the process. Instead, it explores whether such a theory can be used toexplain how participants’ conceptions of effective participation have been shaped. Thetwo individuals who did indicate that patemalist activities occurred within EARPselected consultationlpartnership and consultation respectively as being conducive toeffective participation, thus suggesting that their conceptions of effective participation96were not strongly influenced by their perceptions of paternalism within EARP. Withrespect to those who preferred consultation but did not perceive any paternalistactivities directly, it is difficult to determine whether their views had been manipulatedor not. The importance attached to paternalism as an explanation for participants’ viewsof effective participation is very much related to the interpreter’s attitude towards, andperceptions of, government and society.Thirdly, it can be argued that given some degree of participation, people tend to feelpart of the process and grateful to have been allowed to participate. By participatingthey have effectively bought into the consultative model of decision making and hencefeel the need less strongly to demand greater influence over the decision makingprocess. Three people (one NIMBY, one community, and one professional participant)stated that they were pleased to be able to participate; one participant commented thatshe was happy to have been allowed to express her views, irrespective of whether shewas listened to or not! Two of these three selected consultation as preferable and oneselected partnership. Because only three people made such comments, and one of thesethree actually selected partnership as being conducive to effective participation, there isonly slim evidence for this assertion.Finally, since the study population is unrepresentative of the general public, this mayresult in a biased distribution of definitions of effective participation when compared toresponses given by the general public as a whole. The sample characteristics may affectconceptions of effective participation in two ways.(1) Conceptions of effective participation may depend upon the particular experience ofparticipation that the interviewed individuals have when compared to the participatoryexperiences of members of the general population. It is not surprising that the results ofthis study are concentrated around the consultation option, towards the middle of the97spectrum, given that each individual has effectively sanctioned the consultative processby partaking in it. In contrast, members of the general public are likely to haveattitudes which will range from one extreme of the spectrum to the other. Some maynot participate in a consultative process because they feel that it is inadequate and usesparticipants to legitimize government decisions. Thus, they would tend to prefer thedirect control end of the spectrum. On the other hand, Almond and Verba (1989, 132)have recorded individuals in a survey (albeit conducted in 1959-60) who responded thatpeople should leave decision making up to the elected representatives. Perhaps they feltthat representative democracy has always served them well, or they did not have timeto participate further.The relative proportion of the general public who would prefer one option over anotheris unknown. From the results of this analysis it would seem likely that most of thegeneral public would not be keen on either extreme of the participatory spectrum, be itdirect democracy or pure representative democracy. This is because not many peopleare likely to have been involved in consensus decision making, and responses reveal anapparent suspicion of more radical alternatives expressed by those with no directexperience of them (section 6.1.2). In addition, it is now recognized that there iswidespread discontent with the decisions that elected representatives have made, thussuggesting a lack of faith in representative democracy. A recent example of this is the1992 Canadian constitutional referendum where politicians of every party at every levelof government called for Canadians to accept the new constitution. One explanation forthe resounding ‘no’ vote has been that the public have felt an increased disillusionmentwith elected officials (Smith, 1992).(2) The sample population has distinct characteristics which render it unrepresentativeof the general population. Checkoway (1981, 568-9) commented that frequently thosewho attend hearings are not representative of their area population and that hearings are98often dominated by those whose economic stake ensures that participation isworthwhile. He observed that minority citizens and those on low incomes are less likelyto participate in public hearings. In addition, Hague and Harrop (1987, 91) noted that:Political participation is concentrated among well-educated, middle-class,middle-aged men.They attribute this to the fact that participation reflects existing inequalities in society.Well educated, middle-class, middle-aged men have greater resources which enablethem to participate in environmental decision making and they tend to have more atstake (Checkoway 1981, 91-92; Clarke and Little 1990, 231).The accuracy of these comments is reflected by the makeup of the participants in theairport inquiry. The vast majority of the participants in the airport process whether infavour of, neutral, or against the runway were well educated, white middle classpeople, and the majority (74%) were male. The professional participants tended to berepresentatives from business and governmental organizations. Ideological, communityand NIMBY participants tended to also have professional occupations, being teachers,lawyers, engineers, and property developers. In addition, there were some full-timeenvironmentalists and many retirees.Traditionally, the professional, white, male, middle class sector of society has donevery well under our current socio-economic-political system and such individuals havea large stake in the existing political system (Hague and Harrop 1987, 92). Selectingthe consultation option within environmental decision making is fairly congruent withselecting the status quo. More radical participatory activity may result in them havingto cede power to other interest groups within society who are at present comparativelypowerless. Even those who effectively ‘lost’ their anti-runway campaign would perhapslose more than the runway debate if they transferred their allegiances to direct forms ofdecision making.99In contrast, sectors of society who have traditionally fared badly under representativedecision making may be more likely to prefer participation under direct democracy.Examples of such sectors are any minority ethnic, social, environmental, economic, orpolitical groups, especially if they are geographically dispersed and there is no form ofproportional representation. In addition, sectors of society which traditionally have alow voter turnout rate, for example people who live beyond the ‘Culture ofContentment’ as members of the underclass (Gaibraith, 1992), will also be underrepresented in a system of representative democracy. Such sectors of society mayconsider that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by a change in decisionmaking strategy. On the other hand, the frequently noted feelings of widespreadalienation and distrust held by both those of lower socioeconomic status and those oflower education (Milbrath and Goel 1977, 65) may mean that they would totally rejectdirect decision making.5.3 ConclusionsThis chapter has elicited the preferred definitions of effective participation of thesampled participants in the Vancouver Airport EARP. From this discussion, it has beenobserved that the sample has selected consultation or the consultationlpartnership optionas being conducive to effective participation. These results have consequently been lessradical and wide ranging than those provided by the academic literature. It is suggestedthat participants did not select informative or representative decision making aspreferable because they had effectively sanctioned consultative decision making bypartaking within it. In addition, four possible reasons have been suggested as to whythe interviewed participants tended to select consultation or consultation/partnership inpreference to direct decision making options. The first reason, that EARP was so goodthat individuals were content with that form of decision making, does not provide aplausible explanation why participants preferred consultation. Similarly, the suggestion100that participants were so grateful that they had been able to participate that they did notfeel the need to demand more radical forms of decision making is also rejected. Theimportance attached to a theory of paternalism for explaining perceptions of effectiveparticipation depends upon the interpreter’s opinion of government attitudes towardspublic participation. Finally, it is concluded that the specific sample of individuals whowere interviewed was a major explanatory factor as to why their conceptions ofeffective participation centred around consultation. It seems likely that both thesociological makeup of these individuals and their specific participatory experiencehave shaped their views.Having looked at the general pattern of participant conceptions of effective participationin this chapter, I now turn to look in more detail at intra-sample variations inperceptions of effective participation in Chapter 6.101Chapter 6EXPLAINING THE VARYING CONCEPTIONS OF EFFECTIVEPUBLIC PARTICIPATION OF THOSE INTERVIEWEDIn Chapter 5, it was discussed how conceptions of effective participation could beanalyzed on four different levels. The first two levels were concerned with overalltrends in participant responses, and have been discussed. The third and fourth level willbe analyzed in this chapter. These involve stepping behind the mask of the aggregate toinvestigate the varying responses within the interview sample. The third level involvesdisaggregating the results according to various parameters to identifr patterns in theresponses. Some of these parameters have been developed from the literature (2.6. 1).The relevant literature is sparse, however, and the interviews themselves yield manyinsights concerning conceptions of effective participation that have not been previouslyidentified in the literature. In addition, the framework conceptualizing participantsdeveloped in Chapter 4 will be used as an analytical tool for understanding conceptionsof effective participation.The fourth level will explore whether an individual’s environmental attitude influenceshis/her view of effective participation, as discussed in section 2.6.2. It is, however,crucial to note that at this level of analysis there are many irresolvable difficulties andonly tentative insights are possible.6.1 Reasons for Participation, Participatory Experience, Gender and Definitions ofEffective ParticipationIt is instructive to consider in more detail who gave particular responses within theinterview sample. This involves disaggregating the results in order to attempt to102understand some of the motivations behind preferred definitions of effectiveparticipation.Relevant literature is sparse and to a great extent this analysis has had to rely uponstudying the results themselves for evident trends. With such a sparse theoreticalgrounding, observations can only be tentative. Five variables are examined here. Twoare identified from the literature; degree of involvement within the process andperceptions of success or failure. Three others have emerged from the resultsthemselves: experience of more radical forms of decision making, motivation forparticipation and gender.Each of these five possible explanations for varying conceptions of effectiveparticipation embody an assumption concerning the appropriate time scale for shapingan individual’s conception of effective participation. It could be argued that conceptionsof effective public participation are formulated over the long term, and will remainfairly consistent over time. On the other hand, it could also be argued that perceptionsof effective public participation are dependent upon an individual’s particularexperience of participation, and will thereby be altered every time (s)he participates ina decision making process. Degree of involvement in the process, experience of moreradical forms of decision making, and perceptions of success or failure are classed asshort term, experiential influences upon conceptions of effective public participation. Incontrast, motivation for participation, and gender will be dealt with as more permanentlong-term factors influencing an individual’s selected definition of effective publicparticipation.1036.1.1 Degree of Involvement in Participatory Activity and Definitions of EffectiveParticipationAs discussed in section 2.6.1, the literature suggests that different degrees ofparticipatory activity are likely to increase a participant’s feeling of the legitimacy ofthe process, and hence increase the likelihood of his/her selecting consultation. Finkel(1985, 909) implied that those who participated only modestly within a process mayconsider consultation to be conducive to effective participation, whereas those veryinvolved in participation would select more radical options.From the evidence, it seems that those who wrote letters or just attended the hearingswere more radical in their definitions of effective participation than those who weremore involved (figure 6.1). Such evidence refutes Finkel’ s assertion that the moreinvolved within a process an individual is, the less favourable opinion he/she is likelyto have of it (figure 6.2). Instead it seems likely that those more highly involved withinthe process were so because they had effectively ‘bought into’ the process moreextensively, and hence less likely to dismiss it than more marginally involvedparticipants.104Figure 6.1Definitions of Effective Public Participationand Degree of Involvement in Participatory ActivityDIRECT DEMOCRACY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY— .- —_________________________________________CI RT EI C PZ P 0 I RE A N N EN R S F ST U 0 EC N L R No E T M TN R A A AT S T T TR H I I Io i 0 0 0L P N N NI I I I I I I I4% 11% 19% 66% High [27]0% 33% 40% 27% Low [9]‘High’ refers to those whose involvement within the process was high. Theseindividuals participated either by giving a presentation, attending the workshop or bywriting two or more letters‘Low’ refers to those whose involvement within the process was low. Theseparticipants either wrote one letter to the panel concerning the runway, or attended thepublic hearings without speakingNumbers Refer to the Percentage of Respondents who Preferred that Level ofParticipationBracketed Numbers Refer to Sample Size105Figure 6.2Definition of Effective Participation and Degree ofInvolvement in Participatory Activity: A SummaryDegree of Definition of EffectiveParticipation ParticipationCitizen ControlHighLowConsultation Representation‘Evidence’ Refers to the Evidence in this Study6.1.2 Experience of Direct Democracy and Definitions of Effective ParticipationIt has been postulated that conceptions of effective participation may depend uponwhether an individual had previously experienced more radical forms of decisionmaking. It seemed unlikely that someone would choose direct democracy as beingconducive to effective participation if they could not conceptualize its operation.Accordingly, each interviewee was asked if (s)he had been involved in any otherparticipatory processes and heard of, or had been involved in, consensus decisionmaking1 (table 6.1).1 This question was asked to determine whether an individual’s preferred definition of effectiveparticipation is bounded by his/her conceptualization (or lack of conceptualization) of forms of directdecision making. Consensus decision making is used as an example because it is probably the mostcommon mechanism used under partnership or citizen control.106Table 6.1Experience of Consensus Decision Makingand Definition of Effective ParticipationDefinition of Comments Concerning Consensus Decision MakingEffectiveParticipation Experienced It Never Heard of It Heard of ItConsultation 4 [31%] 9 [56%] 9 [70%]Consultation 6 [46%] 3 [19%] 2 [15%]/PartnershipPartnership 2 [15%] 4 [25%] 2 [15%]Partnership 1 [8%] 0 0/CitizenControlTotal 13 [100%] 16 [100%] 13 [100%]Thirteen participants (4 professional, 4 community, and 5 ideological participants)responded that they had been a part of various consensus decision making processes,which would fall into the partnership or citizen control categories on the spectrum. Itwas found that these individuals tended to prefer more radical options than the statusquo on the power sharing spectrum. They said that they liked consensus decisionmaking because the end result tended to be more acceptable for everyone concerned,and they felt much more listened to than under the EAR process. Yet they were wary tocommit themselves completely to direct decision making, commenting that they foundconsensus decision making frustrating and acrimonious at times and were doubtful thatit would work for all decisions. For example, one professional respondent, who hadhad experience of consensus processes, said:107I guess the main concern I would have for those [consensus decision makingprocesses] is they’re often very very time consuming, and that’s not to say youdon’t perhaps come out with a better decision in terms of more buy in andacceptance of the decision by all of the people who have an opportunity forinput.When comparing the EARP with a consensus planning process she had been involvedwith, an ideological woman commented:With consensus you don’t feel so ignored.... Everyone had to feel that theywere heard... it was quite acrimonious at the beginning.Those who had never encountered consensus decision making tended to like the idea ofit, and thought that perhaps it would work. In contrast, those who had heard ofconsensus decision making, but had never directly experienced it tended to be muchmore cynical about it, commenting that they thought it to be impractical. Theseindividuals’ comments on effective participation are conservative and support theirvoiced concerns. Thus, those who had never heard of consensus decision makingtended to be more radical when selecting their ideal definitions of effective participationthan those who had heard of it, but had not experienced it.The pattern of reaction of respondents both in terms of their comments and theirperceptions of effective participation suggests that individuals thought consensusdecision making to be a good idea at first. Once they had given it some consideration,but still have not directly experienced it, they seem much more cynical. However,individuals seemed much more positive concerning its viability once they hadexperienced it.2 Yet this latter point must not be overemphasized, only 23% of thosewho had experienced consensus decision making selected it as being conducive toeffective participation and no one selected citizen control as being conducive toeffective participation.2 Not all participants who had experienced consensus decision making had used it voluntarily; severalindividuals had had to use the technique in their professional capacities. Therefore, the suggestion that itis only those individuals who are in favour of consensus techniques who would try them in the first placedoes not hold.1086.1.3 Perceptions of Success or Failure and Definitions of Effective ParticipationAs was discussed in section 2.6.1, Leighley (1991, 209), Ginsburg (1982, 182) andMadsen (1987, 571) have suggested that those who were successful in the process (i.e.those who wanted the runway to be built) would have faith in the consultation model ofdecision making, as it worked for them. Thus, they are likely to emphasize it as anideal decision making model. On the other hand, those who did not want the runway tobe built, having been unsuccessful, may have a less favourable opinion of theeffectiveness of the consultation model of decision making. They are more likely tosupport more radical alternatives, perhaps partnership or full citizen control.It was found that the vast majority (86%) of those in favour of the runway selected theconsultation option as being effective (figure 6.3). Those who were against the runwayor neutral about its construction tended to be much more radical in their responses(only 39% who were against the runway and 30% of those who were neutral preferredconsultation). Thus, as suggested in the literature, those who were in favour of therunway, having been successful within the process, selected consultation.109Figure 6.3Definition of Effective ParticipationAnd Position in Relation to Runway ConstructionDIRECT DEMOCRACY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY— — —CI RT EI C PZ P 0 I RE A N N EN R S F ST U 0 EC N L R No E T M TN R A A AT S T T TR H I I Io i 0 0 0L P N N NI I I I I I I I Io % 7% 7% 86% In Favour of the Runway[14]5% 28 % 28% 39% Against the Runway [18]0% 20% 50% 30% Neutral [10]Numbers Refer to the Percentage of Respondents who Preferred that Level ofParticipationBracketed Numbers Refer to Sample Size110When the sample population was stratified, it was assumed that those who were againstthe runway would have a stronger perception of failure within the process than thosewho had been neutral ( However, during interviewing, it was found that thosewho were neutral or against the runway seemed to have a similar perception of failurewithin the process. These observations are borne out by the similar conceptions ofeffective public participation given by those against and those neutral to the runway.This was because the majority of concerns which were brought to the hearings byneutral people were perceived as not having been addressed by Transport Canada intheir 1992 response to the panel’s recommendations. In addition, those against therunway and those who were neutral had much in common; they were composed ofindividuals of the same participant groups (as can be seen in table 4.1), and had similarmotivations for participation.Thus there does seem to be some relationship between perceptions of success andfailure and conceptions of effective public participation. However, the situation is notso clear cut because, as was mentioned in Chapter 4, those in favour of the runway andthose neutral or against the runway had very different motivations for participation.Those against or neutral to the runway had motivations to participate which wereNIMBY, community or ideological. In contrast, those in favour of the runwaycomprised the professional participant group.3 As a result, it is not obvious whether itwas participant role or perceptions of success or failure in the process whichdetermined conceptions of effective participation. The non-random nature of the sampleand its size precludes any statistical test of this distinction.As a reminder, NIMBY participants are locally situated individuals who participated for self-interestedreasons. Community participants are locally situated and participated for both self-interested andideological reasons. Ideological stakeholders participated for ideological reasons and comprise both localsand outsiders. Finally professionals participated for self-interested and ideological reasons and areoutsiders.1116.1.4 Motivation for Participation and Definitions of Effective ParticipationEvery participant was asked whether (s)he had participated within any other decisionmaking processes in the past. From responses to this question, it was found thatindividuals displayed a remarkable consistency in motivation for participation overtime. Thus, those who were involved in the airport for NIMBY reasons also assumedthat role in other processes in which they had been involved. The same consistency ofmotivation was identified for those who had been involved for ideological orcommunity reasons.4 This observation led me to class motivation for participation as along term impact upon conceptions of effective participation.Referring to figure 6.4, it can be seen that professionals were the most conservative ofthe four participant groups in terms of preferred definitions of effective participation.This is not surprising given that on the whole, EARP as a consultative process, servedthem well. In addition, half of those who participated for NIMBY reasons alsopreferred consultation despite the results of the EAR process not favouring their views,in the sense that all but one were against the runway. There are two reasons for thisapparent paradox as to why NIMBY participants continued to support consultationdespite it not serving their interests. Firstly, none of the NIMBY participants hadexperienced consensus decision making before. As was shown previously, those whohad not directly experienced more radical forms of decision making tended to be moresuspicious of them than those who had. Second, given the prosperity associated withhaving a middle class, professional social status in society, they had much at stakewithin the existing political system.Professional participants were also asked the same question. Because they were being interviewedwithin a professional context, they tended to respond by indicating other processes in which they hadparticipated in their professional capacity. However, it is also likely that they participated in someprocesses in a non-professional role. These they did not allude to, hence it is not possible to commentupon their previous participatory activity accurately.112Figure 6.4A Snectrum of Definitions of Effective ParticipationAccording to Motivation for ParticipationDIRECT DEMOCRACY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY><CI RT EI C pZ p 0 I RE A N N EN R S F ST U 0 EC N L R No E T M TN R A A AT S T T TR H I I Io i 0 0 0L P N N NI I I I I I I I I0% 8% 16% 76% Professionals [17]0% 33% 17% 50% NIMBY [6]0% 16% 42% 42% Community [12]14% 43% 29% 14% Ideological [8]Numbers Refer to the Percentage of Respondents who Preferred that Level ofParticipationBracketed Numbers Refer to Sample Size113Those who participated for community and ideological reasons selected more radicaldefinitions of effective participation. This may be due to their direct experience withmore radical forms of decision making. They had often encountered consensus decisionmaking, and tended to have a favourable impression of it. Those whose motivation toparticipate was ideological tended to be more radical than community actors. This maybe because ideological participants are likely to be searching for more fundamentalsocial and political change than community actors.Again, there does seem to be some relationship between motivations for participationand definition of public participation. Professionals tended to be the most conservative,followed by NIMBY participants, and community individuals. Ideological participantstended to be the most radical in their conceptions of effective participation.6.1.5 Gender and Definitions of Effective ParticipationFinally, I investigated whether there is a professed difference in views of effectiveparticipation along gender lines. Women are severely under-represented as electedofficials in government.5If it is assumed that women’s issues exist, namely that womenhold in common certain basic interests which would not be addressed adequately bymen, as Kendrigan (1984, 4-7) argues, then the under-representation of women ingovernment correlates with an under-representation of women’s interests withinrepresentative decision making.6 It is possible that this under-representation ofwomen’s interests within a representative decision making framework would increasethe likelihood of women expressing a preference for direct decision making.For example, in March 1991, only 37 out of the 266 Canadian federal and provincial cabinet ministerswere women (Hessing 1993, 18).6 Consultation would be included as a representative form of decision making here, because althoughwomen, as well as men have a voice, the ultimate decision is made by an elected representative, who isusually male.114Indeed, it was found that men had a much greater preference for consultation, whereaswomen tended to be more radical in response (table 6.2). However, the interpretationof these results is complicated by the fact that all the interviewed women except onewere NIMBY, community and ideological participants, and against or neutral inrelation to the runway. In contrast, half the interviewed men were professionalparticipants. Therefore, it would be necessary to determine differences in responsesgiven by women and men within the same participant group. The focus of this study isnot gender, and given the size of the sample, a detailed gender based study is notpossible here. However, it would be of interest to conduct research on different factorsshaping perceptions of effective participation along gender lines.Table 6.2Definition of Effective Participation and GenderDefinition of Male FemaleEffective ParticipationConsultation 19 [64%] 3 [25%]ConsultationlPartnership 6 [20%] 5 [42%]Partnership 4 [13%] 4 [33%]Partnership/Citizen Control 1 [3 %] 0 [0%]Total 30 [100%] 12 [100%]The Numbers Correspond to the Number of Interviewees who Selected that Option andthe Percentages Correspond to the Percentage of Men and Women who selected thatOption1156.1.6 SummaryIn summary, the available evidence suggests that all five factors discussed above doimpact upon the participants’ conceptions of effective public participation. (1) In termsof the connection between level of participatory activity and perceptions of effectiveparticipation, it can be seen that those very involved in the process tended to preferconsultative decision making, whereas those less involved were more radical. Theseresults appear to contradict the literature. It seems likely that those more involvedwithin the process have effectively sanctioned that form of decision making morestrongly than those less involved. (2) Experience with more radical forms of decisionmaking seemed to encourage participants to select consultation/partnership orpartnership as being conducive to effective participation. In contrast, those who hadheard of consensus, but had not experienced it were much more wary than those whohad never heard of consensus decision making. (3) With respect to perceptions ofsuccess or failure, the results seem to corroborate the literature, namely thatperceptions of success within a process reinforce positive opinions of that form ofdecision making and vice versa. (4) It is not possible to clearly determine from thisstudy, however, whether it was perceptions of success or failure, or motivation forparticzpation which led to varying perceptions of effective participation because thosewho were successful were professionals and those who were not were NIMBY,community and ideological actors. It does, however seem likely that it was theinterplay of both factors which helped shape perceptions of effective participation. (5)There were gender differences in conceptions of effective public participation. Men andwomen tended to have different motivations for participation, modes of participation,and different experiences of success and failure. In the context of this study, it isdifficult to determine the significance of gender roles in shaping these differentconceptions of effective participation.116Of the five potentially very useful parameters for evaluating individuals’ perceptions ofeffective public participation, two were identified from the literature. Three morefactors have not been previously identified, and are a new contribution to the literature.Although it may be possible to identify the factors shaping an individual’s perception ofeffective participation, the relative importance of each factor is presumably notconsistent between individuals. Therefore it is not possible to determine the relativeimportance of each of these five factors in shaping an individual’s preferred definitionof effective participation.6.2 Environmental Attitude and Definitions of Effective ParticipationFinally, this thesis explores whether individuals’ environmental attitudes (if they haveone) shape their conceptions of effective participation within environmental decisionmaking .‘ The questions used to elicit participants’ environmental attitude are found intable 6.3. This section summarizes the results from the interviews, and then discussesthe evidence for the existence of an ‘environmental attitude’. Finally, an attempt ismade to relate any environmental attitudes that do emerge to the individual’s selecteddefinition of effective participation.It would also be interesting to assess whether there was a link between the writers’ definitions ofeffective participation and their environmental attitude, for example by using the model proposed byDorcey (1991, 568-70). However, in order to be meaningful, such a study would involve extensiveresearch into each writer’s political ideology and their opinions of the relationship between knowledgeand action in society. Such research is beyond the scope of this study.117Table 6.3Questions Participants Were Asked in Order toElicit their Environmental AttitudeQ: About 80% of the total amount of primary air pollutants emitted within the G.V.R.D. come from vehicles8.What would youadvocate that the G.V.R.D. adopt as a long term planning strategy (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Encourage the development of local neighbourhood services, so that people can work and shop there instead of driving eitherdowntown or to shopping malls. This would reduce the smog, but would cost money to relocate shops and services, and thetaxpayer would have to foot the bill.b) Do nothing. No policy is needed because external forces will ensure that the technology is developed within vehicles to reducethe pollutants they emit. For example, the Americans are continuously developing vehicles which pollute less and these vehicleswill gradually percolate into the G.V.R.D. vehicle market.c) Pass laws to severely resthct vehicles within G.V.R.D. This may involve banning vehicles from regions of downtown, andclosing some roads elsewhere to automobiles while improving the transit service and promoting bicycle use. This again wouldreduce the smog. Costs would be incurred by vehicle drivers who would have to choose between being inconvenienced or usingmass transit or bicycle.d) Increase emission standards for vehicles. This could be enforced by an Air Care Programme. This would reduce pollution.Costs of this action would have to be met by vehicle drivers, not all taxpayers.R: Suppose that B.C. Hydro felt that the current electricity generating capacity in B.C. is insufficient to meet future peakdemands. What would you recommend they do as a long term planning policy (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Build a large hydro-dam in a Northern region of the province. This plan will, however cause an adverse impact on the localSalmon and Caribou populations.b) Build a series of small scale dams which have less of an adverse impact upon the both the environment and local communities.This would cost about the same as building a large hydro dam. However, it would not provide enough electricity to be able tomeet peak demand and people in B.C. would have to put up with the occasional brown-out.c) Build a large hydro-dam in a Northern region of the province and mitigate against adverse effects on the Salmon and Caribouas much as possible. This would cost more than either option a or b.d) Not build any further dams, but rely instead on public education programs and practical advice as to how to reduce electricitydemand. This option would cost nothing to implement, but would mean that from now on everyone would have to cut theirdemand for electricity dramatically.S: In Northern B .C. there is an isolated community called Smeltertown which has a local smelter. In the last few years it has beennoticed that many of the trees and crops within the community have been dying from the sulphur dioxide emitted by the smelter.The local residents and farmers have been complaining bitterly, yet the smelter provides 70% of the jobs within the town. Noother settlement is affected by the emitted sulphur dioxide. Which of the following policy alternatives do you think is thepreferable long term solution to this dilemma (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Close the smelter down, the cumulative environmental impact is unacceptable. This would mean that 70% of the jobs in thetown would be lost and it would be in danger of becoming a ‘ghost town’.b) Impose a pollution tax on the smelter, This will provide an incentive to reduce pollution, to about 40% of what it is nowalthough it would be expensive for the company which owns the smelter and would mean that the smelter would only just bebreaking even. The smelter would be in danger of closing if the market price of the metal produced fell significantly in the longrun.c) Rather than imposing a solution on Smeltertown and the smelter, it is better to provide the infrastructure (for example amediator, funding) so that the people of the town can meet and craft their own solution to the problem. It is their town and theyare likely to have a better idea of how they would like their town to be in the future and what price they are willing to pay for acleaner environment.d) Insist that the smelter use latest technology available in order to reduce future emissions. If this sends the smelter intobankruptcy, then the smelter is obviously not competitive enough and therefore it should close. If, on the other hand, the pollutionlevel is still unacceptable once the technology has been employed, then there is nothing that can be done about the pollution that isbeing caused.8 G.V.R.D. Air Quality Management Plan, 1992; data for 1985.118In total, 32 participants responded to these environmental questions. Becauseindividuals tended to rank policy options similarly, generalizations concerningresponses can be made (see appendix 4 for a detailed breakdown of results). Forquestion Q (the air pollution question), the deep environmental option9 was mostpreferred (policy option c), and the cornucopian one was least preferred (option b). Theself-reliant and the accommodation options were the middle preference and were likedequally (options a and d respectively). For question R (the electricity question), thesame pattern was exhibited. Thus, participants tended to rank policy options similarlyand consistently between the two questions.This pattern, however, was not continued for question S (the smelter question). For thisquestion, participants tended to rank accommodation first (option b), the self-reliantoption second (c), cornucopian third (d) and finally, the deep environmental alternativeleast (option a). When answering this question, participants’ replies were still relativelyuniform, but the pattern of response had altered. Deep environmentalism had changedfrom being the most popular policy option to the least. The reason for this responsewas that participants found the deep environmentalist option too harsh in the Smelterquestion. They were not willing to make such a high trade-off for the environment.This may be because the costs of closing the smelter would be concentrated in onecommunity, which was considered more unacceptable than the costs being spread overa larger population (as the deep environmentalist response to the air pollution andelectricity questions advocated). The self-reliant option was less popular thanaccommodation (previously, they had been of similar popularity) because severalinterviewees believed that the Smeltertown community would not make anenvironmentally sound decision if it was up to them to decide, and this was consideredunacceptable.The terms deep environmental, cornucopian, self-reliant and accommodation are defined in table 2.4.119The popularity of the deep environmentalist option for the air pollution and electricityquestions and its decided unpopularity for the smelter question suggested that a ‘weak’form of deep environmentalism was the preferred option. It is interesting thatinterviewees responded in this way, given that they were all involved within anenvironmental impact assessment (EARP) which has an ‘accommodation’ approach tothe environment. Perhaps this apparent inconsistency is due to the gap between verbaland overt behaviour (Mitchell 1989, 103); where individuals say they like ‘weak’ deepenvironmentalism, yet they act in an accommodator way. Alternatively, it could be dueto the fact that the accommodator method was the only policy alternative available toparticipants in the Vancouver Airport context.No individual met the criterion for a consistent environmental attitude for all threequestions, and only three people were even close. The reason for this was thepopularity of the deep environmental policy option for the air pollution and electricityquestions, and the unpopularity of this option for the smelter question. When the thirdquestion concerning smelters was removed, 11 out of 32 participants demonstrated aconsistent environmental attitude.10 All but one respondent demonstrating an‘environmental attitude’ had selected deep environmentalism as their first preference.It was not possible to determine whether these people with ‘environmental attitudes’had consistent definitions of effective participation because they had chosen deepenvironmentalism, the one ideology with no associated views of effective participation.However, their ideal levels of participation ranged from consultation to partnership. Itseems unlikely that the deep environmental ideology would hold consultation, or evenpartnership, as an ideal level of participation as deep environmentalism is a radical10 According to the definition given in section and consultation and partnership are fairly consistent with the ‘status quo.’11It was suggested in section 2.6.2 that a deep environmentalist would be likely tosupport either citizen control or authoritarian decision making.While no link could be discovered between definitions of effective participation andenvironmental attitude, this study does demonstrate that people can exhibit a consistent‘environmental attitude’. It seems premature to dismiss the suggested link betweenconceptions of effective participation and environmental attitude on the basis of thisstudy and it may be worthwhile to do further, more in-depth studies to investigatewhether such a relationship can be identified.Finally, this section ends with brief reference to the apparent disparity between someparticipants’ interpretation of environmental ideology and that of O’Riordan. Given thenature of 0’ Riordan’ s environmental continuum, it would be expected that individualswould adopt a consistent rank ordering of preferences. For example, if an individualselected comucopianism first, it would be expected that they would likeaccommodation better than self-reliance and deep environmentalism. If this is the case,it can be assumed that the axis selected to define the spectrum (here, technocentrismecocentrism) is both a useful and meaningful conceptualization. It was found that 29 ofthe 32 respondents’ preferences did seem to coincide with the concept of 0’ Riordan’ sspectrum. However, there were three individuals who consistently selected deepenvironmentalism and accommodation first and second, and cornucopianism and self-reliance third and fourth (figure 6.5).Such an assertion is supported by Evernden (1985, 27), who notes that although deep ecologists (asubset of deep environmentalists) are not necessarily revolutionary in the political sense, they do questionthe fundamental premises of the dominant social paradigm.121Figure 6.5O’Riordan’s Conceptualization of EnvironmentalismCompared with the Views of Three IntervieweesO’Riordan (1981)Deep Self- Accommodation ComucopianismEnvironmentalism RelianceI I I II I I IDeep Accommodation Self- CornucopianismEnvironmentalism RelianceThree Interviewees (1993)I would suggest that these three individuals’ views of self-reliance are more consistentwith a political right-wing interpretation of it, as opposed to the environmentalistconception which O’Riordan adopts. In terms of the environmentalist position, self-reliance comes hand in hand with social and environmental consciousness. In contrast,the political interpretation of self-reliance stresses entrepreneurship and maximumindependence from state control.6.3 ConclusionsThe interplay of the various factors identified, namely degree of participatoryinvolvement, experience of consensus decision making, the perception of success orfailure of one’s attempts, the motivation for participation, and gender are importantfactors determining an individual’s definition of effective participation. Theidentification of the influence of these five factors has resulted in a new contribution tothe literature. Three new factors, namely experience of consensus, motivation for122participation, and gender, have been identified here as contributing to participants’conceptions of effective participation. In addition, the other two that had beenidentified in the literature have been tested in this study. While these results upheld thetheory concerning the influence of perceptions of success and failure, they were incontradiction to the literature concerning degree of participation and conceptions ofeffective participation.Finally, I investigated whether there was an obvious link between perceptions ofeffective participation and environmental attitudes. Although it was demonstrated thatsome people did have an environmental attitude, no link with a definition of effectiveparticipation could be established. The reason for this was that virtually all participantswho had a consistent environmental attitude had one which was consistent with weakdeep environmentalism. As discussed in Chapter 2, it was not possible to identify thelikely definition of effective participation which would be given by deepenvironmentalists.It has not been the intention of this chapter to state categorically the influences upon anindividual’s perceptions of effective participation. Given the complexity of humanperceptions and opinions, this would have resulted in a misrepresentation of theinterviewees. Instead, the analysis has attempted to examine specific sociologicalfactors which influence individuals’ conceptions of effective participation. While eachlevel of analysis potentially develops further understanding, simultaneously,conclusions become more speculative.The next chapter, Chapter 7 will conclude this study by summing up the main findingsof this thesis, and presenting some of my own opinions and reflections both on EARPand effective participation.123Chapter 7SUM1VIARY AND REFLECTIONSReports that public alienation is now at crisis proportions may finally bring theurgency of serious political reform to the political forefront, but I wouldn’t holdmy breath. What’s in it for politicians? Reform entails a loss of power which, inthe case of a majority government, is almost dictatorial. And politics is thebusiness of accumulating, not releasing, power.Letter to the editor,The Globe and Mail,July 1st, 1993This study will conclude by presenting a brief summary of the main findings of thiswork, and will end with a section concerning my opinions of EARP and effectiveparticipation.7.1 SummaryIn order to achieve my three thesis objectives, I developed three conceptual frameworkswhich had not been previously identified in the literature. Firstly, in Chapter 2, Ideveloped a framework for evaluating effectiveness of participation. This involvedconceptualizing participation as consisting of a primary dimension (the degree of powersharing between elected officials and members of the general public) and fivesecondary parameters.1 In order to define effective participation, it is necessary to firstidentify the ‘ideal’ location2on the power sharing dimension. Once this had been done,the further five parameters could be analyzed.Secondly, in Chapter 4, I developed a classification of the participants in theVancouver Airport EARP. Participants were classed as adopting NIMBY, community,1 These five parameters are who’ is permitted to participate, access to resources, the participatorymechanism, the scope of the participatory process, and stage in the process in which participation issolicited.2 Assuming that the definition of effective participation is derived in a democratic fashion, then the‘ideal’ level of participation is that which is in accordance with the wishes of a population.124ideological or professional roles within the process. This framework portrayed theparticipants within the EARP, and it may provide a framework for comprehending theroles adopted by participants within other environmental decision making processes. Itis interesting to note that this conceptualization of the participants was more useful thandividing participants solely according to whether they were in favour of, neutral inrelation to, or against the runway. This was because those who were neutral and againstthe runway had much in common as was noted in 6.1.3. This rendered any distinctionbetween them arbitrary. This framework had an additional advantage over the one thatclassified participants according to whether they were in favour of, neutral, or againstthe runway. In Chapter 5, I identified a significant consistency of motivation forparticipation of individuals over time. This suggested that the characterization was bothaccurate and useful in terms of understanding why participants become involved inenvironmental decision making processes, and the roles they adopt in them. Such anunderstanding is useful in tailoring participatory processes to participants’ needs and forreaching decisions which satisfy everyone.Finally, in Chapters 5 and 6, I explored why individuals selected the definition ofeffective participation that they did. This involved studying the issue at different levels.Firstly, I attempted to understand perceptions of effective participation at the aggregatelevel, determining why the general pattern of responses was as given. Secondly, Iattempted to disaggregate the responses in order to understand the types of factorswhich may have induced some participants to respond differently from others. Finally,I attempted to establish whether there was any link between an individual’s preferreddefinition of effective participation and her/his environmental attitude. Such aframework for analysis provided a multi-layered understanding of the problem. Eachlayer revealed additional information and understanding which was not obtainable fromthe layer before. However, the results from each layer, although leading to further125insight, necessarily became more tentative. It is important to use such a framework foranalysis, because discussion which remains at a superficial level can lead to a lack ofoverall understanding, and even misinterpretation of participant opinions.Having discussed the analytical frameworks which were developed in this study toachieve my objectives, I will now discuss the major conclusions reached. My firstobjective was to reach a democratic definition of effective public participation in termsof power sharing for the participants interviewed. Just over half the participantsselected the ‘status quo’ (consultation), as being conducive to effective participation.Assuming a majoritarian democracy, the participants’ democratic definition of effectiveparticipation was ‘consultation’. Consultation occurs ‘when an individual ororganization consults with other individuals and organizations before making the tradeoffs and imposing the decision’ (Dorcey and Riek, 1987, 8). The remainingparticipants selected more radical forms of participation as being effective, althoughcitizen control was not selected by anyone. Similarly, no one thought that informativeor representative participation would be conducive to effective participation. Suchresults contrast with the definitions of effective participation given by academics (figure2.3).The second thesis objective was an attempt to understand why participants held theirstated views. In general terms, it seems likely that specific sociological characteristicswhich nearly all the participants had in common (being white, middle class, welleducated, professional individuals), were a large determinant of the overall pattern ofresponses. In terms of response variation within the sample, five factors were identifiedwhich seem to have some influence upon conceptions of effective public participation.These were the degree of involvement in participatory activity, experience withconsensus decision making, perceptions of success or failure in the process, motivationfor participation, and gender. 0 ‘Riordan’ s implication that there could be a link126between an individual’s ideal definition of effective participation and her/hisenvironmental attitude was also investigated. It was found that eleven of the 32participants displayed a consistent environmental attitude for the air pollution andelectricity questions and ten of these eleven favoured a ‘weak’ deep environmentalapproach to environmental issues. No link between environmental attitudes andconceptions of effective participation could be established in this study. I would notsuggest, however, that this is because no link exists in reality. Further research whichfocuses in more depth on environmental attitudes and conceptions of effectiveparticipation could be done to investigate this potential linkage.Finally, the third objective was to establish participants’ views of effective participationin practice. This involved identifying five parameters for evaluating participation anddeducing a continuum for each criterion (section 2.5). By locating EARP on thecontinua and evaluating participants’ views of EARP, I was able to suggest howparticipants perceived effective participation in practice. It was found that one-third ofthe participants were content with EARP, and felt that no alterations to the processwere required. They considered it to be conducive to effective participation. Of thosethat did criticize EARP, it was found that NIMBY, community and ideologicalparticipants thought the process needed to be broader and less restrictive if it was to beeffective. In contrast, professional participants who criticized EARP tended to feel thatif the process had been less open and narrower in scope, then it would have been moreconducive to effective participation.Thus, for the interview sample, consultation was the preferred option in terms of powersharing. Some participants did have criticisms concerning EARP; however, theyselected consultation as an ideal form of decision making. Such comments suggest thatalthough consultation is deemed ‘ideal’ in theory, there were various constraints withinEARP which precluded realization of effective participation in practice. Many127criticisms of EARP were fairly minor, suggesting that for many participants, effectiveparticipation could be reached both in theory and in practice if EARP were reformed insome way.It is, however, important to situate these results. Although 79% of the interviewedparticipants were content with consultation or consultationlpartnership and were to alarge extent happy with EARP, there is no reason to be complacent and assume thatstatus quo decision making is conducive to effective public participation. Theinterviewed sample represented a distinct sector of society, being largely white, middle-aged, middle-class, professional people. As I have argued in section 5.2, this sector ofsociety have fared very well under representative decision making. It is not surprisingthey support a status quo which serves them so well. I would suggest that in contrast,other sectors of society who have been poorly represented under representative decisionmaking would prefer partnership or citizen control decision making. In addition, it isinteresting to note that those who had been most successful in the process (professionalindividuals) made comments concerning EARP which suggested that they bought intothe concepts of pluralism more than those who had been unsuccessful in the process.For example, those who had been successful in the process made no commentsconcerning uneven access to the process due to an imbalance resource distribution. Incontrast, those who had been unsuccessful in the process were concerned to makeresource access more even. Yet, nearly everyone interviewed could be classed as beingsuccessful within our representative decision making system as a whole. Other sectorsof society, who are ill-served under the pluralist decision making model, may thereforebe regarded as being ‘unsuccessful’ within representative decision making as a whole.As a result, therefore, these people are most likely to reject the pluralist model ofdecision making and may be more radical in their definitions of effective participationwith respect to the five parameters (they are more likely to select the left hand extreme128of each of the five continua) than the interviewed sample. Therefore, although I amunable to extrapolate my results to produce a defmition of effective participation for thegeneral public, such a defmition is likely to be more radical than those given byparticipants in the process; both in terms of power sharing, and in terms of the fiveparameters designed to counter the assumptions of the pluralist model. Perhaps themore radical definitions of effective participation given by academics reflects the factthat their definitions of effective participation were produced in order to empower thosewho currently have no voice in decision making.7.2 ReflectionsHaving heard participants’ and the panel’s views of the Vancouver Airport EARP, Iwould like to present my opinions concerning the usefulness of this process as adecision making model. The process seemed to be very useful for discussing andconsidering mitigation measures. However, the process was too narrow and constrainedto allow for any genuine discussion of the need for the runway and project alternatives.This was because the public was only allowed to participate late in the process, and thescope was not broad enough, as discussed in section 4.3. From the studies I havecarried out, it is my opinion that the hearings were not set up simply to legitimize thedecision to build the runway. I was convinced that the panel did listen to theparticipants and take their views into consideration. The process was seriously flawed,however, because the panel’s recommendations were not binding. The process seems tohave been fairly successful in the sense that one-third of the participants thought it agood process and could think of no ways to improve upon it. In addition, over halfthose interviewed selected consultation as being conducive to effective participation.Such a response must, at least to some extent, reflect upon their experiences withinEARP.129Having obtained the definitions of effective public participation given by theinterviewees, it is only fair that I give my personal definition. With respect to powersharing, I feel partnership to be conducive to effective public participation because itallows the public direct access to decision making whilst the elected representative isstill there to insure that the process considers non-participants. At the partnershiplocation on the spectrum, I feel it is important that we are at the far left on each of thefive continua designed to counter the assumptions of the pluralist model. As has beenmentioned (section 2.5), the most desirable location on each of the five continua(associated with the five parameters) will vary with the degree of power sharing. It ismy opinion that the more power sharing that occurs, the more important it is that wemove to the left on each of the five continua. When the public have very little inputinto decision making, the benefits of a broad scope, equal access to resources etc maynot merit the cost. However, the more power sharing there is between the public andelected officials, the more important it is that we reach the far left on each of thecontinua since the vesting of real power in the public will emphasize the unfairness ofresource inequity.The contrast in definitions of effective public participation between academics and thesampled population suggests that it is important that academics turn to the public morefrequently in order to ascertain their views of effective participation. In a democracy,where everyone’s views should be equally valid, it is important to canvass perceptionsof effective participation in environmental decision making held by non-academics. Inparticular, having ascertained the views of some participants in the Vancouver AirportEARP in this study (people who have traditionally fared very will within our pluralistsociety) it is now important that academics begin to listen to the voices of those whoare traditionally unheard in society, namely those who have fared badly underrepresentative democracy. It may be argued that the definitions of effective130participation produced by academics were designed to reflect the views of thepowerless in society. However, from a democratic standpoint it can be argued thatacademics must canvass opinions rather than operate as isolated experts writing fromtheir ivory towers.Effective public participation in terms of the degree of power sharing between electedofficials and the general public has been viewed in this discussion as a staticphenomenon, to be located at one point upon the spectrum. However, this is not thecase. Demands to participate in environmental decision making have evolved over time(section 2.2); it is likely that conceptions of effective public participation will alsochange. So, do these results represent a snapshot in time, as peoples conceptions ofeffective participation are moving along the spectrum towards direct democracy? Havewe already travelled as far along the spectrum as is perceived to be desirable?Today there are several impending environmental crises which have begun to impingemore tangibly upon the general population (for example, the closure of the CanadianEast Coast Cod Fisheries). Governments are unable to fully alleviate such problems,and this tends to result in an increasing discontent with, and mistrust of, government.Such perceptions of government may result in increased demands to participate directlyin environmental decision making.Alternatively, there may be limits to the energies that people are prepared to devote toparticipation. For example, a government employee whom I interviewed who wasinvolved in another consultative process said that participants have been repeatedlycoming up to him saying: “When are you going to make a decision? After all, you arethe decision makers, and we feel that we have now been consulted too much!”I cannot determine the direction in which society will be moving in the future.However, both the debate during the Canadian constitutional referendum of 1992131concerning the legitimacy of representation,3 and the fact that most people Iinterviewed did not regard the question concerning how power should be allocatedwithin environmental decision making as being invalid or unnecessary,4 suggest thatquestions about the level of effective participation in terms of power sharing will movemore frequently toward the forefront of the political arena.Discussed in section 5.2.Discussed in Chapter 5.132REFERENCESAlmond, G.A. and Verba, S. (1989) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes andDemocracy in Five Nations Sage Publications; Newbury Park.Arbiaster, A. (1987) Democracy Open University Press; Milton Keynes.Arnstein, S.R. (1969) “A ladder of Citizen Participation” Journal of the AmericanInstitute of Planners July 1969, 216-224.Babbie, E.R. (1973) Survey Research Methods Wordsworth Publishing; BelmontCalifornia.Bookchin, M. (1982) The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution ofHierarchy Cheshire Books; California.Bookchin, M. and Foreman, D. (1991) Defending the Earth: Debate betweenMurray Bookchin and Dave Foreman Black Rose Books: Montreal.Bowden, M. and Curtis, F. (1988) “Federal Environmental Impact Assessment inCanada: EARP as an Evolving Process” EIA Review vol.8, 97-106.British Columbia Round Table (1993) Towards Sustainability: Learning for ChangeA Report to the citizens of British Columbia.Canada Gazette (1984) Environmental Assessment and Review Process GuidelinesOrder 11th July, 1984.Canadian Nuclear Association (1980) Submission to the Royal Commission on ElectricPower Planning in Ontario in E.Amer (1980) Yes We Can! How To OrganizeCitizen Action Synergistics Consulting Limited; Ottawa.Charest, J.J. (1991) “Address to the Legislative Committee on Bill C-13” Speech,October 10th, 1991. 1-13.Checkoway, B. (1981) “The Politics of Public Hearings” The Journal of AppliedBehavioural Science vol. 17, no.4, 566-582.Cloke, P. and Little, J. (1990) The Rural State? Limits to Planning in Rural SocietyClarendon Press; Oxford.Colby, M.E. (1990) “Environmental Management in Development; The Evolutionof Paradigms” World Bank Discussion Papers. 1-35.Commission on Resources and Envrionment (1993) “Information Update” 1-6.Connor, D.M. (1972) “From Partisans to Partners” Community Planning Reviewvol.22, no.1,15-16.133Corbeil, J. (1992) Minister Announces Go-Ahead on Vancouver Runway” PressRelease, 24.6.92.Couch, W.J. (1988) Environmental Assessment in Canada: 1988 Summary ofCurrent Practice Canadian Council for Resources and Environment.DeCotret, R. (1990) “Introducing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”Speech, 18th June, 1990. 1-3.Devall, B. and Sessions, G. (1985) Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature MatteredGibbs Smith; Utah.Dorcey, A.H.J. (1991) “Towards Agreement on Water Management: An EvolvingSustainable Development Model” in A.H.J.Dorcey (ed.) “Perspectives onSustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement inthe Fraser River Basin” Research Program on Water in SustainableDevelopment Volume 1. Westwater Research Centre, University of BritishColumbia. 555-586.Dorcey, A.H.J. and Riek, C.L. (1987) “Negotiation-Based Approaches to theSettlement of Environmental Disputes in Canada” in The Place of Negotiationin Environmental Assesment CEARC; Toronto. 7-36.Dye, T.R. and Zeigler, L.H. (1978) The Irony of Democracy: An UncommonIntroduction to Canadian Politics Fourth Edition. Duxbury Press,Massachusetts.Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward anEcocentric Approach State University of New York Press; Albany.Evernden, N. (1985) The Natural Alien University of Toronto Press; Toronto.Fairley, M. (no date) Spirit of Canadian Democracy Progress Publishing; Toronto.FEARO (1978a) “Detailed Outline of Contents of the Cabinet MemorandaEstablishing the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process”FEARO, April 1st, 1978. 1-8.FEARO (1978b) “Guide for Federal Screening” Ottawa: FEARO.FEARO (1985) “Environmental Assessment Panels; Procedures and Rules forPublic Meetings” Minister of Supply and Services; Canada.FEARO (1987) “Reforming Federal Environmental Assessment: A DiscussionPaper” Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1-23.FEARO (1990a) “Vancouver International Airport Environmental AssessmentReview Participant Funding Program: List of Successful Applicants andFunded Work” 1 page release.FEARO (1990b) “Vancouver International Airport Parallel Runway ProjectEnvironmental Assessment Panel: Operational Procedures” 1-4.134FEARO (1991a) “Rafferty-Alameda Project: Report of the EnvironmentalAssessment Panel September 1991” FEARO. 1-67.FEARO (1991b) “Bulletin of initial assessment decisions received between July 1st,1991 and October 30th, 1991” Ottawa: FEARO.FEARO (1991c) “Vancouver International Airport: Parallel Runway Project.Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel August 1991” FEARO. 1-127.FEARO (1991d) “Transcript of Public Hearings: the 1991 Vancouver InternationalAirport Parallel Runway Proposal” Vol.3, 2.2.91, 540-1.FEARO (1992) “Air Traffic Management in Southern Ontario: ExecutiveSummary of the Interim Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel”FEARO; Canada.Fenge, T. and Smith, L.G. (1986) “Reforming the Federal Environmental Assessmentand Review Process” Canadian Public Policy vol.12, no.4, 596-605.Finkel, S. E. (1985)” Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A PanelAnalysis” American Journal of Political Science vol.12, 891-913.FREMP (1988) “FREMP: Balancing Environment and Economy on the FraserEstuary” Pamphlet. 1-4.Gaibraith, J.K. (1992) The Culture of Contentment Houghton Mifflin Company;Boston.Gibson, R.B. (1975) “The Value of Participation” in P.S. Elder (ed.) EnvironmentalManagement and Public Participation Canadian Environmental LawAssociation; Toronto. 7-39.Ginsburg, B. (1982) The Consequences of Consent: Elections, Citizen Control andPopular Acquiescence Random House; New York.Goldenberg, S. and Frideres, J. S. (1986)”Measuring the Effects of PublicParticipation Programs” EIA Review vol.6, 273-281.Government of Canada (1991) The State of Canada’s Environment Ottawa.Greater Vancouver Regional District (1990) “Creating Our Future: Steps to a moreLivable Region”Greater Vancouver Regional District (1992) “Air Quality Management Plan” Datafor 1985.Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (1987) Comparative Government and Politics: AnIntroduction Second Edition. MacMillan Education, Basingstoke.Hartig, J.H. and Hartig, P.D. (1990) “Remedial Action Plans: An Opportunity toImplement Sustainable Development at the Grassroots level in the Great LakesBasin” Alternatives vol.17 no.3. 26-31.135Hazelton, village of (1991) Frameword for Watershed Stewardship Hazelton, BritishColumbia.Hessing, M. (1993) “Women and Sustainability: Ecofeminist Perspectives”Alternatives vol.19 no4. 14-21.Hirst, P. (1990) Representative Democracy and its Limits Polity Press; Cambridge.Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution; Changing Values and Political StylesAmong Western Publics Princeton University Press; Princeton.Jam, R.K, Urban, L.V. and Stacey, G.S. (1981) Environmental Impact Analysis: ANew Dimension in Decision Making 2nd Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold; NewYork.Kemp, R. O’Riordan, T. and Purdue, M. (1984) “Investigation as Legitimacy: TheMaturing of the Big Public Inquiry” Geoforum, vol.15 no.3. 477-488.Kendrigan, M.L. (1984) Political Equality in a Democratic Society: Women in theUnited States Greenwood Press; Conneticut.Kierans, E. (1984/5) “Quest for Community” Journal of Business Administrationvol.15 nos.1 & 2. 23-41.Kraft, M.E. and Clary, B.B. (1991) “Citizen Participation and the NIMBY Syndrome:Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal” The Western PoliticalQuarterly vol.44, 299-328.Lang, R. and Armour, A. (1980) Environmental Planning Resource BookEnvironment Canada; Montreal.Leighley, J. (1991) “Participation as a Stimulus of Political Conceptualization” Journalof Politics vol.53, no.1, 198-211.Lucas, A. R. (1978) “Fundamental Prerequisits for Citizen Participation” in B. Sadler(ed.) Involvement and Environment: Proceedings of the CanadianConference on Public Participation Vol. 1: A Review of Issues andApproaches Environment Council of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta. 43-57.Lucas, A.R. and McCallum, S.K. (1975) “Looking at Environmental ImpactAssessment” in P.S.Elder (ed.) Environmental Management and PublicParticipation Canadian Environmental Law Association; Toronto. 306-318.Lynn, J. and Jay, A. (1989) Yes, Prime Minister BBC Books; London.Madsen, D. (1987) “Political Self-Efficacy Tested” American Political ScienceReview vol.81, no.2. 571-581.Manheim, M.L. (1981) “Ethical Issues in Environmental Impact Assessment” EIAReview vol.2 no.4, 315-334.Manty, D. et al. (1974) “Conceptual Framework for Effective CommunityParticipation” A Report to the Batelle Urban and Regional DevelopmentProgram.136Mayo, H.B. (1960) Introduction to Democratic Theory Oxford University Press;New York.McMillan, T. (1987) Press Release, 23rd September, 1987 1-2.Merchant, C. (1992) Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World Routledge;London.Milbrath, L.W. and Goel, M.L. (1977) Political Participation: How and Why doPeople Get Involved in Politics? Second Edition. University Press of America;Lanham.Mill, J.S. (1946) On Liberty and considerations on Representative GovernmentEdited by R.B.McCallum. Blackwells; Oxford.Mitchell, B. (1989) Geography and Resource Analysis (second edition) Longman;Harlow.Musqueam Indian Band (1991) “Submission of the Members of the MusqueamIndian Band” February 8th, 1991. 1-27.Naess, A. (1973) “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. ASummary’ Inquiry vol.16. 95-99.Nord, D.C. and Weller, G.R. (1983) “Environmental Policy and Political Support” inA.Kornberg and H.D.Clarke (eds.) Political Support in Canada: The CrisisYears Duke University Press; Durham, North Carolina. 252-269.O’Riordan, T. (1977) “Environmental Ideologies” Environment and Planning A,vol.9. 3-14.O’Riordan, T. (1978) “Participation through Objection: Some Thoughts on the UKexperience” in B.Sadler (ed.) Involvement and Environment; Proceedings ofthe Canadian Conference on Public Participation. Vol.1: A Review ofIssues and Approaches Environment Council of Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta.139-163.O’Riordan, T. (1981) Environmentalism Second Edition. Pion; London.O’Riordan, T. (1985a) “Research Policy and Review 6. Future Directions forEnvironmental Policy” Environment and Planning A, vol.17. 143 1-1446.O’Riordan, T. (1985b) “Environmental Issues” Progress in Human Geography, vol.9no.3. 401-414.O’Riordan, T. (1990) “On the ‘greening’ of major projects” The GeographicalJournal, vol.156, no.2. 141-8.Olsen, M.E. (1982) Participatory Pluralism Nelson-Hall; Chicago.Oxford English Dictionary (1973) Third Edition s.v. ‘Participation’ and ‘Democracy’.Paehlke, R. (1990) “Democracy and Environmentalism: Opening a Door to theAdministrative State” in R.Paehlke and D. Torgerson (eds.) Managing137Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State BroadviewPress; Peterborough, Ontario. 35-55.Paehlke, R. (1992) “Ecohistory- Two Waves in the Evolution of Environmentalism”Alternatives vol.19 no.1. 18-23.Parenteau, R. (1988) Public Participation in Enviromnental Decision Making AFEARO Document, Minister of Supply and Services, Canada.Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory Cambridge UniversityPress; Cambridge.Pepper, D. (1980) “Environmentalism, the ‘Lifeboat Ethic’ and Anti-Airport Protest”Area vol.12 no.3 177-82.Pepper, D. (1984) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism Routledge; London.Phillips, S.D. (1991) “How Ottawa Blends: Shifting Government Relationships withInterest Groups” in F.Abele (ed.) How Ottawa Spends: The Politics ofFragmentation 1991-1992 Carleton University Press; Ottawa. 183-227.Pinkerton, E.W. (1993) “Co-Management Efforts as Social Movements: The Tin WisCoalition and the Drive for Forest Practices Legislation in British Columbia”Alternatives vol.19 no.3. 33-38.Plant, J. (1991) “Women and Nature” in A. Dobson (ed.) The Green Reader: EssaysToward a Sustainbie Society Mercury House; San Fransisco. 100-103.Qualter, T.H. (1986) Conflicting Political Ideas in Liberal Democracies Methuen;Toronto.Rawson Acadamy of Aquatic Sciences (1987) Background Paper on EARP Reform;Process and Structure written in association with W.E. Rees and P.Boothroyd. Prepared for CEARC, Ottawa.Reed, M.G. (1984) “Citizen Participation and Public Hearings: Evaluating NorthernExperiences” Cornett Occasional Papers No.4 Department of Geography,University of Victoria. 1-65.Reed, M.G. (1988) Resources and Region: Towards an Integrative Perspective forSustainable Development Unpublished Research Paper, Department ofGeography; University of Waterloo.Rees, W. E. (1981) “EARP at the crossroads; Environmental Assessment in Canada”Environmental Impact Assessment Review vol.1 no.4. 355-377.Regan, T. (1983) The Case for Animal Rights University of California Press;Berkeley.Robinson, R.M. (1993) “The Federal Environmental Assessment and ReviewProcess - The Transition from Guidelines Order to the CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act” A Paper for Presentation at a Seminar by theTransportation Association of Canada on Environmental Assessment Proceduresand Transportation. Vancouver March 22nd, 1993.138Rosener, J.B. (1978) “Citizen Participation: Can We Measure its Effectiveness?”Public Administration Review, 457-463.Rousseau, J.J. (1961) The Social Contract: Discourses Translated by G.D.H. Cole.J.M.Dent and Sons Ltd; London.Sadler, B. (1978) “Basic Issues in Public Participation: A Background Perspective” inB.Sadler (ed.) Involvement and Environment: Proceedings of the CanadianConference on Public Participation. Vol.1: A Review of Issues andApproaches Environment Council of Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta. 1-12.Schiff, M . R. (1971)”The Definition of Perceptions and Attides” in W . R. D . Sewelland I.Burton (eds.) Perceptions and Attitudes in Resource ManagmentInformation Canada; Ottawa. 7-12.Schumpeter, J.A. (1950) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy Third Edition.Harper & Brothers Publishers; New York.Sewell, W.R.D. and O’Riordan, T. (1976) “The Culture of Participation inEnvironmental Decision Making” Natural Resources Journal vol.16, 1-21.Smith, G. (1992) Interview on CBC, Vancouver 8.25am 26.10.92.Smith, L.G. (1987a) “The Evolution of Public Participation in Canada: Implicationsfor Participatory Pracice” British Journal of Canadian Studies vol.2 no.2.213-35.Smith, L.G. (1987b) “A Performance Rating for Canadian EIA” The OperationalGeographer no.13. 12-14.Smith, L.G. (1993) Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource ManagementLongman; Harlow, England.Sounding Board (1990) Airport Supporters Urged to Address Runway Review TheOfficial Monthly Publication of the Vancouver Board of Trade. Vol. 29, May,1990.Stankiewicz, W.J. (1980) Approaches to Democracy: Philosophy of Government atthe Close of the Twentieth Century St. Martin’s Press; New York.Study Group on Environmental Assessment Hearing Procedures (1988) PublicReview: Neither Judicial, nor Political, but an Essential Forum for theFuture of the Environment Minister of Supply and Services; Ottawa.Susskind, L. and Elliott, M. and Associates (1983) Paternalism, Conffict, andCoproduction: Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation inWestern Europe Plenum Press; New York.Tester, F. (1989) “As if People Mattered More: Rethinking Impact Assessment andInternational Development” Canadian Dimension vol.23 no.1, no page no’s.Tester, F. (1992) “Reflections on Tin Wis: Environmentalism and the Evolution ofCitizen Participation in Canada” Alternatives vol.19 no.1, 34-41.139Torgerson, D. and Paehllce, R. (1990) “Environmental Administration: Revising theAgenda of Inquiry and Practice” in Torgerson and Paehllce (eds.) ManagingLeviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State BroadviewPress; Ontario. 7-16.Transport Canada (1990) Vancouver International Airport Parallel Runway Project:Environmental Impact Statement, Summary Report, August 1990 TransportCanada.Transport Canada (1991) Vancouver International Airport: Annual Review, Yearended March 31st, 1991 Transport Canada.U.N. Conference on Habitat (1976) in Kure, E. (1978) “The Need for Public Hearingsin B.Sadler (ed.) Involvement and Environment Proceedings of the CanadianConference on Public Participation; volume 2. Environment Council of Alberta,Edmonton.Vancouver Sun (1990) “Runway Impact Forum’s Focus” 2.10.90.Warren, M. (1992) “Democratic Theory and Self-Transformation” American PoliticalScience Review vol.86 no.1, 8-23.Webb, K. (1990) “Between Rocks and Hard Places: Bureaucrats, Law and PollutionControl” in R. Paehlke and D. Torgerson (eds.) Managing Leviathan:Environmental Politics and the Administrative State Broadview Press;Peterborough, Ontario. 201-227.Wengert, N. (1976) “Citizen Participation: Practice in Search of a Theory” NaturalResources Journal vol.16, 23-40.World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common FutureOxford University Press; Oxford. 1-366.140APPENDIX 1Interview OuestionsA: Name:B: How did you participate in the Vancouver Airport review?C: Did you participate in the Vancouver Airport review process on behalf of anyorganization or were you presenting your own personal views?D: If you were participating on behalf of an organization, would you say that the viewspresented tended to be your own opinions or were they ideas generated by the group asa whole?E: Why are you interested in the airport runway extension?F: What were your opinions of the participation programme?G: How would you alter this process if you were able to?H: Apart from the airport public hearings do you have any other experience with publicparticipation programmes? (whether environmental, social, economic or political).J: What has been your general impression of these?K: Have you heard of or experienced consensus decision making1?L: What are your impressions of it?I explained the meaning of this term to participants who were not familiar with it.141M: With regard to the Vancouver airport public process which one of the followingoptions do you agree with the most strongly? (these may seem to be imperfect optionsand if you feel you fall in between two categories, let me know)2.a) The elected representative should make decisions without consulting the public.b) The elected decision makers should consult the public only when they requireinformation from the public. Otherwise, the decision makers should make the decisionthemselves.c) When a decision concerning the environment is to be made, the public should alwaysbe consulted, but an elected decision maker should make the final decision and shouldbe responsible for the consequences of that decision.d) The public and the elected decision maker should share the decision making power.e) The public should reach decisions amongst themselves and then the elected decisionmaker should be required to implement the decision.Which one do you disagree with the most strongly?Do you have any additional comments?N: When voting in a provincial election, what priority do you give environmentalissues when you consider them alongside other issues such as jobs, crime, education,national debt, taxation and medicare funding?a) Very Lowb) Lowc) Mediumd) Highe) Top PriorityDo you have any additional comments?0: Has this priority you attach to environmental issues remained the same over time, ordo you feel you attach more or less weight to environmental issues today?P: If the response is yes the environment has changed as a priority, then; Is is a greateror less priority now? When did this change occur? Why did it occur?2 This question was copied onto a card, so that the respondent could read it before responding.142In the questions below, I am interested in hearing about your preferred way of tacklingvarious environmental issues .Q: Please rank the following options from 1 to 4 where:1 is the option you tend to agree with most,2 is your second preference,3 is your third preference and4 is your least preferred option.We can discuss any comments or reservations you hold afterwards.About 80% of the total amount of primary air pollutants emitted within the GreaterVancouver Regional District (G.V.R.D.) come from vehicles4. What would youadvocate that the G.V.R.D. adopt as a long term planning strategy (i.e. over the next40 years)?a) Encourage the development of local neighbourhood services, so that people can workand shop there instead of driving either downtown or to shopping malls. This wouldreduce the smog, but would cost money to relocate shops and services, and thetaxpayer would have to foot the bill.b) Do nothing. No policy is needed because external forces will ensure that thetechnology is developed within vehicles to reduce the pollutants they emit. Forexample, the Americans are continuously developing vehicles which pollute less andthese vehicles will gradually percolate into the G. V. R. D. vehicle market.c) Pass laws to severely restrict vehicles within G.V.R.D. This may involve banningvehicles from regions of downtown, and closing some roads elsewhere to automobileswhile improving the transit service and promoting bicycle use. This again would reducethe smog. Costs would be incurred by vehicle drivers who would have to choosebetween being inconvenienced or using mass transit or bicycle.d) Increase emission standards for vehicles. This could be enforced by an Air CareProgramme. This would reduce pollution. Costs of this action would have to be met byvehicle drivers, not all taxpayers.Do you have any comments or reservations?Questions P, Q, and R are also copied onto a card for the respondent to read.G.V.R.D. Air Quality Management Plan, 1992; data for 1985.143R: Again, please rank the following options from 1 to 4 where1 is the recommendation you agree with most,2 is your second choice recommendation,3 is your third choice recommendation and4 is your least favorite recommendation.Again, we can discuss any comments or reservations you have afterwards.Suppose that B.C. Hydro felt that the current electricity generating capacity in B.C. isvastly insufficient to meet future peak demands. What would you recommend they doas a long term planning policy (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Build a large hydro-dam in a Northern region of the province. This plan will,however cause an adverse impact on the local Salmon and Caribou populations.b) Build a series of small scale dams which have less of an adverse impact upon theboth the environment and local communities. This would cost about the same asbuilding a large hydro dam. However, it would not provide enough electricity to beable to meet peak demand and people in B.C. would have to put up with the occasionalbrown-out.c) Build a large hydro-dam in a Northern region of the province and mitigate againstadverse effects on the Salmon and Caribou as much as possible. This would cost morethan either option a or b.d) Not build any further dams, but rely instead on public education programs andpractical advice as to how to reduce electricity demand. This option would cost nothingto implement, but would mean that from now on everyone would have to cut theirdemand for electricity dramatically.Any comments or reservations?144S: Again, please rank the following options from 1 to 4 where1 is the policy option you tend to agree with most,2 is your second option,3 is your third choice and4 is your least favorite option.In Northern B.C. there is an isolated community called Smeltertown which has a localsmelter. In the last few years it has been noticed that many of the trees and cropswithin the community have been dying from the sulphur dioxide emitted by thesmelter. The local residents and farmers have been complaining bitterly, yet the smelterprovides 70% of the jobs within the town. No other settlement is affected by theemitted sulphur dioxide. Which of the following policy alternatives do you think is thepreferable long term solution to this dilemma (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Close the smelter down, the cumulative environmental impact is unacceptable. Thiswould mean that 70% of the jobs in the town would be lost and it would be in dangerof becoming a ‘ghost town’.b) Impose a pollution tax on the smelter. This will provide an incentive to reducepollution, to about 40% of what it is now although it would be expensive for thecompany which owns the smelter and would mean that the smelter would only just bebreaking even. The smelter would be in danger of closing if the market price of themetal produced fell significantly in the long run.c) Rather than imposing a solution on Smeltertown and the smelter, it is better toprovide the infrastructure (for example a mediator, funding) so that the people of thetown can meet and craft their own solution to the problem. It is their town and they arelikely to have a better idea of how they would like their town to be in the future andwhat price they are willing to pay for a cleaner environment.d) Insist that the smelter use latest technology available in order to reduce futureemissions. If this sends the smelter into bankruptcy, then the smelter is obviously notcompetitive enough and therefore it should close. If, on the other hand, the pollutionlevel is still unacceptable once the technology has been employed, then there is nothingthat can be done about the pollution that is being caused.Do you have any comments or reservations?145Appendix 2Participants Opinions of EARPProfessionalParticipants* EARP was an excellentprocess. Very comprehensive,fair, meticulous and well done* process was fine* Too long, time consuming andexpensive for the tax payer* was impressed, it wasthorough, people had timeto speak although speakingwas a bit nerve racking* A very good process* It was good but verystructured. The public wereorganized and restricted* process was fundamentally flawed. The panel bentover backwards to give equaltime and equal voice to anyone,whatever their view. So if thereis one person who representsFriends of the Longhorn Sheepthen they get equal timecompared with a Mayor thatrepresents fifty municipalitiesacross the province. So theybuilt a whole lot of recommendations into it trying to appeaseall the groups which appearedbefore them, balancing all thepoints of view. You ended upwith some curiousrecommendations* was a good process* Knowing the result, I think itworked very well* The hearings were goodalthough I didn’t feel myconcerns were addressed* The only difficulty with theprocess is that the Minister ofTransport has a say aboutwhether the panel’s recommendations should be adopted. Ithink the Minister of Environment alone should decide* Process seemed good* We got adequate informationand everyone was able to speak* Hearings were fair and fineNIMBYParticipants5The process is unfair.Transport Canada had farmore resources than us. Wewere exhausted. TransportCanada could keep bringing inpaid fresh blood when someonegot tired* Doing a presentation wasfairly intimidating and theschedule of the hearings wasambitious and hearings wentlate into the night. I also got theimpression that this giantmachine represented byTransport Canada was ‘Goliath’and those against it were‘David’ almost to a point of itbeing overwhelming* was OK, but the decisionhad already been made beforewe started* Transport Canada ignoredmost of the panel’srecommendations and thiswas the ultimate outrageand rendered the process acomplete farce* The biggest problem withthe process is that therecommendations of the panelaren’t binding. Also the idea ofgiving protest groups money toprotest what you’re doing, Idon’t know, somehow doesn’tseem right, it doesn’t seemfair. To what extent wouldyou want to go to make itmore difficult? These guys[Transport Canada] wentthrough a lot of effort to getthis thing* Most of the local residents hadgiven up fighting years ago.They had had enough. Theirattitude seemed to be ‘wellbuild the damn thing if you’regoing to’CommunityParticipants* I realized after a while andthis impression just strengthened until the end thatwe were being co-opted. Theywanted to give an illusion of apublic process, of getting thepublic involved, but in fact itwas always carefully managed,they were never listening.We were just tokenism, itwas a way of saying look,we did include the publicand yet this is what the panelcame up with. I used to speakto people who I knew weresympathetic to the communityforum and opposed to therunway and begged them totorn out. Most simply told methat the decision had alreadybeen taken and to forget it.* No complaints, except that thepanel’s recommendations don’thave to be implemented* I felt the decision had alreadybeen made* It was fine except thatTransport Canada does not haveto follow the panel’srecommendations*The process was good.* The process was a way tokeep people quiet.* The decision to build hadalready been made* The government had alreadymade up their mind to build therunway anyway and it was anempty process to keep peoplequiet* I thought the hearingsthemselves were fine. I wasimpressed with the panel andthe process overallIdeologicalParticipants*One has the feeling that itwas pretty much staked againstany opposition anyway. Sure,give people a chance to makesome objections.*As a public process it waswell enough conducted, butthe decisions of the paneldid not seem to be enforceable5The process was OK*Obviously it is good toencourage public participation,but I really feel that theytook down what everyone said,produced a very nice bookletand then went off and did jollywell what they liked to do.They ignored public opinion* The process was good and thepanel came up with some goodrecommendations. The onlyproblem was that the processwasn’t binding.* There is no requirementfor the recomendations to bebinding* The public hearings wereintimidating and there wasno one to one contact withthe panel* There are severalweaknesses of the process.The panel’s recommendationsare not binding. In addition thehearings were held in the week,making it hard for workingpeople to attend and there wasresource inequitability146Appendix 3Participants’ Opinions Concerning Improvement of EARPProfessionalParticipants* could not be improved* I would not change it* I would keep the processthe same* Keep the Minister ofTransport out of the finaldecision*1 think a much betterprocess is one that doesntbecome nearly as public. Itstill provides anopportunity for all theviews to be heard, but in amuch more professionaland thoughtful way* cannot think of a way toimprove it* I would tell the panel totake more of the generalpublic’s views into accountand less the views ofspecial interest groups* No, I would not improveupon it* Its easier to talk from theoutside than from theinside. The federalgovernment is faced bymany motives andconstraints, so it is hard tocomment, not being in thefederal government* I would like to see a twostage process. One stageyou deal with all thetechnical operationalarguments. So if you getapproved technically, youcan go to an environmental panel in terms ofyour mitigation* I would not change theprocessNIMBYParticipants*you need better fundingfor the opposition to theproject* Time the process better sothat people can speak at adecent hour of the day* Well, you would have tostart by shredding thewhole govermnent andgetting rid of half thebureaucracy in an effort torespond to people* I don’t think you couldimprove on the process, itwas a very good one* The panel’s recommendations should be accepted,not altered by TransportCanadaCommunityParticipants* The process could betinkered with in smallways, in particular itshould have been openedup to the general publicmuch earlier. But, thetrouble is that the processitself is part of a muchlarger system, with a lot ofmomentum and with allthe economic forces in thecommunity in support of it*Make the panel’s reportfinal*There should be a morebasic discussionconcerning the need of therunway*perhaps adaptivemanagement is a betterapproach to such issues*Make the panel’s recommendations legal*1 do not see how theprocess could be improvedas they had made up theirmind to build the runwayanyway*1 cannot think of a way toimprove the process*The panel’s recommendations must be binding* Make the panel’s recommendations binding*The process does not needchanging as such, but thepanel’s recommendationsmust be binding*1 feel that if the processhad started by looking formore creative solutionsthen we might have seenthem. But this way we justwent the conventionalroute with all this artilleryand bulldozers rolling overanyone that had anyalternatives. What I thinkwould be great is if theyhad a relatively shortprocess of honestly lookingat alternative schemes.*1 think you have got tohave a sense of what thegeneral public thinks, but Ithink you have got to givevalue to groups of peoplewho put the time in tobecome communityinfonned peopleIdeologicalParticipants*panel needs power tomake bindingrecommendations*Make the panel’s recommendations enforceable*The process should havetwo phases. Firstly apersonal one with one toone communication withthe panel. Secondly somepublic hearings but thepanel should discuss itsrecommendations with allthe users before submittingthem to the government*The panel should begranted final decisionmaking authority147Appendix 4Summary of Participant Responses to InterviewQuestions 0. R. and SQuestion 0: Concernin2 Air PollutionParticipant Response (1 is Preferred, 4 is leastRoles Preferred)DE SR A C1234123412341234Professional 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 2 5NIMBY 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 6Community 7 4 1 0 4 3 3 2 1 4 7 0 0 1 110Ideological 2 2 3 0 4 1 1 1 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 6Total’ 1310 8 111 9 8 4 81212 1 0 2 327Key:DE Deep Environmentalist (response c)SR Self-Reliance (response a)A Accommodation (response d)C Cornucopian (response b)The Numbers in the Table Respond to the Numbers of People within Each ParticipantGroup who Ranked Each Environmental Attitude 1,2,3 or 4Question:About 80% of the total amount of primary air pollutants emitted within the Greater Vancouver Regional District (G.V.R.D.) comefrom vehicles2.What would you advocate that the G.V.R.D. adopt as a long term planning strategy (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Encourage the development of local neighbourhood services, so that people can work and shop there instead of driving eitherdowntown or to shopping malls. This would reduce the smog, but would cost money to relocate shops and services, and thetaxpayer would have to foot the bill.b) Do nothing. No policy is needed because external forces will ensure that the technology is developed within vehicles to reducethe pollutants they emit. For example, the Americans are continuously developing vehicles which pollute less and these vehicleswill gradually percolate into the G.V.R.D. vehicle market.c) Pass laws to severely restrict vehicles within G.V.R.D. This may involve banning vehicles from regions of downtown, andclosing some roads elsewhere to automobiles while improving the transit service and promoting bicycle use. This again wouldreduce the smog. Costs would be incurred by vehicle drivers who would have to choose between being inconvenienced or usingmass transit or bicycle.d) Increase emission standards for vehicles. This could be enforced by an Air Care Programme. This would reduce pollution.Costs of this action would have to be met by vehicle drivers, not all taxpayers.1 The totals for each of the environmental attitudes do not have to add up to the same number becausesome individuals did not rank 1,2,3,4, but instead ranked for example, 1,4,4,4.2 G.V.R.D. Air Quality Management Plan, 1992; data for 1985.148Ouestion R: Concerning ElectricityParticipant Response (1 is Preferred, 4 is leastRoles Preferred)DE SR A C1234123412341234Professional 5 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 6NIMBY 5 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 4Community 11 0 0 1 0 5 3 4 1 3 4 4 0 0 210Ideological 6 0 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 7Total 27 0 2 3 2 17 4 9 4 6 14 8 0 0 5 27Key:DE Deep Environmentalist (response d)SR Self-Reliance (response b)A Accommodation (response c)C Cornucopian (response a)The Numbers in the Table Respond to the Numbers of People within Each ParticipantGroup who Ranked Each Environmental Attitude 1,2,3 or 4Question:Suppose that B.C. Hydro felt that the current electricity generating capacity in B.C. is insufficient to meet future peakdemands. What would you recommend they do as a long term planning policy (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Build a large hydro-dam in a Northern region of the province. This plan will, however cause an adverse impact on the localSalmon and Caribou populations.b) Build a series of small scale dams which have less of an adverse impact upon the both the environment and local communities.This would cost about the same as building a large hydro dam. However, it would not provide enough electricity to be able tomeet peak demand and people in B.C. would have to put up with the occasional brown-out.c) Build a large hydro-dam in a Northern region of the province and mitigate against adverse effects on the Salmon and Caribouas much as possible. This would cost more than either option a or b.d) Not build any further dams, but rely instead on public education programs and practical advice as to how to reduce electricitydemand. This option would cost nothing to implement, but would mean that from now on everyone would have to cut theirdemand for electricity dramatically.149Question S: Concerning SmeltersParticipant Response (1 is Preferred, 4 is leastRoles Preferred)DE SR A C1234123412341234Professional 0 0 2 5 2 3 2 0 5 1 1 0 0 2 4NIMBY 0 1 0 5 3 2 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 5Community 0 0 110 7 1 3 1 5 6 1 0 1 5 6 0Ideological 2 1 2 2 1 3 0 3 4 0 1 2 2 1 0 4Total 2 2 52213 9 5 51710 3 2 3 815 6Key:DE Deep Environmentalist (response a)SR Self-Reliance (response c)A Accommodation (response b)C Cornucopian (response d)The Numbers in the Table Respond to the Numbers of People within Each ParticipantGroup who Ranked Each Environmental Attitude 1,2,3 or 4Question:In Northern B.C. there is an isolated community called Smeltertown which has a local smelter. In the last few years it has beennoticed that many of the trees and crops within the community have been dying from the sulphur dioxide emitted by the smelter.The local residents and farmers have been complaining bitterly, yet the smelter provides 70% of the jobs within the town. Noother settlement is affected by the emitted sulphur dioxide, Which of the following policy alternatives do you think is thepreferable long term solution to this dilemma (i.e. over the next 40 years)?a) Close the smelter down, the cumulative environmental impact is unacceptable. This would mean that 70% of the jobs in thetown would be lost and it would be in danger of becoming a ‘ghost town’.b) Impose a pollution tax on the smelter. This will provide an incentive to reduce pollution, to about 40% of what it is nowalthough it would be expensive for the company which owns the smelter and would mean that the smelter would only just bebreaking even. The smelter would be in danger of closing if the market price of the metal produced fell significantly in the longrun.c) Rather than imposing a solution on Smeltertown and the smelter, it is better to provide the infrastructure (for example amediator, funding) so that the people of the town can meet and craft their own solution to the problem. It is their town and theyare likely to have a better idea of how they would like their town to be in the future and what price they are willing to pay for acleaner environment.d) Insist that the smelter use latest technology available in order to reduce future emissions. If this sends the smelter intobankruptcy, then the smelter is obviously not competitive enough and therefore it should close. If, on the other hand, the pollutionlevel is still unacceptable once the technology has been employed, then there is nothing that can be done about the pollution that isbeing caused.150


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items